The Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence (26 page)

If we accept that the gap in the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt is to be
attributed to the proximity of the Dark Star at perihelion, then how close does
it approach that gap, or indeed the sun itself? According to Quillen, this is
heavily dependent upon the eccentricity of the orbit of the binary companion,
more so than its actual mass.
⁴
There is a relationship involved
called the Lindblad Resonance, where there is a 2:1 relationship between the
binary companion's orbit and the inner belt of the primary affected. If, in the
sun's case, its belt is truncated at about 48AU, then this implies an
interactive planetary orbit at about 70-80AU.

Now, if the orbit is highly eccentric, which the Dark Star's must
be, then this value does not apply to a simple circular orbit at this position,
or within it.
⁵
Instead, it may apply to the effect over time of a
distant planet sweeping through that area over many, many orbits. Does this
relationship help us to define the Dark Star's perihelion distance? Can that
lead us to an understanding of what effect upon the sun the Dark Star is
capable of?

There's not a lot of interesting real estate out at 80AU. The only
feature of interest is a boundary known as the heliopause, which lies a little
further out than this. At least, that's what the astronomers think anyway. They
don't actually know yet, but are hoping that data from several spacecraft might
be able to enlighten them. Is the position of the heliopause significant?

The heliopause marks a boundary for the Solar Wind, and is a
feature of the extended magnetic field of the sun. At the heliopause, the Solar
Wind meets the plasma fields of interstellar space, creating a magnetized
bow-shock as the sun moves along. This bow-shock is most likely to reside
between 110 - 160 AU from the sun.
¹⁵
This means that the Dark Star
must move through this boundary twice during its perihelion passage, once on
the way towards perihelion, and again as it moves away. The Dark Star will also
have its own magnetosphere; a rather substantial one in fact.

The shape of the heliopause is currently not known, but is thought
to resemble the planetary magnetospheres surrounding some of the sun's family.
The magnetopsheres are created by the interaction of the solar wind with the
magnetic field of these planets, including the Earth, and they serve to protect
the planets from some of the sun's bombardment of hot, charged particles, or
plasma. The influx of these charged particles into the polar regions of the
Earth creates the 'Aurora Borealis', or Northern Lights, an effect which is
repeated on Saturn and Jupiter on a massive scale.

The Dark Star seems to lie roughly in the direction of the Solar
Apex, or the point in space towards which the sun is traveling. If that is the
case, then the Dark Star will be in the forward direction of the bow-shock of the
sun's magnetosphere, or heliopause. Thus, the heliopause will have the lowest
distance at this point from the sun.

The heliopause is literally buffeted back from the interstellar
medium here, the exact distance of which is determined by many factors, including
the current velocity of the Solar Wind and the local density of the
interstellar medium. The shape of the heliopause, once known, may also hold
clues as to the sun's interaction with the Dark Star's own magnetosphere. The
four space probes from the Voyager and Pioneer missions may one day provide
some data on this.

The region of the heliopause is an active one, because the sun's
charged particles in the Solar Wind encounter resistance at this boundary, and
warm up. There is a termination shockwave here, just within the heliopause.
¹⁶
This is without the action of another massive body, but occurs simply because
of the interaction between the sun's magnetosphere and the environment within
which it moves.

How much bigger is the likely effect, then, when the extended
magnetic fields of the Dark star and the sun interact directly?

Let us consider whether the Dark Star, as an old and small sub-brown dwarf, becomes more active as it interacts with the 'termination shock'
of the Solar Wind. Upon arriving at the termination shock, the Dark Star might
flare up dramatically, with an auroral and atmospheric light-show several
orders of magnitude greater than normal. After all, it will meet a relatively
dense and warm layer of highly energized, negatively accelerating particles
forming a considerable shockwave.

One only needs to consider the magnetosphere of Jupiter to realize
how strong the interaction between this gas giant's magnetic field and that of
the sun is.
¹⁷
If Jupiter's magnetosphere was visible in the night
sky, it would appear about four times the diameter of the Moon. Yet, Jupiter is
five times further away from us at opposition than the sun. Its magnetosphere
tails back as far as Saturn's orbit.

If the Dark star has an even greater magnetic field, as its
greater density implies - then its interaction with the Solar Wind will be
proportionately greater. Even if one bears in mind the fact that it is much
further away, and the density of the solar wind drops off as a result, the reaction
at the actual bow-shock of the heliopause will still create a significant
effect.

This begs the question: when the in-bound Dark Star reaches the
heliopause would the resultant electro-magnetic interaction create a flaring
effect that could actually be visible from the Earth? Would the embers of the
sub-brown dwarf ignite once again to shine brightly, even in the depths of the
void?

This is a second possibility, which might explain the sudden
observable appearance of 'Nibiru'. The effect would be like that of an intruder
cutting through a perimeter fence and setting off the alarm. Whilst in the
grounds, the intruder would remain in the shadows, only to set the alarm off
again upon exiting the perimeter some time later. The actual affect would be
sudden and transitory; a bright red glow in the sky centred upon a single light
source; that of the excited Dark Star. It would be repeated some years later,
in a different part of the sky.

This is speculative, but it might be possible that the sun and
Dark Star would cause each other's magnetic fields to charge up dramatically at
that boundary crossing near, or within, the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt. Like a
cactus in the desert, the binary companion's flowering would be fleeting, but,
under the gaze of the sun, beautiful. Perhaps, the sun would respond in kind
with a massive Coronal Mass Ejection, or such like.

There should be no doubts about the exceptionally strong effect of
the Solar Wind on a gas giant's magnetosphere. A “pulsating auroral hot-spot”
was discovered on Jupiter in 2002, emitting large quantities of X-rays.
^18,19
How much more activity would be observed on an orbiting brown dwarf, I wonder?
It also seems likely to me that the sun's entire, extended magnetic field could
be strongly affected by such an interaction, to the extent that some kind of
reversal of the solar magnetic field might take place. It's a remarkable
thought, and not without precedent.

It may be that the sun's own field may also be affected by the
Dark Star's perihelion passage. Could this be the reason for the alleged
reversal of the Neutral Sheet every 3740 years, as proposed by Maurice
Cotterell?

The standard sunspot cycle occurs every 11.5 years, a fact that is
well known. Cotterell set about examining the relationship between the Earth's
orbit, and the sun's different rates of magnetic field rotation at the solar
poles and equator. This function he called the "rotational
differentiation".

This leads to a fundamental sunspot cycle of 11.4929 years, and a
greater recurring cycle of 187 years duration. Further mathematical analysis
led Cotterell to conclude that a greater cycle still can be deduced, one that
is 1,366,040 days long, or 3,740 years. This represents the complete reversal
of the neutral sheet of the solar system. The flip itself is not instantaneous,
but would take two of the 187 year cycles to complete.
²⁰

This work fascinated me, because it indicated that the sun's
cycles may be affected by an outside agent. A sub-brown dwarf periodically
moving through the sun's massive and extended magnetic field would surely be
enough to do the trick? How else could one explain such a regular, but
momentous change in the sun's complete magnetic field?

But it was not clear from the book that Cotterell co-wrote with
Adrian Gilbert, just when such an event would have taken place during the
historical period. If this was to be tied in with the appearance of Nibiru,
then such a question would be of fundamental importance. An opportunity
presented itself to contact Maurice Cotterell, who was very illuminating in his
correspondence:

“The sun reverses its magnetic field periodically. We know that
ice ages correspond to solar magnetic activity. In effect the sun sucks-in and
then blows out every 3,750 years. Charged dust particles would hence sometimes
be sucked-in (depending on the polarity of the sun's magnetic fields) and then
again blown-away, as the polarity changed...

Now; if the sun's magnetic field twists (the last time was in 3113
BC) then planets in close proximity have a propensity to topple as they are
magnetically coupled. This happened to Venus in 3113BC, and explains why Venus
now spins backwards and why the Maya refer to the event as 'the birth of
Venus'. However, the magnetic twist on that occasion, did not topple the
Earth...Now 3113BC (minus) plus 3,740 years (one neutral sheet shift) = 627AD,
meaning that the last solar magnetic twist occurred in 627AD (clearly neither
Venus nor Earth flipped)”.
²¹

Cotterell's ideas about global catastrophe connected with cosmic
events are clearly Velikovskian, although Maurice did point out to me that he
did not consider it particularly worthwhile to seek a 'Dark Star' to explain
such events. Instead, as our ability to discover data increased scientifically,
then so would the chances of finding out causal factors. Until then, we are
better off working with what we have got. He links the timing of the last
reversal of the neutral sheet to events dated in Mayan myth, rather than
specific scientific evidence.

This seems to me to leave the timing of Cotterell's proposed
magnetic change as a rather open question, as I'm personally not convinced by
the 'birth of Venus' argument. But the date he refers to is also Day One of the
Olmec/Mayan/Aztec calendar,
i.e.
13th August 3113BC. I believe that the
appearance of Nibiru was of such significance to the ancients, that they
started their calendar cycles at that point. This may be true of the South
American peoples as much as it is true of the Sumerians of Nippur and, dare I
say, Christians.

Richard Day ponders the timing of Nibiru in this South American
context, which he finds coincidental with the founding of the first Pharaonic
dynasty. Such a timing would also have brought Nibiru back around the time of
the birth of the prophet Mohammed.
²²
Although, by this time the
observation records of the heavens were much better than ancient times,
particularly among the Arabs, so one would have expected a recorded event in
historical astronomy. Of course, if the religion of the Muslims was in some way
tied in with the appearance of Nibiru, then this might explain the origin of
the Star and Crescent symbol, whose genesis is also very much an open question.

The question as to the exact timing of Nibiru is one that has been
long contested by various researchers. The question of the return of the Dark
Star is one of the great unknowns in this field of eclectic study, and I am
more open to the various possibilities than ever: Particularly, as we consider
the perihelion passage to be at the edge of the solar system. This opens things
right up. Is the 3750 year cycle due imminently, in 2012, for instance,
allowing us to incorporate Cotterell's and Day's Mayan connection? Or, was the
last event one that occurred 2000 years ago? Or, is there another possibility
entirely?

¹
C. Grady, E. Polomski, “The Disk and Environment of the Herbig Be
Star HD 100546” Astronomical Journal, 122, 3396, 2001

²
M. Clampin “HST/ACS Coronoagraphic Imaging of the Circumstellar
Disk around HD 141569A” Submitted to The Astronomical Journal, May 2003,
astroph/0303605v1

³
J. Augereau & J. Papaloizou, “Structuring the HD141569A
Circumstellar Dust Disk” Astronomy & Astrophysics, astroph/ 0310732, 2003

⁴
A. Quillen, P. Varniere, I. Minchev & A. Frank, “Driving
Spiral Arms in the Debris Disks of HD 100546 and HD141569A” Astronomical
Journal, AJ, 2004

⁵
A. Brunini & M. Melita “The Existence of a Planet beyond 50AU
and the Orbital Distribution of the Classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects”
Icarus, 160, pp32-43 (2002)

⁶
Correspondence from Mario Melita, 15th January 2003

⁷
S. Ida, J. Larwood & A. Burkert “Evidence for Early Stellar
encounters in the orbital distribution of Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects” The
Astrophysical Journal, 528, 351-356, (2000)

⁸
A. Quillen, D. Trilling & E. Blackman “The Impact of a Close
Stellar Encounter on the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt” arXiv:astroph/ 0401372vl, 2004

⁹
J.J. Matese, P.G. Whitman and D.P. Whitmire, “Cometary Evidence
of a Massive Body in the Outer Oort Cloud” Icarus, 141, 354-336 (1999)

¹⁰
Correspondence from A. Quillen, 18th February 2004, Reproduced
with kind permission

¹¹
Correspondence from A. Quillen, 19th February 2004, Reproduced
with kind permission

¹²
J. Murray “Arguments for the Presence of a Distant large
Undiscovered Solar System Planet” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 309, 31-34 (1999)

¹³
New Scientist "Rogue star smashed up the solar system"
Vol 18, 2433, 7th February 2004, p19, Thanks to Shad Bolling,
http://www.amnesium.com
. Here's the paper's
on-line abstract:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0401372

¹⁴
D. Allan & J. Delair “When the Earth Nearly Died: Compelling
Evidence of a World Cataclysm 11,500 years ago” pp252-3, Gateway Books 1995

¹⁵
B. Arnett “The Interplanetary Medium” 2002,
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/medium.html

¹⁶
Wikipedia “Heliopause”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopause

¹⁷
C. Kitchin “Aurorae on Other Planets” Astronomy Now, p62, Mar
2004

¹⁸
T. Phillips "Puzzling X-rays from Jupiter"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/07mar_jupiterpuzzle.htm

¹⁹
Gladstone, et al, "A Pulsating Auroral X-ray Hot Spot on
Jupiter" Nature (v. 415) 28th Feb. 2002

²⁰
A. Gilbert & M. Cotterell “The Mayan Prophecies” Appendix 4:
'The Sunspot Cycle' p288-300, Element 1995

²¹
Correspondence from Maurice Cotterell, 13th September 2002,
reproduced with kind permission

²²
R. Day “Teotihuacan and the Tenth Planet” Abstracted from the
unpublished manuscript 'Nibiru Planet X: Evidence from Antiquity', 1998, pp42-3