The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (35 page)

18. Ice Age

It is sometimes tempting to try and use a new idea to answer just
about everything, and take things a little too far. We have to tread carefully
when attributing significant events to the Dark Star. Obviously, we cannot for
certainty say that it exists, or accurately describe anything about its orbit.
However, the new scientific evidence in the outer solar system is consistent
with its presence, but the fact that such a body remains undetected prevents
scientists from sticking their necks out on this issue.

In the last chapter, we looked over periods in the Earth's history
when mass extinctions took place. But instead of looking at events that were
seemingly sudden, like the asteroid impact that probably drove the dinosaurs to
extinction, we considered other, larger events that occurred over extended time
periods. The causes of these events remain mysterious, but if a Dark Star were
to be discovered, it could readily account for them through orbital
fluctuations and related mechanisms.

I believe that the same holds true for another problem faced by
Science, and that is the coming and going of Ice Epochs. Simply put, the
Earth's distance from the sun is not cast in stone, but is a variable.

This will strike many as being quite unthinkable. However, I have
corresponded with many astronomers and astrophysicists over the last few years
and they all confirm this fact, which I first became aware of through reading
Jack Hills' 1985 paper.
¹
For instance, here is an extract of my
correspondence with Dr. Daniel Whitmire, which not only confirms the general
idea that the companion's orbital changes would have knock-on effects with
other planets, but also indicates that such changes are significant enough to
limit the initial distance of formation of the brown dwarf companion:

Andy Lloyd:

If the brown dwarf is pumped out over billions of years, does its
binding energy to the sun alter over time?

Daniel Whitmire:

Yes.



Andy Lloyd:

If so, does this have a knock on effect on the orbital radii of
the known planets?

Daniel Whitmire:

This is a constraint on how close it could have formed. Must be at
least hundreds of AU.

Andy Lloyd:

Given that a great circular orbit at 20,000 AU is inherently
unstable...,

Daniel Whitmire:

Not "inherently". It's statistics. Maybe there's a ~50%
chance it would have survived passing stars until today if it started at 20,000
AU.

Andy Lloyd:

...according to the 1999 Matese/Whitmire paper, and Hills (1985),
the as the brown dwarf attains this distance from the sun in its slow spiral
outwards, would it not be in danger of being perturbed back into the solar
system by, say, a passing star?

Daniel Whitmire:

Odds of that are small, but it would be expected to be perturbed
into the planetary region (or within ~100 AU) a few times in 4.5 Gyr [the
lifetime of the solar system] due to the galactic tidal force. No problem
however, at least according to a study by Hills. I believe he concluded even a
0.1 solar mass passing star need not significantly disrupt planetary orbits.

Andy Lloyd:

Can we not envisage, then, a cyclical orbital pattern whereby the
brown dwarf is pumped up until it reaches an unstable orbital configuration,
and then perturbed like a comet back into the planetary zone to start all over
again?

Daniel Whitmire:

Once its orbit is greater than about 30,000 AU the tide will
accomplish this on times scales less than the age of the solar system, but
still measured in hundreds of millions of years. Stellar perturbations alone
result in only a tiny fraction of comets coming into the planetary region.
²

So, we can see how a substantial planet beyond the EKB is a rogue
element in more ways than one. Not only could it push comets into the inner
solar system, but its orbit could readily be subject to change over time. Its
sheer size then, has a knock-on effect for our planet's orbit. The same holds
true for the other planets in the solar system as well. The whole system is
subject to expansion or contraction at the whim of this rogue body.

This is a difficult concept to grapple with, because we are all so
used to thinking of planets behaving like billiard balls. The Planet X
catastrophists generally describe the potential for catastrophe in blunt terms,
having to do with planetary collisions and bombardments by comets. But for me,
the real problem is that our planet's orbit is inherently linked to the fate of
a massive hidden planet, which is subject to forces outside the solar system.
There need not be any bombardment or incoming planet to directly affect our
planet's orbit and global climate. Yet, this physical situation is not even
considered for the most part, and for obvious reasons.

A Planetary Spanner in the Works

If the number of planets in the solar system is simply nine, as is
generally accepted at the present time, then there would be absolutely no
reason to think that these orbits should change through the life of the solar
system. That is why this fact is never discussed, because it is irrelevant
under the conditions we think are prevalent in our solar system. The problem
only arises when we consider the additional existence of a binary solar companion
like our Dark Star.

This situation is a bit like the argument for Einstein's special
relativity.
³
'Normal' common sense physical laws apply for most
situations, but they break down when objects are accelerated towards the speed
of light. But the very fact that this happens indicates that there is something
about the how the Universe works as a whole that we missed before considering
the relativity problem. In our case, every object in the solar system can
affect all of the other objects, when the energy of its orbit changes.

So we can legitimately state that if a comet changes its orbit
because it moved close to a planet and was perturbed by it, then that change in
the orbital energy of the comet will change the entire system. However, that
change would be so infinitesimally minute that it is effectively negligible.
For all intents and purposes, the subsequent effect is unobservable. So, the
common sense physical laws still apply.

However, this situation alters dramatically as the comet we are
considering starts to get larger in mass. The bigger it gets, the greater the
overall orbital energy it carries with it. How about a comet whose mass is
greater than that of a gas giant? Would the same effect of a change in its
orbit be measurable then? Absolutely. One physicist I have corresponded with
about this, put it very succinctly:

“The inner planets are pretty tightly bound to the sun. The
binding energy scales like M m / r, where M is the solar mass, M the planetary
mass, and r the orbital radius. It is, therefore, hard to see how a shift in
orbit of a lightly bound outer planet would significantly affect any of the
inner planets (e.g. Earth),
unless the outer planet was very massive”.
⁴
[my emphasis]

So, if Planet X is simply a Mars-sized object, then the binding
energies of the inner planets would not be significantly affected by any given
change in its orbit. However, if we consider a binary companion, such as a
small brown dwarf, then there would be a measurable effect. If the brown
dwarf's binding energy changed, due to a perturbation of its loosely-bound
orbit, then the Earth's orbit would alter. It could contract or expand,
depending upon the change to its binding energy.
¹

The Dark Star's mass is presumably several times that of Jupiter,
which in turn is more massive than all the other planets in the system
combined. So the entire mass of the planetary system becomes multiplied upwards
from what we normally work with, and the Dark Star itself accounts for the
majority of that total planetary mass. This means that the relationship between
the Dark Star and the other planets is important, in terms of the overall
energy of the solar system: it becomes our “speed of light” issue. Alter the
energy of the Dark Star orbit, and the rest of the planets will feel a significant
and observable jolt as a result!

Because the Dark Star's orbit lies beyond the planetary solar
system, it is only loosely bound to the sun, and is thus more likely to be
affected by outside influences. Although we should not say that its orbit is necessarily
'unstable', it is clearly subject to change, like the comets.

Assuming that any given perturbation, or change in its orbit, is
not extreme enough to hurl the Dark Star into the sun or out of the solar
system completely, the fact is that the rest of the planets would still be
affected by any given change. This is because the Dark Star's mass is so great,
that even though its orbit is relatively distant it will still play a major
part in reshaping the orbital energies of the other planets, in order to
conserve the overall energy of the system.

In that way, we can legitimately talk about the planetary orbits
collectively expanding and contracting as a response to the perturbation of the
Dark Star. So, if the orbit of the Dark Star were to migrate away from the sun,
the Earth's orbit would expand, the length of the Earth year would increase,
and the world would become colder. This would happen to all the other planets,
asteroids and comets at the same time as well, as the whole system changes in
response to the Dark Star's orbital contraction. There would be a small, but
collective, mass migration.

Conversely, if the Dark Star was nudged into a more expanded
orbit, then the orbits of the known planets and other solar system objects
would collectively contract. All of these worlds would become a little warmer,
and their years would be shorter. Readers acquainted with myths about the year
gaining or losing days from the calendar will no doubt raise an eyebrow at this
point. As much as I'd love to delve into this subject at this juncture, a
careful examination of such mythology is best left to a future book.

Now, we know that the Earth's global climate system is
complicated, and possibly rather fragile. I suggest that even a relatively
small orbital change that, say, saw the Earth year expand or contract by just a
few days, would be sufficient to trigger major climate change as a response.
This is why I think that the Dark Star could be responsible for certain aspects
of the phenomenon called Ice Ages.

We are all familiar with the term “Ice Age'” The normal
understanding of the term relates to a prehistoric time when much of the
Northern Hemisphere was covered in continental sheets of ice. This Ice Age
slowly wound down over the course of several thousand years, leading to the
extinction of many species which had become specially developed to cope with
the extreme conditions of cold prevalent during the glacial period. This, then,
is the extent of common knowledge about Ice Ages.

It turns out that the last Ice Age was one in a series of such Ice
Ages, which have been coming and going over the course of the last four million
years. The fluctuation between these Ice Ages and the warmer Interglacial
periods seems to follow an approximately 100,000 year cycle. Evidence emerged
in the 1960's which persuaded scientists that the Pleistocene era had been
dominated by this cycle.
⁵
Such a cycle required an explanation.

The first ideas about the possibility of Ice Ages were written
about in the 18th Century, but received little attention. The idea was put
forward to explain the phenomenon of erratic boulders strewn across the
landscape of Europe. It was taken more seriously in the 19th Century, when it
was promoted by the Swiss Louis Agassiz.

Almost immediately, the idea started to become associated with
astronomical cycles, but this was within the context of great controversy about
the subject as a whole. It took a long while for the concept of Ice Ages to
become acceptable, and even longer for the link between the fluctuations of Ice
Ages and Interglacial periods to be established. This may be because the cycle
itself is a rather complex one, containing other minor patterns of climate
change.