|
|
|
Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Louisiana at Lafayette The following figure illustrates the scatter on the celestial sphere of outer Oort cloud comet aphelia directions in galactic coordinates. The pronounced deficiencies at the galactic equator and at the galactic poles are characteristic of the galactic interaction which is minimal at these locations. But we also note an anomalous concentration of points along a "great circle" which passes near the galactic poles. In an article in the journal Icarus, we have suggested that there is statistically significant evidence that this concentration, amounting to an excess of approximately 25%, could be caused by a companion to the Sun which aids the galactic tide in making Oort cloud comets observable. The companion is estimated to have a mass of 3-5 MJupiter and a mean distance at the interaction site of 25000 AU. If there is no substantive inner Oort cloud, a closer orbit is possible. Its location along the great circle is not presently predictable and that will present a problem for detection, but it is potentially observable in the radio using the VLA and should also be observable in the infrared at 5 microns using the next generation of space telescopes such as Spitzer and SOFIA. An object with these properties would be readily seen by WISE (Ned Wright's Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer), recently approved for a 2008 launch in NASA's Medium-class Explorer program of lower cost, highly focused, rapid-development scientific spacecraft. The estimated mass of the companion puts it below the nominal brown dwarf limit (~ 13 MJupiter ) where deuterium fusion can occur and would make it a planet in that context. However its location in the outer Oort cloud means that it is not possible that it formed in the protosolar planetary disk. The object could have been ejected from another stellar system and captured by the Sun in their complex star forming region. At the Berlin meeting of "Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 2002" (co-authored by Jack J. Lissauer, link to paper below) we have presented supportive evidence of the solar companion conjecture. Since the Icarus paper was published twenty seven new outer Oort cloud comets have been discovered. The previously noted overpopulated band maintains an excess. This strengthens the statistical evidence for correlated orbital elements as predicted by the analysis. The figure below includes the best fit perturber orbit and can be compared to the corresponding figure in the 1999 Icarus paper which did not include the new data. It is argued that the correlated data found is highly unlikely to be the result of "bad data" - which typically reduces real correlations. Nor is it likely to be spuriously produced by some unspecified "observational selection effect" - a situation where limitations on our ability to observe comets can spuriously affect the distributions of the observed data. To date, the only documented observational selection effect applicable to this data is the well-known one that comets with large perihelion distances are less likely to be sufficiently well observed so that their energies (i. e. semimajor axes) are accurately known. We discuss in these papers why this selection effect will tend to spuriously reduce the predicted correlations rather than enhance them. A recent paper ("Biases in Cometary Catalogues and Planet X", J. Horner and N. W. Evans, MNRAS 335 (3) 641, (2002)) has concluded that a bound Jovian mass companion is a "possible, perhaps even likely, explanation of the unusual pattern". SOURCE: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~jjm9638/ Abstract: Approximately 25% of
the 82 new class I Oort cloud
comets have ananomalous distribution of orbital
elements that can best
be understood if there exists a bound perturber in
the outer Oort cloud.
Statistically signifcant correlated anomalies
include aphelia directions,
energies, perihelion distances and signatures of the
angular
Icarus 141, 353 (1999) reprint on a putative companion to the Sun |
|
 “Nibiru settled into a clockwise orbit (equal to 3,600
orbits of Earth around the Sun). Nibiru stabilized into a clockwise orbit,
equal to 3,600 orbits of Earth around the Sun until 10, 900 B.C.E., when
Nibiru arrived earlier, due to increasing drift from Solaris of Uranus.
Uranus' gravity sped Nibiru's orbit. As a result of this
close encounter between Nibiru and Uranus, one of Nibiru's moons, Miranda, was captured by and became a moon of Uranus as Nibiru and Uranus pulled at each other. From 10,000B.C.E. on, Nibiru's revolution sped to 3.450 Earth years; which makes Nibiru's next return 2900A.D. rather than 2012 as predicated on the earlier 3600- year orbit” Sitchin, Z., 2007, The End of
Days, pages 315 - 317
2900 AD not 2012 In Sitchin's own words... that is 892 years away... |
|
|
Andy Lloyd on Nibiru ..
12/20/02 3:10:43 PM Pacific Standard Time Hi.
Re: More Signs Solar System Has Tenth Planet Personally I have a "gut" feeling (and I trust them) that Nibiru is at about 545 AU (maybe somewhat farther) and that it's outside of the visible light spectrum thus the problem "seeing" it with conventional telescopes, however there's SOOO much sky out there that looking for it is like looking for a needle in the haystack... NASA seems intent on feeding us
photos from areas that
are light years away...
Andy Lloyd
Re: More Signs Solar System Has Tenth Planet NASA have been quite unequivocal about the possibility of a Planet X. They deny it's even possible. They base this on a (perceived) lack of evidence in the solar system, prefering to dismiss orbital anomalies among the other planets as lying within margins of error etc. I think their reluctance to embrace the possibility of another planet in the solar system is also historical, based upon accepted planet-forming models. In other words, because the potential for a Planet beyond Pluto does not fall within the parameters of understood planet-building models, there can't be one out there. Of course, this is not really acceptable as an argument, because it assumes that the current theories, having been based upon scant data of known planets, are necessarily correct. They needn't be. And now we are gaining better knowledge about extra-solar planets, and Kuiper Belt Objects, the possibilities are beginning to open up. Even so, it's a brave astronomer who starts to talk about Planet X, and the fact that the New Scientist article is written by established popular science writers, and quotes esteemed academics, is a major development. The whole subject is becoming acceptable to discuss. Yet NASA will still be hard to budge. Their plans to visit Pluto with a probe, and from there explore parts of the vast Kuiper Belt, have been put on ice several times, mostly because of that funding black hole known as the ISS. Will NASA relent and accept the importance of exploring the outer reaches of the solar system? You raise an interesting point about detectability. The party line is that a planet sized object at 50AU would almost certainly have been detected by the sky searches performed already. Yet here we have scientists trying to explain a major irregularity in the Kuiper Belt at this distance with an Earth-sized planet. The searches haven't found it, yet the data suggests it should be there. So the Planet has been at 50 AU, to sweep out the Kuiper Belt at that point, but presumably lies further away now. Possibly at 545AU? Who knows? Implying an irregular, elliptical orbit...Sounds familiar? |
|
| FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Pegasus Research Consortium distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. | |
|
|
