Andy Lloyd's

Dark Star Blog 2011

Dark Jupiter May Haunt Edge of Solar System

Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire have released details of their new research about a distant Jupiter-sized companion orbiting the Sun, in the journal Icarus. According to the patterns of long-period comet data that they've analysed, the potential for a gas giant-sized companion among the comets has increased. However, it is not certain that a companion exists, just statistically likely.

Still, it seems to be a positive step forward for a sub-brown dwarf companion of greater mass than Jupiter, but less than a 'real' brown dwarf:

"After examining the orbits of more than 100 comets in the Minor Planet Center database, the researchers concluded that 80 percent of comets born in the Oort Cloud were pushed out by the galaxy’s gravity. The remaining 20 percent, however, needed a nudge from a distant object about 1- 4 times the mass of Jupiter.

“Something smaller than Jovian mass wouldn’t be strong enough to do the deed,” Matese said. “Something more massive, like a brown dwarf, would give a much stronger signal than the 20 percent we assert.” (1)

This is very much in keeping with their initial assertion back in 1999, and also in line with my own contribution about a 'Dark Star' of several Jupiter masses (although our view of the distance such a companion lies at varies significantly - see my 2005 book 'Dark Star' for details). Matese and Whitmire like to call their version of the Dark Star 'Tyche', adding to an steadily increasing glossary of terms for this putative object.

"We present updated dynamical and statistical analyses of outer Oort cloud cometary evidence suggesting that the sun has a wide-binary Jovian mass companion. The results support a conjecture that there exists a companion of mass ≈1-4 MJupiter orbiting in the innermost region of the outer Oort cloud." (2)

In the abstract of their 2010 paper, they offer a tentative orbital plane through which the Dark Star Tyche moves, although an actual position in the sky for its present location is not given. They consider it likely that the infra-red sky search WISE should have spotted it, but as a minimum of two points of observation are needed over time to confirm that this object exists in the outer solar system, there may not have been sufficient opportunity for WISE to verify its existence during the experiment's relatively short lifetime:

"If the WISE team was lucky, it caught evidence for the Tyche solar companion twice before the space observatory's original mission ended in October. That could be enough to corroborate the object's existence within a few months as researchers analyze WISE's data. But if WISE detected signs of Tyche only once (or not at all), researchers would have to wait years for other telescopes to confirm or deny the potential solar companion's existence, Matese said." (3)

This leaves open the possibility that WISE may not offer the definitive proof one way or the other for the existence of the Sun's Dark Star companion. Recent articles in the British tabloid Daily Mail, and broadsheet The Independent, indicate that the general public's awareness of a potential Dark Star discovery is growing apace (4,5). The astrophysicists also indicate that there is a high likelihood that such a Dark Star would come with its own system of moons:

"Prof Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette believes the data may prove Tyche's existence within two years. He told the Independent (6): 'If it does, [fellow astrophysicist Prof John Matese] and I will be doing cartwheels. And that's not easy at our age.'

"He added he believes it will mainly be made of hydrogen and helium, with an atmosphere like Jupiter's, with spots and rings and clouds, adding: 'You'd also expect it to have moons. All the outer planets have them.' He believes the planet is so huge, it will have a raised temperature left from its formation that will make it far higher than others, such as Pluto, at -73C, as 'it takes an object this size a long time to cool off'." (5)

Other researchers have mooted the possibility that neighbouring red dwarf stars might have orbits that make sorties into the outer solar system (7). Although red dwarf stars are very much bigger and brighter than the sub-brown dwarf Dark Stars that this website discusses, one neighbouring red dwarf less than 8 light years away was only discovered in 2003. Brown dwarfs and red dwarfs are surprisingly common, and may fill in gaps between the Sun and the nearest stars. That may make them ideal candidates to explain anomalies in comet behaviour from the outer solar system, as an alternative to an orbiting Dark Star. However, such flyby events would be very rare, and the margin of error in calculating them from current known orbits are large. An orbiting Dark Star still seems more likely when attempting to account for non-random long period comet activity.

Written by Andy Lloyd, 7th December 2010 and updated 15th/16th February 2011

References:

1) Lisa Grossman "Dark Jupiter May Haunt Edge of Solar System" 29 November 2010 thanks to David

wired.com article

2) John J. Matese and Daniel P. Whitmire "Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud" Icarus, 211(2), 17 November 2010

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4584.pdf

3) Charles Choi "Giant Stealth Planet May Explain Rain of Comets from Solar System's Edge" 1 December 2010, thanks to Lee

space.com article

4) Daily Mail "Massive dark object 'lurking on edge of solar system hurling comets at Earth" 8 Dec. 2010, thanks to Mart

dailymail.co.uk article

5) Daily Mail "Largest planet in the solar system could be about to be discovered - and it's up to four times the size of Jupiter" 14 February 2011, thanks to Lee

dailymail.co.uk article

6) Paul Rodgers "Up telescope! Search begins for giant new planet" 13 February 2011, with thanks to Lee and David

independent.co.uk news

7) Mike Wall "Solar System 'Nemesis': Nearby Stars Could Pose Threat" 16 February 2011, with thanks to John

space.com article

Trojan Planets and 2012

One of the many subjects discussed in my book 'Dark Star' (1) was the stable LaGrangian points along an orbital path. The context for this discussion is the idea that material might accumulate at these stable points along the orbital path as the main planet, but out of phase by 60 degrees (or even 180 degrees). The importance of this? Well, in the case of the Dark Star, material at the LaGrangian Points might appear in the planetary zone of the solar system out of synch with the Dark Star itself. Thus, even though the Dark Star is some distance away, comet swarms sat in a stable LaGrangian point of its orbit might pose an immediate threat to us.

Trojan asteroids are known to exist - orbiting around the Sun along Jupiter's path. Theorists also think that the Mars-sized object that battered the Earth early in its existence (to create the Moon) might have been previously lurking around in a LaGrangian point along Earth's orbit. Only recently, however, have astronomers been able to detect an example of two planets moving along what appears to be the same orbital path - in the system KOI-730 (2). For this to work, one of the planets must be located in the LaGrangian point of the other.

This appears to be a rather rare example. But such an arrangement does prove the point that complex and stable systems can lie along the orbital path of a major planet - up to and including a massive additional planet! Therefore, along the massive orbital path of the Dark Star might lie a Trojan-style comet swarm , or possibly even a whole planet.

One might even consider the idea that perhaps such a collection of deadly cosmic debris could be pressing down upon us as we speak. It's a remote possibility, I think. But such a system would pass our way like clockwork. If 2012 is indeed a projection of an astronomical cycle connected with the Dark Star's orbit, then this might just be the mechanism whereby a local event materialises connected to a distant, seemingly harmless sub-brown dwarf.

Andy Lloyd, 4th March 2011

References:

1) Andy Lloyd "Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence" Timeless Voyager Press 2005

Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence

2) Marcus Chown "Two planets found sharing one orbit" 4 March 2011, with thanks to Mart

newscientist.com article

A Room-Temperature Dark Star

At last, a celestial object falling into the category of a 'Dark Star' has been discovered. It's not orbiting our own Sun, regrettably, but it has various properties that are similar to the object I suggest is our Sun's binary companion.

The new sub-brown dwarf lies some 63 light years away, and is called WD 0806-661 B. It has 7 Jupiter masses, which pitches it below the Brown Dwarf category, and into the 'sub-brown dwarf' set of hitherto undiscovered objects (that lie between gas giants and dwarf stars). It is this category that I term the Dark Stars.

I'm very pleased that such an object has been identified. Its outer temperature is about 30 Celsius, so it's likely to be pretty dark indeed. I've always imagined these objects to be rather similar to the embers of a dying fire, where reddish light flickers intermittently within the darkened ashes. That may be the case here, because this Dark Star is quite a lot warmer than Jupiter.

But it's the object's orbital characteristics that provides even more substance to support the Dark Star theory. WD 0806-661 B orbits around its parent star, WD 0806-661 A, at the remarkable distance of 2500 Astronomical Units. If our own companion object were to share a similar orbit, then it would be located at the inner edge of the inner Oort Cloud. This, I suspect, is about right for our own Dark Star. WD 0806-661 B thus creates a wonderful precedent for such a companion showing how such a scenario is patently possible.

Another aspect to this discovery is that the outer layers of this sub-brown dwarf's atmosphere are able to sustain liquid water. The atmospheric constituents are likely to be very different from the Earth's, but one can quite imagine rain clouds in the upper atmosphere of this gas giant. Is it possible that life could exist in this environment? As a gas giant, there is no terrestrial surface upon which life could emerge. But might there not be exotic life-forms capable of living solely in the clouds? This is a tantalizing consideration.

Andy Lloyd, 15th March 2011

Reference:

1) New Scientist "Newly found brown dwarf is ultra-cool", 12 March 2011, with thanks to David

newscientist.com article

BD is "Cup of Tea" Temperature

Cool brown dwarfs are starting to crop up all over the place, thanks to a new generation of high-powered telescopes. The theoretical belief that these object are as least as common as stars is being confirmed. This leads us towards the exciting possibility that brown dwarfs, or sub-brown dwarfs, may be discovered at a closer distance than Proxima Centauri, our nearest 'regular' star. Furthermore, it also opens up the possibility that one or more sub-brown dwarfs might be found orbiting the Sun at a remote location.

Image Credit: NASA

The latest discovery is the actual imaging of a brown dwarf (CFBDSIR J1458 + 1013B) whose upper atmospheric temperature is around the boiling point of water. Located 75 light years away, it orbits another brown dwarf, meaning that the light of the parent star is not bright enough to obscure it completely. This new object, which falls into the new 'Y' spectral class of sub-brown dwarfs, has a bluish tinge to it, perhaps like our outer gas giant Neptune. But its mass exceeds that of Jupiter, and its temperature is evidently much higher than a standard gas giant. Expect more discoveries like this in the coming months.

Andy, 25th March 2011

Reference: Julian Gavaghan "The coolest star in the sky! Newly discovered 'Brown Dwarf' has same temperature as a cup of tea" 25 March 2011, with thanks to Mart

dailymail.co.uk article

Photosynthesis near a Dark Star

As many of my readers will know, I've looked closely down the years at how a habitable environment might exist on a terrestrial-sized moon in close orbit around a failed sub-brown dwarf star. Where it is relatively straightforward to show how water would exist on such a world, a more tricky question has arisen around how vegetation would grow in such an environment. The so-called extremeophiles found on Earth are testament to the sheer tenacity of life in harsh environments. But if we're talking about actual vegetation growing on the surface of the terrestrial world orbiting a Dark Star, then greater complexity is involved.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

This has been presented as a sticking point for my theory. Vegetation on Earth needs UV/blue light radiation from the Sun to thrive, through photosynthesis. But could a Dark Star provide the kind of energy required to sustain plant life? And if not, then how could animal life be sustained on a world devoid of vegetation? Well, recent research offers us a glimpse of how this might work:

"The temperature of a star determines its colour and, hence, the colour of light used for photosynthesis. Depending on the colours of their star-light, plants would evolve very differently," said [Jack] O'Malley-James ... [who] is working on a PhD to assess the potential for photosynthetic life in multi-star systems with different combinations of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs.

""Our simulations suggest that planets in multi-star systems may host exotic forms of the more familiar plants we see on Earth. Plants with dim red dwarf suns for example, may appear black to our eyes, absorbing across the entire visible wavelength range in order to use as much of the available light as possible. They may also be able to use infrared or ultraviolet radiation to drive photosynthesis."

This hypothesis is untested, of course. But I'm buoyed up that extra-terrestrial plants might find a way despite a lack of ultra-violet/blue light radiation from a Dark Star. By utilising more photosynthetic pigments, plants on the moon of a Dark Star would be black, and bathed in purplish red light from their nearby cold 'sun'.

Andy Lloyd, 24th April 2011

Reference:

Royal Astronomical Society "NAM 14: Could black trees blossom in a world with two suns?" 20 April 2011, with thanks to Tom

sciencedaily.com article

Hot Jupiters with Reverse Swing

Extra-solar planets are plentiful, and often bizarre. Here's a very odd example. It's in the Scorpius constellation, about 1000 light years away, and is called WASP-17. Unusually, its orbit proceeds backwards, and is tilted at a spectacular 150 degrees, whilst lying extremely close to its own sun (1). It is twice the size of Jupiter, with half the mass, so is too small to be classified even as a sub-brown dwarf. Nevertheless, it shows some interesting Dark Star characteristics.

Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Astrophysicists now think the backwards-spin may be attributable to a gravitational coupling between two planets:

"In some solar systems, the sun spins one way while a giant gassy planet, known as a hot Jupiter, orbits in the opposite direction. Scientists, reporting in the journal Nature, attribute the effect to gravitational coupling between two planets as they near each other, which leads to the planet nearest its sun, over time, having its orbit flipped as it is hauled much closer to the star." (2)

The whole scenario of oppositely-spinning planets is a bizarre one. It defies conventional wisdom. To explain such blatant anomalies, scientists have to reach for some unconventional concepts. Like highly remarkable migrations of gas giant planets. The concept of such immense migration is outlined here:

"'How can one be spinning one way and the other orbiting exactly the other way? It's crazy. It so obviously violates our most basic picture of planet and star formation.' Astronomers have long theorised that big gas planets form further away from their stars, while Earth-like rocks are born closer in But just because a Jupiter-like planet forms in the outer reaches of a solar system doesn't mean it stays there, [Frederic Rasio of Northwestern University] and his colleagues reported. When planetary systems contain more than one planet, in addition to a star, each planet has its own gravitational force, causing the planets to interact and eventually pulling the gas giants close to the star and even reversing its orbit, the scientists found. This process is known as gravitational perturbation, or an exchange of angular momentum." (2)

In these crucial lines I see mechanisms for how a massive Planet X body could find itself in a wide elliptical orbit around the Sun. The Dark Star may have formed initially nearer to the Sun, causing cataclysms early in the solar system's history. It was those fateful interactions that 'exchanged angular momentum' through 'gravitational perturbation' and flung the Dark Star out into its current wider orbit. One does not need to imagine a captured planet at all - a key critique of Sitchin's 12th Planet Theory down the years, especially by the late Tom van Flandern.

Andy Lloyd, 13th May 2011

References:

1) Paul Gilster "WASP-17b: Unusual World Bloated by Tides" 13 August 2009

centauri-dreams.org article

2) Daily Mail "Reason why giant planets in other solar systems orbit the 'wrong' way finally explained" 12 May 2011, with thanks to Mart

dailymail.co.uk article

Io and the Dark Star

Jupiter's closest Galilean moon, Io, is a furnace of volcanic activity across its entire surface - making it the most active of all the worlds in the solar system. This is attributable to its proximity to Jupiter, whose immense gravitational power and magnetic field play havoc with the tiny world's interior. This is an important consideration for the Dark Star Theory, because it shows how a similar scenario could play out in the much colder outer solar system. In other words, a Earth-sized moon orbiting a sub-brown dwarf in the outer solar system could be significantly warmed internally by the same mechanism.

Recent work by scientists has shown that Io has a global magma ocean about 30 to 50 kilometres (20 to 30 miles) beneath its crust. It's a remarkable find in a world so small: before this, magma oceans have been known to exist only on Earth.

"Krishan Khurana, lead author of the study and former co-investigator on Galileo's magnetometer team at UCLA, says "It turns out Io was continually giving off a 'sounding signal' in Jupiter's rotating magnetic field that matched what would be expected from molten or partially molten rocks deep beneath the surface."" (1)

Over ten years since I first presented my hypothesis, I still get emails from other Sitchinites who argue that a terrestrial world in the outer solar system could be internally warmed, independently of a Dark Star. In his final book, the late Zecharia Sitchin defended his stance on this issue, believing that a sufficiently robust atmosphere would hold in the heat generated by Nibiru's core (the heat is presumably generated by radioactivity in his scenario) (2). Regrettably, this seems almost impossible (I say 'almost' because one can never say "never" in science. It just seems hopelessly unlikely).

Instead, the gases of a fledgling Nibiruan atmosphere would simply precipitate out in the intense cold of the outer solar system, to form a thick layer of ice across the planet's surface. Without an external source of gravitational, magnetic and infra-red energy, Nibiru would be dead in the water. Only a neighbouring Dark Star offers a tangible solution to this issue: a habitable surface on a warm terrestrial world orbiting a sub-brown dwarf.

2022 Update: The possibility that Io has a magma ocean continues to be debated by scientists and remains an open question until more data can be collected by future missions:

"The idea of a magma ocean inside Io generally lost favor in subsequent studies, until Khurana et al. [2011] presented evidence from Galileo mission data of an induced magnetic signature from Io. Induced signatures from Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto (another of Jupiter’s moons that with Io, Europa, and Ganymede, make up what are known as the Galilean satellites) had previously been interpreted as being caused by salty oceans, which are electrically conducting—and molten silicates are also electrically conducting. Considerable debate persists about whether Io has a magma ocean." (3)

Andy Lloyd, 13th May 2011

1) NASA "Galileo Data Reveal Magma Ocean Under Jupiter Moon" 12 May 2011

nasa.gov article

with thanks to David

2) Zecharia Sitchin 'There Were Giants Upon the Earth' Bear & Co, 2010, p136

'There Were Giants Upon the Earth'

3) A. McEwen, K. de Kleer and R. Park "Does Io Have a Magma Ocean?" 18 October 2019

eos.org article

Free-floating Planets "Twice as common as Stars"

Japanese astronomers have discovered 10 free-floating Jupiter-sized planets during a sky survey of a portion of the Milky Way (1).

Confirming the existence of these wandering interstellar planets, which have no parent star, they have been able to extrapolate a remarkable statistic for the number of such planets in our galaxy:

"The discovery indicates there are many more free-floating Jupiter-mass planets that can't be seen. The team estimates there are about twice as many of them as stars. In addition, these worlds are thought to be at least as common as planets that orbit stars. This would add up to hundreds of billions of lone planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone.

"Previous observations spotted a handful of free-floating, planet-like objects within star-forming clusters, with masses three times that of Jupiter. But scientists suspect the gaseous bodies form more like stars than planets. These small, dim orbs, called brown dwarfs, grow from collapsing balls of gas and dust, but lack the mass to ignite their nuclear fuel and shine with starlight. It is thought the smallest brown dwarfs are approximately the size of large planets." (2)

What is clear is that the galaxy must be teeming with planets - some conventionally orbiting stars, but many flung into the dark void between stars. Apart from this being a remarkable discovery that changes how we think about planets in our galaxy, it must also have far-reaching consequences for our understanding of cosmic catastrophism.

The implication is simple. Increase the density of populations of brown dwarfs, gas giants and regular planets all swirling about in the void, and you increase the potential for visitations to our solar system over the lifetime of our Sun. Hence, statistical probabilities of the captured objects, close-flybys and, yes, collisions with the planets in our system all increase. Back to the drawing board for many astrophysicists, and an enhanced appreciation of the dark objects that fill the sky between the stars for the rest of us.

Andy Lloyd, 18th May 2011

References:

1) "'Exciting' find: Possible planets without orbits" 18 May 2011

timeslive.co.za news

2) NASA press release, "Free-Floating Planets May be More Common Than Stars" 18 May 2011

nasa.gov news

Migrating Jupiter explains Fun-size Mars?

The word planet is derived from the Greek word meaning 'wanderer', as they were the stars which weren't fixed in the firmament like the others. Perhaps the term is imbued with more meaning than we usually credit it for. Astronomers have known for some time that the gas giants were capable of wandering, or migrating, during the lifetime of the solar system. Those considerations are strengthened by the discoveries of the strange extra-solar planetary systems, where Jupiter-sized planets exhibit very strange, and often seemingly unstable, orbits. It indicates a potential volatility that knocks received notions of solar system stability. As such, nowadays astronomers feel more comfortable with playing around with planetary orbits, when they do their computer simulations of the solar system's evolution.

A team from the Southwest Research Institute had simulated what would happen if they allowed Jupiter to migrate way into the inner solar system, and their results are startling (1). They don't actually have a mechanism available to them to explain Jupiter's assumed wild deviation, but the results explain aspects of the asteroid belt's distribution and the small size of the planet Mars. Simply put, Jupiter swept a collection of debris along with it as it moved in, and then moved out, of earth's zone. That debris added to the mix we can see today.

Dr. Kevin Walsh of the Southwest Research Institute explained the findings of his team's work thus:

"If Jupiter had moved inwards from its birthplace down to 1.5 AU from the Sun, and then turned around when Saturn formed as other models suggest, eventually migrating outwards towards its current location, it would have truncated the distribution of solids in the inner solar system at about 1 AU and explained the small mass of Mars. The problem was whether the inward and outward migration of Jupiter through the 2 to 4 AU region could be compatible with the existence of the asteroid belt today, in this same region. So, we started to do a huge number of simulations. The result was fantastic. Our simulations not only showed that the migration of Jupiter was consistent with the existence of the asteroid belt, but also explained properties of the belt never understood before."

This scenario is not the only possible game in town. It doesn't need to actually be Jupiter to be a Jupiter-sized planet in the solar system causing these effects early in the life of the solar system. Hell no. There's another candidate which would fit the bill equally well, bringing with it a completely different assortment of asteroid belt-building debris. Of course, I am talking about the Dark Star. And these simulations would similarly work for this outer solar system wanderer that had made its move on the planetary zone.

Andy Lloyd, 6th June 2011

1) Alaisdair Wilkins "A wandering Jupiter stunted Mars’s growth and reshaped the asteroid belt" 5 June 2011 with thanks to Shad

gizmodo.com article

The British Museum Evidence

My latest essay looks at artefacts in the British Museum collection, including new photos, and how academic scholars are too ready to jump to conclusions about Zecharia Sitchin's work.

Sumerian headress, Body 61, Great Death Pit

I also revisit the controversy of the mummified remains of Nin Puabi:

British Museum Evidence

Comet Elenin

2012 is nearly upon us, and there is great concern that an in-coming Planet X body might bring catastrophe to our fragile world. The environmental calamities of recent times do not augur well. There has been a spate of earthquakes around the globe; Chile, Japan, New Zealand.

Even Spain has not escaped our planet's seismic ripples, on the very same day that an earthquake was predicted for Rome almost 100 years ago (1).

Predicting earthquakes is practically impossible, we are told, unless, of course, you're a small animal sensitive to mysterious fluctuations before the quake strikes.

Comet Elenin is currently moving through the solar system (2) . Many have expressed concerns about this body, which appears to have disappointed astronomers with its relatively pathetic celestial showing (3). But it's appearance preludes the 2012 period we are moving into, so it's reasonable to ask whether this small comet might be the first of many, or even the front rider for a much more substantive body. YouTube is bubbling over with rumours.

Amid the hype, there is an intriguing bit of science. Dr Mensur Omerbashich of Sarajevo, who received a PhD from the University of New Brunswick in 2004, has presented a paper outlining his assertion that there is a tangible link between cosmic alignments and seismic activity on Earth, based upon his theory of hyper-resonance (4). He presents evidence that some earthquakes are coincident with planetary alignments, or with Full Moons. He argues that the Comet Elenin is a case in point - it has been noted that it was on the exact opposite side of the Sun to us during the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. From this data he extrapolates:

"The Elenin will continue intensifying the Earth's very strong seismicity until August-October, 2011. Approximate forecast of earthquakes based on my discoveries is feasible." (4)

And there's the thing. Could Omerbashich's theory predict earthquakes from planetary, cometary and lunar alignments? Does the Earth respond to such cosmic goings on, performing some kind of seismic astrology? Did Elenin really cause the Japanese quake? To give credence to his theory, Omerbashich needs to pick up the trail of a future in-coming comet and plot its course until an alignment is achieved with the Earth and Sun, and then predict trouble here on Earth ahead of time. If he's proven right, then we should all sit up and take notice. And if you listen to the many concerned voices on the internet about 2012, then such a predictive tool cannot come soon enough.

Which brings me to the issue of whether Comet Elenin is actually the returning Dark Star, as many are thinking at the moment. To be totally honest, people are excited about the hype over the alleged arrival of Planet X, and jumping to conclusions about a simple comet that, itself, is unspectacular. Let me lay out what a multi-Jupiter mass brown dwarf would look like right now if it was as close as is being speculated by many (i.e. that it's actually comet Elenin).

This Dark Star would appear in the night sky as a red/magenta planet about the same size as Jupiter. In other words, it would be one of the brightest objects in the night sky, very probably brighter than Venus. In addition, I believe that it would have a visible aura, or tail, that would be rather spectacular. That fiery aura would extend out from the planet itself by some considerable degree, possibly extending out to the very edge of the Dark Star's very considerable magnetosphere ( which would be about 4 x the moon's diameter across, or more).

The combination of the bright planet, its contingent of large moons, and in particular its fiery aura would produce the 'winged' disk' effect in the sky, like a mighty red celestial dragon.

Now I don't know about you, but when I pop outside at night to look in the direction of Elenin, I'm not seeing this at all. Frankly, that's because Elenin is a comet, and not a very good one at that. It is clearly not an incoming Dark Star/Planet X/Nibiru object. Curiously, Comet Elenin attained opposition twice during its perihelion passage. The first one, on 14th April, was coincident with the Japanese earthquake on 11th April. The second opposition is on 22nd November 2011 (2). If Dr Omerbashich's theory is correct, then one would be forgiven for predicting a major earthquake around that date somewhere on Earth. Of course, his theory may be flawed, and Comet Elenin may break up as it head around the Sun, so the threat must be seen to be low.

Andy Lloyd, 15th-24th June 2011

References:

(1) "All roads lead OUT of Rome: Streets of Italian capital empty after 1915 prediction of ‘big one’ earthquake" 11 May 2011

dailymail.co.uk news

(2) C/2010 X1

en.wikipedia.org wiki

(3) JPL "Comet Elenin: Preview of a Coming Attraction" 4 May 2011, with thanks to David

jpl.nasa.gov news

(4) Mensur Omerbashich "Astronomical alignments as the cause of ~M6+ seismicity" 11 Apr 2011, with thanks to Kerry Cassidy

arxiv.org paper

Elenin Video Conference

This summer, I participated in this video conference hosted by Project Camelot. I had to miss about one hour due to my summer art exhibition, but the conference overran to complete a total time of almost 5 hours, so as it turned out I was present for most of the time. The conference centred upon Richard Hoagland's theories about the artificial nature of the Elenin object. Various esoteric and hyper-dimensional considerations were addressed by the various speakers, who each brought specialist knowledge to the round table debate.

I focussed upon the complexities of the fascination with Comet Elenin on the Internet, and the concern about a returning dwarf star that is prevalent currently. These topics, which covered Sitchinite and Planet X themes, were debated rigorously. The entire event was both informative and constructive, and led to a series of testable predictions about what kind of events might emerge over the next six months and beyond. The Q&A session led to some diverse and fascinating discourse.

Andy Lloyd, 25th June 2011

Visions of the Dark Star

On occasion, I receive correspondence setting out vivid dreams or visions that may have a connection with my Dark Star research. The following is one such experience, which actually takes the form of a number of visions and dreams over a long period of time, of a celestial object which appears to relate to an incoming sub-brown dwarf, or blazing Planet X/Nibiru body. Here, in his own words, is Leigh's story:

A Vision of the Dark Star

Sitchin Attacked Again

There's a lot of nonsense written about Nibiru on the Internet, and that nonsense provides easy material for sceptics to point at when dismissing the entire subject. A recent error-strewn Space.com article describes the doomsday hype about Comet Elenin, and fears of a catastrophic return of Nibiru in 2012, in a dismissive, irritated manner (1). Which, of course, is entirely up to them. Clearly, they have focussed on the most extreme end of Internet opinion about Sitchin's work when critiquing him, unaware that he never wrote about a return of Nibiru in 2012 in his own books (I mean, you wouldn't have actually expected them to have read his work first before trashing it, would you?)

For the record, I agree with Space.com that the doomsday hype, especially on YouTube videos, is having a detrimental effect on many impressionable young people. But there are plenty of depressing things going on in the world today, and no one's suggesting we brush all those things under the carpet as well, surely? Many believers of the doomsday cult will be asking searching questions of the purveyors of such fears come 2013, so there will be a day of reckoning for them in the end, I'm sure.

Please, Space.com, get your facts straight when embarking on one of your hatchet jobs. Sitchin was a remarkable, if controversial, thinker, and his work deserves a fair hearing. That thought was shared by a PhD archaeologist I recently heard from. He wrote to Space.com to complain about their lack of balance in the article.

No reply, no changes...

Written by Andy Lloyd 9th July 2011

References:

(1) Natalie Wolchover "Believers In Mysterious Planet Nibiru Await Earth's End" 7 July 2011, with thanks to Lee

space.com article

Official: MoD never actually studied UFOs

The British Ministry of Defence have released more files from their UFO archive, on a day full of news about riots in the UK and stock market crashes around the globe. Is the Ministry trying to bury bad news? Sure looks like it, given some of the contents of those files:

"National Archives consultant Dr David Clarke said it was about time the data was released. "One of the most interesting documents in the files is a piece from an intelligence officer, who basically says that despite thousands of reports that they've received since the Second World War, they've never done any study or spent any money or time on the subject, and they say that people just won't believe that when they find out."

"The internal memo from a DI55 [defence intelligence] wing commander dated 5 July 1995 says the media's portrayal of DI55 as a "defender of the Earth against the alien menace" is "light years from the truth." The file shows the officer feared that if intelligence's interest in UFOs was to be revealed it could cause "disbelief and embarrassment since few people will believe the truth that lack of funds and higher priorities have prevented any study of the thousands of reports received.""

All those people who took the time to contact the MoD with their sightings - all those official reports from military and police observers. Ignored. Brings a new meaning to 'No Defence Interest', doesn't it?

Reference:

BBC "Ministry of Defence files on UFO sightings released" 11 August 2011

bbc.co.uk news

Radio Interview with Andy Lloyd on YouTube

On Wednesday 7th September, I did an interview with Valentine St Aubyn about Planet X, on Peterborough FM. In our 40 minute interview we covered a lot of ground: the history of Planet X, Nibiru, Nemesis, Comet Elenin, and the potential threat of 2012.

The show has been formatted onto YouTube by Valentine, in 4 parts. The Planet X part of the show starts after about 7 minutes through Part 1:

http://youtu.be/czvdudEH7yE

Then the actual interview begins in Part 2 (featured below) followed by parts 3 and 4 for a total length of about 45 minutes:

Part 2: youtu.be/HEnlG7-Kt6E

Part 3: youtu.be/zw2H8HctgnQ

Part 4: youtu.be/7LY4p6QDN0Q

Many thanks to Valentine St Aubyn for putting together this excellent set of YouTube videos, and for helping to get the word out about Planet X/the Dark Star.

Red Ice Interview

I recorded an interview with Red Ice Creations for broadcast this week, on the subject of Comet Elenin and the Dark Star:

redice.tv red-ice-radio

Scientist Claims Ancient Solar System must have had FIVE Gas Giants

Sceptics of the Dark Star Theory often remark that there is 'no evidence' for a large Planet X body. Where it is true that such a body has not been discovered directly, it is not correct to say that there is no evidence for the existence of such a body far, far beyond Neptune. In fact, there is an abundance of indirect evidence of something very big out there - and I'm not talking about dodgy videos on YouTube knocked up by Doomsday enthusiasts. I mean fact-based evidence discovered by professional astronomers and astrophysicists.

Let me give you a list off the top of my head: non-random long period comet data, the Kuiper Cliff/Gap, highly anomalous orbital properties of certain Kuiper Belt Objects, on-going anomalous trajectories of the Pioneer spacecraft, a missing chunk of angular momentum in the solar system, missing Kuiper Belt Object populations, and an irregularly-shaped heliosheath.

Each of these problems have individually challenged scientists and their standardised understanding of the solar system. Taken together, they provide a pattern indicating that our understanding of the outer solar system is flawed. Simply put, the outer solar system is not as it should be. And this is why I have advocated the existence out there of a 'Dark Star', as described in my book of the same name (1).

Astronomers often try to model the early solar system, using complex computer programs (run on super computers) to show the evolution of the system to attain what we see today. In order to achieve the right outcome, they change the starting conditions - adding in planets, taking out planets, migrating planets, and so on. Recent work of this type by David Nesvorny, of the Southwest Research Institute in Colorado, has produced a stunning conclusion - one that could easily be added to the list of anomalies I have set out above.

"We found that the dynamical simulations starting with a resonant system of four giant planets have a low success rate in matching the present orbits of giant planets, and various other constraints (e.g., survival of the terrestrial planets). The dynamical evolution is typically too violent..." (2)

In other words, the current gas giant group of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune was almost certainly not the initial high-end composition of the early solar system. In playing around with the starting components of the solar system, he has concluded that there must have once been an extra gas giant planet (3):

"In an effort to determine just how the solar system was formed, Nesvorny performed a series of some 6,000 computer simulations. When using just the four giant planets, every simulation found that they were too large and ended up destroying each other.

"In the simulations where they did manage to make it in one piece, the rocky planets such as Mars and Venus, were instead destroyed. According to his results, the current solar system structure would have a very low probability of occurring if it started with only four rocky planets and four gas planets. After running these simulations, Nesvorny decided to add a fifth large planet into the mix. With the addition of this large planet, results found that the odds of our current solar system increased significantly." (4)

He argues that, given a lack of direct evidence for such a body, it must have been expelled from the solar system at some point. His thinking reflects that of other prominent professional astronomers who have advocated the existence of a massive extra planet in the early solar system, details of whom can also be found in my book. As has happened with a number of findings in recent years, professional astronomers are having to tussle with the need for another massive planet in the solar system, and the apparent lack of evidence of its existence.

Image Credit: Southwest Research Institute

It seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence for an extra massive gas giant in the early solar system, possibly as big as a sub brown dwarf. The question for me is whether such a body was actually ejected from the solar system, or whether, more controversially, it is still out there, waiting to be discovered. Its footprints are everywhere in the outer solar system. Do they lead out of the system completely, or to a lair hidden among the background stars?

Written by Andy Lloyd, 22nd Sept. 2011

References:

(1) Andy Lloyd "Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence" Timeless Voyager Press 2005

"Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence"

(2) David Nesvorny "Young Solar System's Fifth Giant Planet?" Submitted 13 September 2011

arxiv.org pdf

(3) Emily Allen "It's a gas, gas, gas, gas, gas: Scientists think solar system may have had a FIFTH gas planet" 21 September 2011, with thanks to Lee and Mart

dailymail.co.uk article

(4) Deborah Braconnier "Computer simulation shows Solar System once had an extra planet" 22 Sept. 2011, with thanks to Theo

phys.org news

(5) A computer simulation of the planetary ejection can be seen here: "Giant planet ejected from the solar system" 10 November 2011, thanks to Jim

phys.org news

NASA 's WISE Team Talk Brown Dwarfs

In the above Youtube video, NASA scientist Amy Mainzer discusses the WISE mission, and how one of the potential discoveries might be a brown dwarf closer to us than the nearest star (1). Bear in mind that an actual full-on brown dwarf could be as massive as 80 Jupiter masses. The object I describe on this website is a sub-brown dwarf, below 17 Jupiter masses (and possibly as low as 3 or 4 Mj). Potentially, such an object might lurk much closer to us than this video implies. But the video nevertheless spells out how such a concept is realistic. Sceptics take note...

An announcement has now been made that about 100 new brown dwarf objects have been confirmed by WISE so far. They include 6 of the coldest variety of sub-brown dwarf, known as 'Y-Dwarfs', all of which have been found within 40 light years of the Sun.

""Finding brown dwarfs near our sun is like discovering there's a hidden house on your block that you didn't know about," says Michael Cushing, a WISE team member at JPL. "It's thrilling to me to know we've got neighbours out there yet to be discovered. With WISE, we may even find a brown dwarf closer to us than our closest known star."" (2, 3)

In neighbouring star systems, then the Dark Star theory has become a reality. It remains to be seen whether the same holds true for a similar companion object orbiting around the Sun.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

In this next video clip on YouTube, NASA hold a press conference to outline the progress made so far by WISE, in its search for new objects in the solar system. The team is asked about a possible brown dwarf, and whether such an object might be in-bound.

NeoWISE spokesperson Amy Mainzer denies that a Planet X body could be in-bound, but does not rule out the possibility that a large planetary body, like a Y-Dwarf, might lurk undiscovered in the solar system (4, 5). The data from WISE's double sky surveys is still being pored over, and there remains a possibility that a Dark Star might be found in a circular orbit way out in the outer solar system.

Written by Andy Lloyd, September 2011

References:

1) NASA "Celestial Treasure Hunt" 19 Nov 2009

youtube.com video

2) "Discovered: Stars as Cool as the Human Body", August 24, 2011, with thanks to Vento

nasa.gov news

3) Lisa Grossman, Coolest brown dwarf discovered, 23 August 2011, with thanks to David Article no longer available online, but see

NASA "NASA'S Wise Mission Discovers Coolest Class of Stars"

nasa.gov article

4) NASA "NASA Finds Fewer Asteroids Near Earth" 29 September 2011

youtube.com video

5) Dan Keying "NASA talks about TYCHE "PLANET X" at NEOWISE conference" 29 September 2011, with thanks to Mattia

youtube.com video

Comet from the Kuiper Belt Has Earth-like Water

Comets in the solar system have variable origins. Over recent years scientists have looked at the water composition of comets in order to answer the question of where the Earth's water originated from. This is a trickier question than you might think. If the Earth formed in its current location (and note I say 'if') then the intense bombardment of the solar wind from the early hot Sun should have driven off all the volatiles from the Earth's primordial surface, including water. The fact that the Earth has abundant water, rather than being arid like Venus and to a lesser extent Mars, is a mystery.

The generally accepted answer to this mystery is the 'later veneer theory', whereby water was deposited onto a dry Earth as a result of the impacts of many, many comets and asteroids over a vast period of time. But this theory has been questioned recently because the isotopic composition of water in the half dozen comets so far analysed has been different to that of Earth water. If they are a representative sample of smaller bodies in the solar system, then the water must have come from somewhere else: Firstly, there aren't enough comets in the solar system to have created the Earth's oceans, and secondly, the isotopic composition seems to be wrong anyway.

The latest comet to be analysed in this way has opened a door of hope on the Late Veneer Theory:

"New measurements from the Herschel Space Observatory show that comet Hartley 2, which comes from the distant Kuiper Belt, contains water with the same chemical signature as Earth's oceans. This remote region of the solar system, some 30 to 50 times as far away as the distance between Earth and the sun, is home to icy, rocky bodies including Pluto, other dwarf planets and innumerable comets." (1)

The problem is where comet Hartley 2 originally came from (2). The Kuiper Belt is effectively a second asteroid belt beyond the planet Neptune, much larger than its famous cousin which lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. It is a part of the solar system astronomers are only just starting to understand, and regular readers of this site will recognise that it has thrown up a large number of anomalies and new questions.

Many of these new findings are suggestive, in my opinion, of a different scenario for the early solar system than is presently held by the mainstream scientific community. The new puzzle is why bodies originating close to the Earth have a different isotopic composition to the water found on our planet, whereas one originating in the distant Kuiper Belt has exactly the same(3). Comet Hartley 2 seems misplaced, to say the least:

"However, the new results also raise new questions. Until now, scientists assumed that the distance of a body’s origin from the Sun correlated to the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio in its water. The farther away this origin lies from the Sun, the larger this ratio should be. With a “birth place” within the Kuiper belt and thus well beyond the orbit of Neptune, Hartley 2, however, seems to violate this rule. “Either the comet originated in greater proximity to the Sun than we thought”, says Hartogh, “or the current assumptions on the distribution of deuterium have to be reconsidered.” And maybe Hartley 2 is a so-called Trojan that originated close to Jupiter and could never overcome its gravitational pull." (4)

Competing theories like mine, originating in Zecharia Sitchin's controversial explanation for the cosmic catastrophes of the early solar system, may offer answers to this mystery, which don't require rewriting the laws of physics (5). But the dataset here remains small, and we will only be able to piece the puzzle together properly when a larger sample of comets and asteroids has been properly studied.

One other solution is that the bombardment of the inner solar system that took place 3.9 billion years ago (the 'Late Heavy Bombardment') consisted of a swarm of giant comets from the Kuiper Belt displaced by the migration of Jupiter and Saturn. Such a concept is supported by the recent discovery of the debris of a giant comet in a neighbouring star system whose chemical signature matches meteorite fragments found here on Earth. A pattern may be occurring here:

"About 4 billion years ago, some 600 million years after our solar system formed, scientists think the Kuiper Belt was disturbed by a migration of the gas-giant planets Jupiter and Saturn. This jarring shift in the solar system's gravitational balance scattered the icy bodies in the Kuiper Belt, flinging the vast majority into interstellar space and producing cold dust in the belt. Some Kuiper Belt objects, however, were set on paths that crossed the orbits of the inner planets.

"The resulting bombardment of comets lasted until 3.8 billion years ago. After comets impacted the side of the moon that faces Earth, magma seeped out of the lunar crust, eventually cooling into dark "seas," or maria.

"Comets also struck Earth or incinerated in the atmosphere, and are thought to have deposited water and carbon on our planet. This period of impacts might have helped life form by delivering its crucial ingredients." (6)

But the problem remains that the population of the Kuiper Belt is insufficient to have supplied enough water to have filled the Earth's oceans. What could have swept through the Kuiper Belt to have displaced all those missing KBO asteroids? Surely not distant Jupiter and Saturn? This is where the Dark Star concept could really provide the answer.

Written by Andy Lloyd, 7th October 2011 and updated 20th Oct 2011

References:

1) JPL Press Release, "Space Observatory Provides Clues to Creation of Earth's Oceans" 5 October 2011, with thanks to David

nasa.gov article