It will be clear to anyone reading the papers by Drs Murray and Matese that
the trajectory described by the giant planet in the Oort cloud
circular, and at a great distance from the Sun
2). When corresponding by
e-mail with both of these astronomers, they have made it plain to me that
this is a major stumbling block to equating the body each of them describe,
to that described by Sitchin
4). There is little necessity for either of
them to explore these issues, and so that's where the matter ends for them.
But I think I have shown sufficient correlation between Nibiru and their
giant planets, particularly as described by
Dr Murray, to attempt to find an
explanation for this discrepancy.
I think I have found that reason, and the
evidence for it comes from one of the central supporting academic papers
Matese. Data from this paper is fundamental to our understanding of
what might have happened between the perturbation of the comets millions of
years ago, that were used to describe the giant planet's orbit, and its
present eccentric orbit.
If I am right, this will have important consequences for 12th Planet
research. But even if I'm not, this paper is of central importance to our
studies, because it contains results of computer simulations of a Nibiru-type
body, and the effects of this body on the Solar system. It is unusual for me
to concentrate particularly on one paper in this way, but I suspect the
reader will soon discover why I have done so.
The Los Alamos Computer Simulations
Some time before Murray and Matese looked at the evidence for a
cloud body, J.G. Hills was researching the possible presence of an even
bigger entity on the very edge of the Sun’s influence. This body was known
as ‘Nemesis’, a black dwarf star or low-mass star at 90,000 AU. It remains
hypothetical, and would certainly be a far more massive body than the one we
are considering in this book.
Hills ran computer simulations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory of a 3
body system, consisting of a Sun and Jupiter-like Planet couple, which
became subject to interaction with a massive body, either entering from
interstellar space, or perturbed from a quiet corner of the Sun’s comet
His findings are highly relevant to our debate,
centering as they
do on the scenario described by Sitchin.
Hills doesn’t make a conscious note of this, of course, and to all intents
and purposes, he seemed to be describing low-mass stars and brown dwarfs,
rather than smaller bodies, thus becoming one step removed from the
conventional 12th Planet debate. At that time, Sitchin's analysis of Nibiru
was for a much smaller body than a brown dwarf.
However, it seems highly likely that Nibiru is indeed a failed star, not a
planet in the conventional sense, and we should now look at Hills’ findings
in this new light. One of the first points Hills raises is that a body, at
the sort of distances proposed for Nemesis, is liable to be perturbed into
an orbit that brings it through the planetary solar system, by the action of
(ROSAT Soft X-ray HRI
Image Of Jupiter: This image (right) of Jupiter was taken by ROSAT
during the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 in July, 1994
(See below REPORT)
His mathematical modeling shows that this potential effect is most likely
to happen if the massive body lies at 20,000AU, (a distance close to
Matese’s estimate of 20,000AU for his massive planet):
"…There is a non-negligible probability of
Nemesis actually entering the
planetary system as a result of eccentricity changes induced by passing
stars. Nemesis lies in the outer edge of the classical Oort cloud at a
semi-major axis of 90,000AU. Any similar objects lying in the inner edge of
the classical Oort cloud at a semi-major axis of 20,000AU would have a much
higher probability of entering the planetary system."
What Hills is saying is that the orbit of a body lying at around 20,000AU
distance from the Sun is essentially unstable, a point noted in passing by
Matese then discussed 'oscultations' of such an orbit, but it is
clear from Hill's paper that he has something more drastic in mind. As
says, "objects in the Oort cloud are severely perturbed by passing stars".
We cannot assume, therefore, that the findings of Murray and Matese, derived
from the beginnings of cometary journeys millions of years ago, continue to
describe the orbit of the massive body up to the present day.
Not only that,
but the evidence from the comets’ movements is a fragmented picture. It
indicates a trend that points to the presence of this massive body, but it
does not present us with a cast-iron blue-print for the body’s current
position. If it had, we would already have detected it, surely? There are
approximations involved here, and a relatively recent perturbation of Nibiru’s orbit would not lie outside the criteria for meeting the data these
two researchers have worked with. It might also explain why it has defied
detection since these papers came out in 1999, despite the other brown dwarf
Drs Murray and Matese are describing Nibiru’s passage through the Oort cloud
over many millions of years, and have assumed a continuation of that slow,
circular motion. Upon that premise, they have called into question a
correlation with the ancient mythology of the 12th Planet, as described by
Hills shows us that the orbits they describe for the
massive body are unstable, and subject to radical change when affected by a
passing star. It seems to me that this might have occurred when the Sun
Sirius several million years ago, that the massive gravity of the
Type A star Sirius A was sufficient to drag Nibiru into the planetary
system, and change its orbit to a highly elongated ellipse. If not the
Sirius system, then gigantic molecular clouds in Orion
The circular orbits described by Murray and Matese are unstable
and subject to perturbation, just like the comets.
In case this might seem too incredible, I would like to explore the results
of Hills’ computer simulations in some depth. This may be somewhat of a dry
discussion, but bear with me:
Hills recognizes the general circularity of the orbits of the known solar
planets, and concludes from his data that any body having passed through the
solar system could not have exceeded 20 Jupiter masses:
"Because the change in the eccentricities is proportional to the intruder
mass Mi, any intrusions of objects from the Oort cloud having masses less
than about 0.02M* = 20 Jupiter masses would not have produced a noticeable
effect on the orbits of the planets."
This provides an upper limit on the size of such a body, ruling out Nemesis,
a presumed black dwarf at the farthest reaches of the solar system, as an
interloper. Other sections of the paper place a limit of 10 Jupiter masses
on an intruder from the Oort cloud, but this still remains consistent with
the brown dwarf finding: The body described by Murray and
Matese is a
‘planet’, or brown dwarf , of only a few Jupiter masses. Such a body will
not radically alter the general circularity of the orbits of the solar
planets, unless a collision is involved. This is of fundamental importance,
because it shows that a brown dwarf could pass within the planetary orbits
without unduly affecting them.
A brown dwarf of less than 10 Jupiter masses could have
regularly passed through the planetary solar system, and the known planets
would still appear as they do today.
Somewhat remarkably, Hills describes a minimum semi-minor axis radius of
5AU, within the radius of the orbit of Jupiter, to clarify his point. This
just so happens to be the ‘place of the crossing’ of Nibiru as described by
the Sumerian texts! Having eliminated the possible movement of Nemesis
through our system, did Hills systematically turn his attention to
work, and find a correlation? This appears to be the unspoken message. Of
course, Hills might have chosen the radius of the Jupiter like planet to
simplify his calculations, but this seems an arbitrary point. Either way,
the coincidence helps us to understand how Nibiru's orbit came into being.
The computer simulations sometimes showed that 'temporarily bound triple
systems’ resulted from the movement of the disturbed Oort cloud body into
the planetary system. As Hills notes:
"…The integration continues until one of the three objects is thrown into
either a hyperbolic orbit, or a bound orbit with a semi-major axis larger
than 350 times that of the inner binary, or until 500,000 integrations steps
have been completed."
As Jupiter lies at approximately 5AU distance, the new orbital semi-major
axis of Nibiru could approximate to 350 times that, or about 2000AU.
Nibiru's current aphelion position could be as distant as
So Nibiru, if it had been disturbed from its circular orbit in the
cloud, might now have an aphelion distance of less than 10% of the values
determined by Murray and Matese. That the distance is an order of magnitude
less allows Nibiru to traverse a highly elongated elliptical orbit in about
3600 years, without being ejected from the solar system. This was another
major stumbling block as far as Dr Murray was concerned
Hills describes a number of results from his simulations that are consistent
with relatively stable temporarily bound triple systems forming after
incursions of a massive Oort cloud body into the planetary system. This
provides a theoretical model for Nibiru’s orbital change, allowing us to
integrate the brown dwarf finding with the 12th Planet theory.
This theoretical work thus underpins a bridge between Sitchin’s
theory and the evidence for a brown dwarf in the Oort cloud.
Yes, the brown
dwarf was describing a slow, circular orbit at the time the comets were
perturbed, but it has since been perturbed itself, into a radically
different orbit. The one described by the
doesn’t seem to think so. Do I have evidence for this?
Yes, I think I do, in
that the change of Nibiru’s orbit, returning it to the planetary system
after many, many millions of years caused our climate to change. The
evidence is in our geological records, and involves the puzzling advent of
long-period ice-ages. Again, the basis of this conclusion lies in this
ground-breaking paper by Hills, and I shall explore this idea in depth in a
subsequent posting. This has to do with the 'binding energies' of the
planets, and how their orbital radii are affected by the new orbit attained
by the interloper. I suspect that this simbiotic relation between the
and Nibiru is what the Sumerians meant by the
'Bond Heaven-Earth', and why
the ancient world put such store on an accurate calculation of the calendar.
The Earth's orbit and environment were affected by the new
eccentric orbit through a dynamic interplay of planetary 'binding energies',
and our geological record itself indicates the return of Nibiru from the
Hills describes these new triple systems (for our studies, the Sun,
and Nibiru as a brown dwarf) as temporary. They seem to be unstable as well,
and I suggest that Nibiru's orbit is again subject to change over time,
decaying and losing its energy. Nibiru will again return to the outer
cloud, and this model might show that Nibiru has had an oscillating orbit
for as long as it has been in our solar system. This is what is meant by the
term 'oscultation', as used by Matese. Hills simply shows how an highly
eccentric orbit for the Oort cloud object could be derived from such an
orbital change. I suspect that these 'oscultations' then account for the
long period Ice Ages, occurring when Nibiru is perturbed into a temporary
eccentric, elliptical orbit that brings it into the planetary solar system.
When it is describing a slow circular orbit, we have a warmer climate, often
for hundreds of millions of years.
Furthermore, I think the unusually quick end of our current Ice Age, that
has lasted only 4 million years, indicates that Nibiru's orbit is already
decaying and lengthening, and that the 'bond Heaven-Earth' is slowly
deteriorating. In turn this explains why Nibiru's orbit has lengthened
(3760BC to 25AD = 3784 years), and why ancient accounts describe our
calendar year as having been slightly longer (Thoth's lost days
Nibiru's orbit lengthens, and it begins its gradual return to a slow,
circular orbit in the Oort cloud, our orbit gains binding energy, our
orbital radius contracts, and our climate warms.
Nibiru's orbit is currently lengthening, and our climate is
subsequently warming once again.
This change might also indicate why the
Anunnaki have left our world now. As
Nibiru's orbit has decayed, their chances of seeing Nibiru move within the
orbit of Jupiter during the next perihelion passage decrease. They might not
want to lose the chance to get back home again!
So why should this lengthening of the orbit have occurred at all? I suspect
that the same celestial event that brought about the Flood 13-14,000 years
ago altered Nibiru's unstable 'temporary' orbit sufficiently to again change
the bond between the Sun and Nibiru. This might have been a close passage by
Jupiter, for instance, perturbing the elliptical orbit, and creating a
sufficiently large disruption to the Sun-Jupiter magnetosphere interaction
to bring about the Earth-changes involved. I will be exploring this in depth
Stable Planetary Systems that are Massive
It had been suspected that ‘failed stars’, or brown dwarfs could not exist
in the midst of stable planetary systems. The argument goes that the
gravitational effect of such massive bodies in the planetary system would
cause the other planets to become unstable and begin careering around. A
discovery by Marcy’s team regarding a star system some 123 light years away
has brought that into question. The system, poetically named HD168443,
contains a giant planet that is 17 times the mass of Jupiter. Normally, the
astronomers would classify this is a brown dwarf, but this body’s close
proximity to its star has brought that assumption into question
circling the star in the relatively close orbit involved, the body should
have formed by gas accretion, yet is far more massive than this model should
"This is one of the most exciting discoveries yet," said
Douglas N C Lin, a
planetary formation expert from the University of California, Santa Cruz,
who is not a member of the Marcy team. "This discovery has profound
theoretical implications." Although the planetary object is 17 times more
massive than Jupiter, Lin said, "it is possible that it formed in the same
way that Jupiter formed in our solar system". Planets are thought to form by
gravitationally attracting gas and dust in a cloud surrounding a developing
star. But planets that become too large can destabilize a planetary system.
Butler said the HD168443 system is "extremely stable".
To complicate matters still further, another massive planet, this time 7
times as massive as Jupiter, enjoys a circular orbit within the orbit of the
first. Yet the overall system is described as ‘extremely stable’. This
system will send many astronomers back to the drawing board in an effort to
figure out how these planets formed and how they enjoy such stable orbits as
close as they are to their host star. This example serves to proves that
gargantuan planets such as these, that defy classification, can surprise
astronomers. Similarly, a massive planet in orbit around our Sun need not
have the detrimental effect on the rest of the system that many would
provisionally assume. This recent finding seems to bear Hills out.
1. J.B.Murray Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 309, 31-34 (1999)
2. J.J. Matese, P.G. Whitman and D.P. Whitmire, Icarus, 141, 354-336 (1999)
3. Correspondence from Dr J. Murray, 23rd & 25th August 2000
4. Correspondence from Dr J. Matese, 9th & 10th November 2000
5. J.G. Hills "The Passage of a "Nemesis"-like object through the Planetary
System" The Astronomical Journal, 90, Number 9, pp1876-1882, September 1985.
G. Hancock, R. Bauval & J. Grigsby "The Mars Mystery" p277-280 Penguin
7. Z Sitchin "When Time Began" p308 Avon 1993
8. J. Foust "Bizarre new planets puzzle astronomers" Spaceflight Now, 10th
9. Associated Press "We Prefer Not to Call It a Failed Star. We Call It a
Specially Challenged Brown Dwarf"
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ 9th January 2001