25
Jan

Finally, the astrophysics community is officially looking for a large mass!

 

We published our first paper and book over ten years ago suggesting there had to be something very big out there exerting a gravitational influence on our solar system. Considered a fringe idea at the time, we saw the sheer edge of the Kuiper Belt, the behavior of Pluto and other minor planets (before they were called dwarves), comet paths, the constant revisions and stream of new inputs required to make sense of precession theory, the Pioneer anomalies, etc. all pointing to a large mass tugging on our solar system.

 

Now the race to find it is heating up thanks to the skills of Mike Brown and Konstantin Batygin at Caltech. They examined the orbits of the minor planets and have concluded there must be a 9th planet. Anyone that follows the field knows this team and others have actually been looking for a few years. But because these guys have more credibility than the Spanish astronomers that essentially mentioned similar things in 2014, the news this time made headlines. Hence, the number of scientists looking for the source of gravitational influence has expanded. It didn’t hurt that Mike Brown, famed for killing Pluto, framed the new find as a 9th planet to replace the one he knocked off. That sounds safer and more press worthy than looking for two large masses, which the Spaniards calculated in 2014.

 

Assuming only a large planet type mass could cause the minor planets to display their observed patterns, the search is on for something much bigger than a dwarf. In fact the estimate is that it has to be something equivalent to ten earth masses or more. Another interesting statistic given by Mike and Konstantin is the minor planets pattern we observe has less than a 0.007% chance of being random. And the high end of the assumed periodicity is now within 80% of the periodicity we predicted in 2005.

 

Anyway, let’s cut to the chase. Since many very smart people have been looking for a large “planet” for over a year, and nothing has been found, we predict no planet will be found – other than maybe another dwarf or two. It is not because of a lack of resources or technology but because we do not think a “planet” is the source of the gravitational influence.

 

The best explanation for all the data we have seen is a star. If our system were gravitationally influenced by another star it would explain many of the noted anomalies, including the force on the minor planets, and finally make sense of the precession observable (a 50 arc second p/y change in orientation relative to VLBI sources). All our data suggests the precession observable is only partially caused by local influences, nutation and Chandler wobble, but is largely the simple observable of a solar system curving through space. In other words, the large unknown gravitational influence cannot just be a ten earth mass planet out a couple of hundred AU, only affecting the outer minor planets. Rather it is likely a much larger mass, acting on our whole solar system from a distance. The large planets closest to the sun are strongly affected by the sun’s great mass and display low eccentricity and are all within a few degrees of the planetary plane. In contrast, the distant smaller mass minor planets, less bound to the sun, have their orbits inclined, elongated and fall into multiple resonances with the periodicity of the larger binary orbit.

 

Proving such a hypothesis will only come after enough time and energy has been spent searching for a ninth planet (so it is a good thing!). But when such a planet is not found the search will turn to other ways to explain the large and obvious gravitational effect. This author suggests the whole process could be sped up if the astrophysics community will begin to look at all solar system anomalies, including the strange acceleration of many space probes like Pioneer 10 and 11.

 

My personal expectation is attention will turn to the possibility of a more distant gravitational source within one to five years and this will lead to exploring the effect of our closest large star systems. Finally we will be thinking beyond the bounds of our own solar system!

 

P.S. – Please join us this year for tenth Conference on Precession and Ancient Knowledge to be held at the Westin in Rancho Mirage, California, September 30 – October 2. Visit www.cycleoftheages.org to register.

  • David Morris

    I believe whether you realize it or not you have made a case for the existence of dark matter within the outer boundaries of our solar system. The idea that outside stellar gravitational forces are influencing the “wobble” of the minor planets and planetoids. I believe will not hold water. There is an obvious force yet undetermined that is more local in nature that is causing the unexplained acceleration of our spacecraft. A “outside” stellar influence would have to be many times stronger than is indicated and would effect the inner planets to a greater degree and there is no evidence of that at least not yet.

    • ALEXANDER KOVALYOV

      ‘I believe…’ you missed the whole gist of this information – do review the rest of this site…
      Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Oort Cloud… all these half-baked ideas, that have no basis in reality, are great for getting grants for the ‘scientists’ involved, yet the phenomenon of precession is still, scientifically, unexplained…
      Wake the heck up!!!

  • John Rinehold

    What about plasma as an additional influence? I read “The Electric Sky” some years back and according to that author, the plasma moving from star to star is what binds our galaxy and not gravitation. But then, I did all my graduate work in Horticulture and took only freshman physics back in the ’60s

  • Indranil Banik

    As a PhD student in astronomy at Saint Andrews working on the controversial gravity theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), I have read with great interest about the binary precession theory. If I understood this correctly, the precession of the equinoxes is hypothesised to arise from rotation of the Earth around another star as well as around the Sun. This leads to a similar effect as the familiar difference between the 29.5 day cycle of lunar phases and its shorter orbit around the Earth.

    In the binary precession model, it is stated that there is very little actual wobble of the Earth’s spin axis. Thus, most of the 50″ (arc seconds) per year seem to come from the binary motion. In this case, a logical prediction of the model is a very similar effect being observed on Mars. After all, it has no large moon so its axis should not wobble much. Nonetheless, a similar precession of the equinoxes effect should be observed. This would show up given that we have spacecraft at Mars.

    I looked into this and wish to highlight section 3.3 of the following article:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103506000297

    This demonstrates that the precession on Mars is much less than the 50″ or 50000 mas per year on Earth. See also:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_on_Mars#Long-term_variations

    Therefore, I am led to the conclusion that the binary precession model is incorrect and the axis of the Earth does actually rotate with respect to inertial space.

    Another point to consider is that the conventional lunisolar precession model would cause the equinox to occur at different points around the orbit of the Earth, or equivalently when the Sun was at the same position in the sky relative to the background stars, the season would be very different a few thousand years ago. I wonder if there is any evidence regarding this. From what I gather, the ancient Egyptians did indeed have a different pole star to the current Polaris, which supports the lunisolar precession model.

    • Richard Pettigrew

      I see no evidence that conclusively shows the changing pole star is due to lunisolar theory. I followed your point relating to mars, however that requires more data to arrive at a more than speculative data set.

      My main point is that your argument is based on circular reasoning with respect to the changing pole star. Ie. You assume lunisolar cause and therefore state that it is the cause while overlooking the direct evidence to the contrary to be found in the articles and papers presented on this site by the BRI.

      Do they teach you logic at St. Andrews uni? Is that the one in Scotland?

      I hold no formal qualification in astronomy, astrophysics or mathematics, but I do understand a well structured, well thought out logical case/ hypothesis that the BRI present, with good evidence to support.

      May I recommend you open your mind!

      • Hippi Kinged

        He is right, these effects should be observable on Mars and research in this direction would give the math to prove or disprove the theory. Richard man, whats with the emotional insults…His suggestions can only help us find the truth. Its what we are trying for isn’t it or are we trying to create a myth to satisfy our subjective mythos?

        • Richard Pettigrew

          Why is he right?
          Please explain why you call this an emotional insult? What is this insult?
          Please explain why I may be wrong, i’m willing to listen and consider any point of view.

    • Richard Pettigrew

      Hi. How are you getting on with your hypothesis?

      May I take moment to point out that this

      “If I understood this correctly, the precession of the equinoxes is hypothesised to arise from rotation of the Earth around another star as well as around the Sun.”

      is factually wrong.

      IF you had understood the Binary Hypothesis then you would know that it is our entire Solar System which is in orbit with another body.

      Thus, just as the moon revolves around the Earth, together they revolve around our star, the Sun orbits with another mass too. Not just around the Galactic Center.