The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (17 page)

11. The Great Water Conundrum

My colleague, Lee Covino recently sent me an article from
"Science News" (Vol. 161, no 12) about the source of Earth's oceanic
water.
¹
Written by Ben Harder, the article outlined the latest
scientific thinking about where all the water on Earth came from. This is a
particular problem for planetary scientists, because the Earth simply should
not have the amount of water that it does.

The Earth is relatively close to the sun, and water, a volatile,
should have been expelled from the early inner solar system before the Earth
formed. As such, the Earth should really be a much drier planet. So where did
all the water, that is so crucial to the biosphere of this planet, originate?

Ben Harder describes various theories that are currently doing the
rounds in scientific circles. Up until recently, the leading theory was the
notion that the oceans were deposited by comets impacting the newly formed
Earth (the 'late-veneer' hypothesis).
²
This bombardment occurred over
a billion year period (and might also explain how life appeared on Earth so
early in its geo-history). But according to Ben Harder's article, recent data
from comets has overturned this possibility. The problem is that the isotopic
ratios of terrestrial water and cometary ice are quite different, dependent
upon where the comets initially formed.

The comets analyzed thus far contain relatively large quantities
of deuterium, yet this isotopic form of water is rare on Earth. If this
composition of known comet ice is representative of solar system comets in
general, then very little of the Earth's water can be attributed to cometary
impact following the Earth's formation. Taking this into account, it appears
that only half of the Earth's oceans could have been deposited by impacting
comets.

Puzzled scientists have tried to patch the flagging 'late-veneer'
theory up, topping up the comet contribution with that of water-rich
asteroids, but that doesn't explain other problems to do with the Earth's
chemical composition. The Earth is rich in many other volatiles, and these
elements (mostly noble gases) are not found on meteorites. Topping up comet
water deposition with that of water-rich asteroids would not explain the
relative abundance of these other volatile chemicals. For example, recent
studies by scientists at the University of Arizona regarding the relative
isotopic ratios of osmium in carbonaceous chondrites sink the late-veneer
theory still further; the upper limit for deposition of volatiles from space
after the Earth's formation is a meagre 15%.
³
These new findings are
causing planetary scientists a big headache. The natural implication is that
the Earth formed with its volatiles in place right from the start. Yet, current
models of the primordial solar system rule this out. Various new ideas are
being floated, in varying degrees of complexity, to explain this contradiction.

Perhaps the primordial inner solar system was a cooler place than
originally thought? Perhaps the Earth was formed from a multiplicity of
planetary 'embryos', some of which originated nearer Jupiter than the Earth,
thus allowing a build-up of indigenous volatiles? Perhaps the rocks that formed
the early Earth trapped massive quantities of water within them, preventing the
volatiles from being routinely expunged from the inner accretion disc?

But these ideas appear to be the scientific equivalent of
clutching at straws. This particular anomaly is a real problem, yet there seems
to be no satisfactory answer. The Earth simply shouldn't be so well endowed
with life-giving water.

The solution is staring all of these planetary scientists in the
face. It is so obvious that its absence within Ben Harder's otherwise excellent
article speaks volumes in itself. The Earth has a rich mixture of volatiles,
including water, because our planet must have originally formed much further
away from the sun!

It's the only simple solution to this problem. If the Earth began
life at the position of the asteroid belt, then the problem is solved. I can
claim this because other scientific work also points in this direction.

Clues as to Earth's early distance from the sun can be gleaned
from the "embryo" theory of the Frenchman Allessandro Morbidelli.
^4,5
He proposed that the Earth formed from the coalescence of Moon-sized embryos,
derived from various chaotic orbits in the primordial solar system. The
"volatile carriers" would have formed at about 4 Astronomical Units;
four times further away from the sun than the Earth, but still within the orbit
of giant Jupiter.

Morbidello notes that the water-bearing carrier from 4 AU would
have been geo-chemically unique in the solar system. This reminds us of the
similar isotopic signature of oxygen on Earth and the Moon, which we
encountered in the last chapter. This is why it's so important to gain a
statistical understanding of the isotopic balance of water throughout the solar
system.

The data about water isotope composition in the inner solar system
enigmatically suggests that the Earth formed about 4 astronomical units away
from the sun. This, of course, does not 'fit' the standard model for the
evolution of the solar system. Yet, the evidence points in this direction, so
one would expect that scientists should be reviewing the standard model. Further
evidence has emerged to underline this issue.

When the Comet LINEAR was studied by NASA, it was found to have an
isotopic composition similar to that of the water on Earth. One might assume
that this meant it formed in the same place as the Earth, that is, at 1
Astronomical Unit. But in fact, the isotopic ratio implies that it formed near
to Jupiter! Incredible, isn't it? NASA also makes it clear that the water from
Earth's oceans have a similar isotopic balance as LINEAR; they established this
by looking at the amount of volatile organic compounds, which turned out to be
low.
⁶

On the one hand, it means that the Earth could have received some
water from known comets. On the other, it implies that ALL of those comets must
have come from one specific location:
i.e.
around Jupiter. Does this really
seem likely to you?

Unfortunately, LINEAR broke up before all the necessary science
could be completed. Perhaps this proved fortunate for scientists who might have
been keen to explain away such anomalous findings. Was LINEAR a comet from
Earth's oceans, ejected into the solar system due to some mighty impact? Does
its isotopic ratio of oxygen imply that the Earth formed nearer to Jupiter than
to our present location?

I think the answer to both of these questions is 'yes'.

Somehow, the Earth migrated inwards, despite its strong bond to
the sun. If the Earth was once four times further away from the sun than it is
now, then we must explain how it managed to find itself in its current close
proximity to the sun. The inner solar system planets are quite tightly bound to
the sun, and do not flippantly change their orbits at the drop of the hat.
Something happened, something that the scientists don't really want to think
about.

A model for this action already exists in the form of Zecharia
Sitchin's "12th Planet" hypothesis. Interpreting the myths in an
astronomical context suggested to Sitchin that an undiscovered planet exists
among the comets, one that was not an original member of the solar system, but an
interloper wandering in interstellar space that blundered into the planetary
zone.

There it encountered a watery world at about 4 Astronomical Units,
and a great 'celestial battle' took place between these planetary 'gods'. The
result was the shunting of this Water World into the inner solar system, where
it became the Earth. The intruder spun off into an eccentric orbit beyond the
known planets, where it remains to be re-discovered to this day.
⁷

This is controversial material, of course. Not the kind of
speculative reasoning that readily appeals to the rational mindset of our
academic brethren. But, the Water Conundrum we have just considered is
remarkably consistent with this hypothesis. Not wishing to rely too heavily
upon that old die-hard 'Occam's Razor', we seem to have a simple solution to a
difficult problem.

Current theories of the formation of the Moon are centred upon a
massive collision between the early Earth and a Mars-sized body, scattering
debris into orbit around the Earth, which eventually coalesced to form Luna.
⁸
The lack of a significant iron core within the Moon suggests that this impact
took place after the Earth's own iron core had already gravitated to the centre
of our planet.
⁹
It's conceivable that the remainder of the early
Earth's scattered debris formed the asteroid belt, given Sitchin's proposal,
and this possibility is readily testable by further scientific study of the
composition of asteroids within the belt between Mars and Jupiter. This might
have occurred when the Moon formed, or as a result of later impacts upon the
recovering Earth.

If correct, then the primordial Earth must have been a very
significant planet indeed, such that major impacts upon it created the asteroid
belt, the Moon and possibly some of the comets. Furthermore, such a wide
scattering of water into the solar system may explain the relative high content
of water on other planets, which we discussed in the last chapter. The
implication would be, then, that the Earth was once a much larger world, the
excess made up to a great degree by water.

Such a massive terrestrial planet could have readily held onto a
vast amount of volatiles at the original distance of 4 astronomical units; its
greater gravity alone could have meant a greater retention of water and other
volatiles. It also would not be so incongruous that the larger primordial Earth
would have brought into being and then successfully held onto such a massive
satellite as our Moon. In other words, our Moon is colossal because at one
point the Earth was much bigger relative to how it is now.

The migration of the Earth into the inner solar system would then
have driven off much of that water, as predicted by theory. Also, the
scientific discovery of the 'late, great bombardment' upon the Earth/Moon system
3.9 billion years ago brings a further insight into how successive massive
bombardments of the Earth might have caused more oceanic water to be suddenly
lost.
¹⁰
Even so, because we started from a much higher threshold of
domestic water, we now enjoy oceans and seas and lakes.

Our aqueous environment is due to our planetary origins lying near
to Jupiter, not to cometary bombardment. This migration might make the Earth a
rather special place. After all, without it a reasonably sized planet would not
enjoy such abundant water so close to the sun. Earth might just have a unique
signature; a planet in the habitable zone that somehow managed to retain its
early water resources.

However, before we become too wrapped up in this idea, we must
look at a vital point about the heat output of the sun over time.

When
discussing the conditions that existed on the primitive Earth, it is important
to note that different conditions existed in the solar system at the time. The
sun was probably one of many thousands of stars in a cluster or star nursery.
It's possible that the Dark Star was a wide binary companion to the sun, and
that the system was disrupted early on, causing dramatic changes.

Examples
of other young star systems present us with evidence of such binaries, where
spiral structure has appeared in the proto-planetary discs, implying either
massive distant stellar companions, or close stellar encounters.
^11,12,13
These findings imply that the stellar environment surrounding the early solar
system was certainly busier than was previously thought. We should not infer
from the stable, rustic charm of the present formation of planets that things
were always this way.

The
other thing to bear in mind is that the early sun emitted less light than it
does now, and this may have contributed to a cooler primitive Earth. The sun's
nuclear fires were concentrated in a relatively small sphere near its centre
early on. This means that the Earth received about 70% of the sunlight it
enjoys today.
¹⁴
However, such considerations should already have
been taken into account by scientists looking at the isotopic balance of oxygen
in terrestrial and extraterrestrial water. Nevertheless, it's worth bearing in
mind that the sun's own activity levels may have played a part.

Earth's Special Character

So,
was the formation of the Earth a rather special, possibly unique phenomenon? If
the Earth should not be nearly as wet as it is, being so close to the sun, then
it is perfectly possible that the Earth is actually a rather special place.
Without the action of a passing intruder planet of vast proportions, or the
shunting effect of a significant impact, the Earth would be a much colder place
than it is now. It would be more like the so-called "Snowball Earth",
a condition that applied to our world some 600 million years ago.
¹⁵

Life relies upon liquid water...would the current bio-diversity on
this planet have arisen if Earth was still residing in the Asteroid Belt?

If a newly forming planet is close to a star - like Earth is to the
sun - and thus warmed by it sufficiently to maintain liquid water later in its
history, then these exact same conditions should preclude the inclusion of
water on that world in the first place. The presence of abundant liquid water
on the cooled planet becomes a paradox, because heat and water do not appear to
mix when terrestrial planets form. So, this paradoxical situation we currently
find on Earth is solved either by considering the possibility that the Earth
has moved significantly closer to the sun since its formation, or by rethinking
how planets form.

Whatever caused our world to have so much water so close to the
sun, it may be unusual, possibly even unique. The Earth's abundance of liquid
water may be very rare, if the action of an intruder planet is required to
explain its shunting into a closer inner orbit. Saying that, some of the
extrasolar planets found so far have distinctly odd orbits; particularly gas
giants that swing wildly around the parent stars at very close proximity.
¹⁶

Why were the constituent volatile gases of these planets not blown
away by the star before the planet got a chance to form? Does this imply that
planetary orbits can change radically, possibly as a result of outside
interference?

The sheer variety of the extrasolar planets seems to mitigate
against our conclusion of uniqueness for the planet Earth. If this 'Great Water
Conundrum' helps us to understand anything it is that planets can migrate
around - and end up enjoying orbits that seem, on the face of it, to be docile
and placid. This overturns our previous assumptions that the observed planets
in their nice quiet circular orbits must have always been that way. It opens
the door for other possibilities further out into the colder regions of the
solar system as well. Because if planets can migrate inwards, they can also
migrate out.