observers
on Earth, then the highly specific data from them pulsar will be altered
slightly. This will allow us to imply the existence of a dark gravity field,
which is what Harrison proposed in Sagittarius. His finding may thus imply the
location of the Dark Star.
Other
interesting ideas emerged from the pen of John Bagby. He wondered whether these
Massive Solar Companions might have a distributed mass of some description;
that a reasonable proportion of the mass of the companion could be found at the
LaGrange points of its orbit, presumably in the form of lesser bodies orbiting in
a similar pattern to his main candidate object. 14 Such an idea might
help to explain anomalies encountered by various space-probes that are on their
way out of the solar system, namely the two Pioneer spacecraft, which appear to
have changed their trajectories over time without a clear causal explanation. 16 They seem to be getting dragged back towards the sun. Could this be something
to do with an extra quantity of distributed mass in the solar system?
Murray and Sagittarius
So,
the location of Sagittarius becomes a more exciting possibility when we look at
the evidence of pulsar period time derivatives. The Dark Star may lie within
this constellation, at a great distance from the sun, causing the gravitational
effects that we have on record as "unexplained anomalies". Is there
other evidence pointing towards this constellation as the keeper of our most
wonderful secret?
In
1999, a tentative position for a Dark Star was proposed by Dr. John Murray, an
academic with the Open University in England with an interest in astronomy. As
we noted in the last chapter, his published scientific paper towards the end of
1999 17 coincided with a similar paper by a group led by Professor
John Matese in Louisiana. 18 But where John Matese was careful not to
indicate where he thought his version of the Dark Star might be located, Dr.
Murray opted for a tiny constellation called Delphinus, next to Aquila. 17
This
location lies in the skies to the north of Sagittarius, within the vast star
fields of the Milky Way. John Murray came to his conclusion based upon his
treatment of comet trajectory data, assuming that a perturbing influence within
the distant outer Oort Cloud of comets was causing them to enter the solar
system in a more orderly manner than predicted. He worked backwards from the
trail of historical comet passages to pinpoint the location of this Perturber,
or Dark Star, which he considered to be several times the mass of Jupiter.
Dr.
Murray’s planet lies too far away for my liking, and we should be aware that
his work has received some criticism among his own peers. 19 Nevertheless,
there are some interesting aspects to his conclusions; the Perturber’s size,
its inclination to the ecliptic and its position, all find parallels with my
own conclusions for the Dark Star, but are based upon very different sets of
evidence.
But
there is a fundamental difference in agreement about the distance of this
object. Murray’s Perturber more closely resembled the proposed ‘Nemesis’ object
at the very edge of the sun’s influence, tens of thousands of astronomical
units away. Nemesis was the name given to a proto-star thought to be circling
the sun some 90,000 AU away, a remarkable distance indeed. It was thought that
such an object circled the sun every 27 million years or so, showering our
planetary zone with a deadly hail of comets during that interval. This proposal
was then neatly presented as an explanation for extinction cycles found on
Earth over similar periods of time. Thus, the name ‘Nemesis’.
Compare
this to my version of the Dark Star orbiting the sun at 500 astronomical units
or more at aphelion, very significantly closer, and smaller! The sub-brown
dwarf proposed by Matese and Murray respectively, lies somewhere in the middle
of these two more extreme possibilities, at about 20-50,000 AU.
There
is no known mechanism to help us
on Earth, then the highly specific data from them pulsar will be altered
slightly. This will allow us to imply the existence of a dark gravity field,
which is what Harrison proposed in Sagittarius. His finding may thus imply the
location of the Dark Star.
Other
interesting ideas emerged from the pen of John Bagby. He wondered whether these
Massive Solar Companions might have a distributed mass of some description;
that a reasonable proportion of the mass of the companion could be found at the
LaGrange points of its orbit, presumably in the form of lesser bodies orbiting in
a similar pattern to his main candidate object. 14 Such an idea might
help to explain anomalies encountered by various space-probes that are on their
way out of the solar system, namely the two Pioneer spacecraft, which appear to
have changed their trajectories over time without a clear causal explanation. 16 They seem to be getting dragged back towards the sun. Could this be something
to do with an extra quantity of distributed mass in the solar system?
Murray and Sagittarius
So,
the location of Sagittarius becomes a more exciting possibility when we look at
the evidence of pulsar period time derivatives. The Dark Star may lie within
this constellation, at a great distance from the sun, causing the gravitational
effects that we have on record as "unexplained anomalies". Is there
other evidence pointing towards this constellation as the keeper of our most
wonderful secret?
In
1999, a tentative position for a Dark Star was proposed by Dr. John Murray, an
academic with the Open University in England with an interest in astronomy. As
we noted in the last chapter, his published scientific paper towards the end of
1999 17 coincided with a similar paper by a group led by Professor
John Matese in Louisiana. 18 But where John Matese was careful not to
indicate where he thought his version of the Dark Star might be located, Dr.
Murray opted for a tiny constellation called Delphinus, next to Aquila. 17
This
location lies in the skies to the north of Sagittarius, within the vast star
fields of the Milky Way. John Murray came to his conclusion based upon his
treatment of comet trajectory data, assuming that a perturbing influence within
the distant outer Oort Cloud of comets was causing them to enter the solar
system in a more orderly manner than predicted. He worked backwards from the
trail of historical comet passages to pinpoint the location of this Perturber,
or Dark Star, which he considered to be several times the mass of Jupiter.
Dr.
Murray’s planet lies too far away for my liking, and we should be aware that
his work has received some criticism among his own peers. 19 Nevertheless,
there are some interesting aspects to his conclusions; the Perturber’s size,
its inclination to the ecliptic and its position, all find parallels with my
own conclusions for the Dark Star, but are based upon very different sets of
evidence.
But
there is a fundamental difference in agreement about the distance of this
object. Murray’s Perturber more closely resembled the proposed ‘Nemesis’ object
at the very edge of the sun’s influence, tens of thousands of astronomical
units away. Nemesis was the name given to a proto-star thought to be circling
the sun some 90,000 AU away, a remarkable distance indeed. It was thought that
such an object circled the sun every 27 million years or so, showering our
planetary zone with a deadly hail of comets during that interval. This proposal
was then neatly presented as an explanation for extinction cycles found on
Earth over similar periods of time. Thus, the name ‘Nemesis’.
Compare
this to my version of the Dark Star orbiting the sun at 500 astronomical units
or more at aphelion, very significantly closer, and smaller! The sub-brown
dwarf proposed by Matese and Murray respectively, lies somewhere in the middle
of these two more extreme possibilities, at about 20-50,000 AU.
There
is no known mechanism to help us
Similar Books
