Planet Nine Constellations Predicted by Sitchin, and IRAS

A week on from Caltech’s announcement, Dr Mike Brown and Dr Konstantin Batygin, the two astrophysicists proposing the existence of their ‘Planet Nine’, sketched out the range of orbits which their object might be moving through, including its all-important approximate perihelion and aphelion positions.  Essentially, Brown and Batygin consider the perihelion position of the Planet Nine body to be in a broad region around the zodiacal constellations Scorpius/Sagittarius (R.A. = ~16hrs), whilst the aphelion positionof Planet Nine is likely in the equally broad Orion/Taurus area (R.A. = ~4hrs) (1,2).

caltech_position_planet9

Image credit:  Caltech

This aphelion/perihelion axis is of great importance to me, because it is precisely the one that arises out of Zecharia Sitchin’s work on the much defamed Planet Nibiru.  Actually, the similarities go deeper than that, as we shall see.

Where the Caltech team have decided upon a preferred inclination to the ecliptic of 30 degrees (2), decades ago Zecharia Sitchin agreed with Dr Robert Harrington’s assertion that Planet X also had an inclination to the ecliptic of about 30 degrees (3).  Sitchin believed that this 30 degree inclination corresponds with ‘The Way of Anu’in ancient Sumerian texts (3).  Compare this to the orbital properties of Planet Nine:  The Caltech team noted that “the orbits of the six objects [they studied] are also all tilted in the same way—pointing about 30 degrees downward in the same direction relative to the plane of the eight known planets” (4).

More specifically, here’s that inclination again with further orbital parameters which provide their best fit for the data:

“The capture of KBOs into long-lived apsidally anti-aligned orbital configurations occurs, with variable success, across a significant range of companion parameters (semi-major axis a ~ 400–1500 AU, eccentricity e ~ 0.5–0.8). For their best-fit nominal simulation, they selected a = 700 AU, e = 0.6, M = 10 ME (meaning a body with ten times the mass of Earth), orbital inclination i = 30°, and initial argument of perihelion ω = 150° (compared to roughly 310° the average for the six analyzed TNOs).” (2)

So what of the constellations?  Both sets of proposed parameters imply that Planet X spends most of its time either above or below the ecliptic, and, all importantly, that its aphelion and perihelion position lie in Orion and Sagittarius.  Sitchin quotes the Book of Job when describing the orbit of Nibiru/Marduk:

“Alone he stretches out the heavens and treads upon the farthest Deep.

<pHe arrives at the Great Bear, Orion and Sirius and the constellations of the south…

He smiles his face upon Taurus and Aries; From Taurus to Sagittarius He shall go.” (3)

These are eerily similar constellations to those being discussed by the Caltech scientists.  Combined with the high inclination, and the elliptical nature of the orbit, then Sitchin looks like he really was on the money.  He considered the size of Nibiru/Marduk to be between that of the Earth and Uranus, too, and would have been perfectly comfortable with the Caltech hypothesis that Planet Nine is an ice giant core – a planet essentially like Uranus stripped of much of its extensive outer atmosphere.

An Artist's impression of Planet Nine. Image credit: Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)

An Artist’s impression of Planet Nine. Image credit: Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)

The only thing Sitchin appears to have got wrong is the orbital period, which he assumed to be 3,600 years, based upon the importance attached to the Sumerian quirky numerical system’s ‘royal number’, the Sar (5).  Perhaps he would have been better off opting for the šar’u – 36,000 or 10 Sars in Old Babylonian (6).  This would have corresponded more closely to the proposed Planet Nine orbital period.

wise_telescope

An artist’s impression of WISE

In my analysis of Sitchin’s work on Nibiru, I concluded that the perihelion constellation was Sagittarius and the aphelion position close to Orion (7).  I appear to have got the exact same axis as the Caltech team, but 180 degrees in reverse.  This may yet prove accurate, though, because the work they have published is based upon the assumption (which they strongly argue for (8)) that the clustered orbits of the six extended scattered disk objects should be anti-aligned with respect to Planet Nine.  If they are aligned, on the other hand, then the aphelion/perihelion positions are exactly opposite of the Caltech positions.  In that case, I’d be right, with perihelion in Sagittarius.  We’ll see.

The Caltech team are keen for astronomers everywhere to get involved in the hunt, and have helpfully outlined the regions which have not yet been thoroughly examined by various sky searches in the past:

“The Catalina [the blue zone in their diagram, opposite] , PanSTARRS transient [yellow zone] & moving object [red zone] surveys do a great job of ruling out much of the sky. They generally miss the galactic plane, but that is mostly filled in by WISE [green zone], at least at closest approach. Though we can’t be 100% sure yet.  The biggest unexplored territory is where, statistically, it is most likely to be: near aphelion. Sadly, aphelion is also very close to the Milky Way galaxy. Ugh. So where is it? Probably distant. 500 AU+. Probably fainter than 22nd magnitude. Very possibly in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy.” (1)

PanStarr

PanSTARRS under construction

But haven’t we already had sightings of a massive Planet X in both Orion, and also in Sagittarius before?  Planet X geeks (of whom I am, of course, a prime example) will remember the controversy surrounding a report in the Washington Post back in 1983.  A public announcement was made that a Jupiter-sized Planet X body had been discovered by the IRAS infra-red sky survey, in Orion (9).  It has become the subject of any number of Planet X conspiracy theories since then.  It seems most likely that the IRAS astronomers instead found either a dense gas cloud in our own Galaxy, or a Ultra-luminous Infrared Galaxy (10).  But what if they had really spotted Planet X, in the position proposed in 2016 by the Caltech scientists?

Similarly, there was a report on a mysterious IRAS object in Sagittarius (11), which created some controversy at the time between factions of the international team working on the IRAS data (12).

It is curious, then, that there should be two published scientific reports back in 1983 about warm objects found in the exact same constellations now marked out as likely positions for a Planet Nine body.  Both of these zones are densely packed with stars due to their proximity to the  Milky Way.  Both have been of interest to Planet X hunters for years due to their association with the proposed orbit of the mythological Sumerian planet Nibiru.  I heard an interview on the BBC news on Sunday with Dr Mike Brown (13), and he roundly dismissed any talk of Nibiru or the Sumerian ‘Epic of Creation’ mythology being connected with his proposed Planet Nine.  Yet, as I have shown in this short article, the similarities between these two theories are really pretty remarkable.

Written by

avatar
Andy Lloyd

26th January 2016

References:

1)  Mike Brown “Where is Planet Nine?” 25th January 2016 http://www.findplanetnine.com/p/blog-page.html with thanks to Barry

2)  “Planet Nine” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

3)  Zecharia Sitchin “Genesis Revisited” p325-8, Avon Books 1990

4)  Caltech Press Release “Caltech Researchers Find Evidence of a Real Ninth Planet” 20th January 2016 https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523

5)  Overview of Metrological Systems http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dccmt/metrology/

6)  Luke Hodgkin “A History of Mathematics: From Mesopotamia to Modernity” Oxford University Press

7)  Andy Lloyd “Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence” Timeless Voyager Press 2005 pp164-8, pp78-83

8)   K. Batygin & M. Brown “Evidence for a Distant Giant Planet in the Solar System” 20th January 2016, The Astronomical Journal, Volume 151, Number 2,http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22

9)  Thomas O’Toole “Possibly as Large as Jupiter; Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered” 30th December 1983 http://planet-x.150m.com/washpost.html

10)  “Bad Astronomy “The IRAS Incident” http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/science.html

11)  M. Redfern & N. Henbest “Has IRAS Found a Tenth Planet?” New Scientist, 10th November 1983

12)  Andy Lloyd “The Secrecy Surrounding the 1983 IRAS Discovery” 18th September 2014 http://www.andylloyd.org/darkstarblog18.htm

13)  BBC News, Radio 4, 1pm, 24th January 2016

Rating

Related Blogs

Leave a Reply