Does our Solar System include an additional - as yet undiscovered - planet?By Alan F. Alford WWW.ERIDU.CO.UK Author of 'Gods of the New Millennium', 'The Phoenix Solution' and 'When The Gods Came Down'.
INTRODUCTION
Does our solar system contain a tenth planet on an extremely long and elliptical orbit? Does an elusive tenth planet still lurk undiscovered in the distant dark depths of space?
Astronomers are indeed sufficiently certain of such a planet's existence that they have already given it a name - 'Planet X', i.e. the Tenth Planet.[1]
But does this mysterious planet still exist or was it long ago ejected from our solar system or else destroyed?
And what possible connection might there be between Planet X and ancient legends of a god named Marduk or Nibiru?
THE SEARCH FOR PLANET X
In 1978, the theory of Planet X took a giant leap forward when Robert Harrington and Tom Van Flandern from the US Naval Observatory in Washington DC began to study new scientific data on the mass of Pluto and its satellite Charon. With this new data, the two astronomers were able to determine that the orbits of Uranus and Neptune had been disturbed by the gravitational pull of an as yet unidentified celestial body. In short, the two scientists had found new evidence for the old idea of the Tenth Planet.
Harrington and Van Flandern went on to use sophisticated computer modelling to propose that the Tenth Planet, named Planet X, had somehow ejected Pluto and Charon from their previous positions as satellites of Neptune.[2] They proposed that Planet X might have been an 'intruder planet' which had been captured in orbit around the Sun 'in a highly eccentric and inclined solar orbit with a long period'. Harrington and Van Flandern's calculations suggested that Planet X would have been 3-4 times the size of the Earth.[3]
In 1982, NASA themselves officially recognised the possibility of Planet X, with an announcement that 'some kind of mystery object is really there - far beyond the outermost planets'.[4]
One year later, the newly launched IRAS (Infrared Astronomical Satellite) spotted a large mysterious object in the depths of space. The Washington Post summarised an interview with the chief IRAS scientist from JPL, California, as follows:
A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an orbiting telescope... 'All I can tell you is that we don't know what it is', said Gerry Neugebauer, chief IRAS scientist.[5]
Subsequent years saw little new information in the search for Planet X. Scientists, however, continued to carry out mathematical modelling of its characteristics. Their experiments suggested that Planet X was three to four times the size of Earth and had an orbit inclined to the ecliptic by a massive 30 degrees; also that its position was three times farther from the Sun than Pluto.[6]
In 1987, NASA made an official announcement to recognise the possible existence of Planet X. The American journal 'Newsweek' reported that:
NASA held a press conference at its Ames Research Center in California last week to make a rather strange announcement: an eccentric 10th planet may - or may not - be orbiting the Sun. John Anderson, a NASA research scientist who was the principal speaker, has a hunch Planet X is out there, though nowhere near the other nine. If he is right, two of the most intriguing puzzles of space science might be solved: what caused mysterious irregularities in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune during the nineteenth century? And what killed off the dinosaurs 26 million years ago [sic]?[7]
But as the 1980s drew to a close, the scientific journals began to witness a Planet X debunking campaign and now, as we enter the new millennium, few astronomers are willing to admit the possibility that a tenth planet might have existed or might still exist. They prefer to think that the old records of the deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune were somehow incorrect.[8]
MY OWN SEARCH FOR PLANET X
It was in 1989 that I was first made aware of the Planet X theory, thanks to the American author Zecharia Sitchin and his book 'The Twelfth Planet'.[9]
In 'The Twelfth Planet', Sitchin cited the modern search for Planet X in order to provide scientific backing for his interpretation of certain Mesopotamian legends. According to Sitchin's interpretation of these legends, Earth had been visited long ago by a race of extraterrestrial gods known as the Anunnaki, whose home planet had been involved in a catastrophic encounter with the proto-Earth billions of years ago. In Sitchin's opinion, the home planet of these gods was none other than the elusive Planet X which was being sought by modern astronomers.
Intrigued by Sitchin's research, I devoted an entire chapter to Planet X in my 1996 book 'Gods of the New Millennium' and I suggested that the planet was currently at the most distant point (the apogee) in its highly elliptical orbit. The big question was when Planet X would return. It was a question made all the more important by Sitchin's claim that the planet was populated by an intelligent, human-like race of 'gods'.
With hindsight, many of my comments in 'Gods of the New Millennium' (1996) were ill-conceived. More pertinent by far are my remarks in 'The Phoenix Solution' (1998), which benefit substantially from the input of the American astronomer Tom Van Flandern - the man at the heart of the search for Planet X.
IS 'PLANET X' A 'PLANET EX'?
According to Tom Van Flandern, it is entirely possible that Planet X began its career in our solar system as a distant outer planet, which was disturbed from its orbit by the force of a passing dwarf star. This interaction would have caused Planet X to veer into the heart of the solar system, towards a fateful encounter with one of the inner planets.
In his book 'Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets', Van Flandern wrote as follows:
'Statistically, a few passing stars would approach within 40 times Pluto's distance of the Sun over the life of the solar system. They would tend to perturb the outermost planets... into planet-crossing orbits. Eventually the crossings would result in close encounters between planets.'[10]
According to Van Flandern, this perturbation process was not only feasible but inevitable, given the existence of planets in such distant orbits.
Van Flandern noted, however, that once Planet X had been forced inwards, it would suffer repeated encounters with the other planets, eventually leading to its ejection from the solar system.[11] Van Flandern confirmed that such a planet-crossing orbit was highly unstable and unlikely to last for more than 100,000 years, mainly due to the powerful influence of Jupiter, by far the largest planet of the solar system:
If Planet X crosses Jupiter's orbit, it is a goner, either by collision with Jupiter or ejection from the solar system, within 100,000 years... The encounters with Jupiter are not merely potential, but inevitable, because of forced precession of the orbit by Jupiter... Jupiter's gravity is so strong that it can eliminate another body in a single close approach.[12]
Might it be the case, then, that Planet X is no longer part of our solar system but was long ago ejected into the depths of space?
But there is yet a further twist to the Planet X story. In his 1995 paper 'Origins of Trans-Neptunian Asteroids', Van Flandern reacted to the recent discovery of a new asteroid belt lying deep in space beyond the planet Neptune by suggesting that Planet X might have exploded - the asteroids being its fragments.[13]
Four years later, in the September 1999 edition of 'Meta Research Bulletin', Van Flandern reacted to the discovery of yet more Trans-Neptunian asteroids by issuing the following statement:
'[The discovery of] Three more trans-Neptunian objects confirm the presence of a second asteroid belt in the region beyond Neptune. This probably indicates that the hypothetical Planet X is now an asteroid belt rather than an intact planet.'[14]
Might Planet X now be a 'Planet Ex'?
MARDUK AND PLANET X
In his book 'The Twelfth Planet' (1976), Zecharia Sitchin added a new dimension to the Planet X debate with his contention that ancient astronomers had referred to the intruder planet using the names 'Marduk' and 'Nibiru'.
To deal with Marduk first, Sitchin rested his case upon the ancient Babylonian Epic of Creation known as 'Enuma Elish'. In Sitchin's view, the Epic has Marduk originate from the abyss of space as an intruder planet. This planet Marduk then underwent various encounters with the outer planets of our solar system, followed by a climactic and catastrophic encounter with a planet named Tiamat. According to Sitchin's interpretation of the Enuma Elish, the scarred planet Tiamat was shifted by the impact of Marduk's satellites into a new orbit to become the Earth, acquiring in the process a Moon (named 'Kingu' in the Epic) which was previously the moon of Tiamat. Marduk, meanwhile, sailed off into space to begin a vast elliptical orbit which would bring it back to the site of the celestial battle every 3,600 years.
In 1997, I wrote to Tom Van Flandern in an attempt to correlate Sitchin's theory with what appeared to be a similar myth in the ancient Egyptian texts. But Van Flandern stopped me in my tracks by informing me that Sitchin's interpretation of Enuma Elish was in total discord with the laws of celestial dynamics.
In response to Sitchin's proposal that the Earth had had its orbit changed physically as a result of a collision with another planet in the vicinity of the asteroid belt, Van Flandern pointed out to me that:
A major collision must change the orbit because it changes the momentum of the planet. The new and old orbits must share a common point at the site of the encounter. So a collision cannot take a planet from one circular orbit to another because such orbits have no points in common.[15]
In other words, it was impossible according to the laws of celestial dynamics for Planet X to have shunted Earth from an orbit in the asteroid belt to her present orbit, because the new orbit does not share a common point with an old orbit in the asteroid belt. Van Flandern also commented that:
The least probable orbit to result from a random momentum change [i.e. a collision] is the circular orbit, which in a sense is the most relaxed, least energetic orbit for that distance from the Sun.[16]
Since the Earth's orbit was almost perfectly circular, Van Flandern ruled out any possibility that Earth had suffered a major catastrophic collision. And thus he negated the idea that the Babylonian Epic of Creation, as decoded by Sitchin, was a historical record of events in our solar system.
There is, of course, no law which requires an ancient cosmogony to be scientifically valid.
Nevertheless it is appropriate to reconsider what Enuma Elish actually says about Marduk and Tiamat. Was Tiamat a planet which gave rise to the main asteroid belt? And was Marduk an intruder planet which emerged from the outer region of our solar system?
In my book 'When The Gods Came Down' (2000), I put forward a new interpretation of Enuma Elish which differs significantly from Sitchin's scenario of Marduk as an intruder planet. The following paragraphs summarise my new understanding of the Babylonian Epic.
The opening lines of Enuma Elish describe a sacred marriage between Apsu and Tiamat in the heavens. The waters of Apsu and Tiamat are joined together (line 4), and gods are formed inside their collective body (line 8). These gods are Lahmu, Lahamu, Anshar, Kishar, Anu and Ea. The Epic describes these gods causing a tremendous noise in the heavenly abode and upsetting the belly of Tiamat as they surged back and forth within her. Apsu then decided to destroy these gods, but Ea, catching wind of the plan, made a pre-emptive strike and destroyed Apsu. Tiamat, it would seem, stood idly by while her consort Apsu was vanquished, and hence she became the target for revenge by Marduk - a theme which dominates the remainder of the Epic.
Several further points now need to be made to clarify our understanding of the Epic of Creation.
Firstly, there is no basis whatsoever for supposing that Apsu was the Sun, as Sitchin suggested. In fact, Apsu was a planet, and the first section of Enuma Elish describes how this planet was vanquished and cast down to the Earth by Ea.
Secondly, there is no basis whatsoever for supposing that the gods produced by Apsu were planets of the solar system, as Sitchin suggested. These gods were in fact produced from within Apsu himself (Tablet I, lines 3 & 9 of the Epic); in other words, the planet of Apsu exploded. Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for supposing that Lahmu and Lahamu were Mars and Venus, or that Anshar and Kishar were Saturn and Jupiter, or that Anu and Ea were Uranus and Neptune. These are all false premises.
Thirdly, Marduk did not appear from the cosmic abyss, as Sitchin suggested, but was born in the Earth in the same manner as the Greek Titan-gods. This is evident from lines 73-84 of the Epic, which describe Marduk's mother and father as Damkina and Ea (incidentally, the Assyrian version of the Epic suggests that Marduk's mother and father were Lahmu and Lahamu). But Ea, we are told, resided in a 'sacred chamber', otherwise known as 'the chamber of fates' (lines 75 & 79). Where was this chamber and dwelling place of Ea? We know from line 71 that it was 'established upon the Apsu'. Where was the Apsu? It was the underworld of the Earth, for it had earlier been cast down from Heaven (lines 60-70). In summary, then, Marduk was created in the heart of the holy Apsu (line 82), which was the underworld of the Earth, and he then soared up into the heavens metaphysically to do battle against the planet of Tiamat. (This, incidentally, is the same scheme as found in the legends of ancient Egypt and Greece, and Marduk was described in typically Titan-like terms, with four eyes, four ears, four winds, and fire blazing forth from his lips.).
Fourthly, there is no basis whatsoever for suggesting (as Sitchin did) that Marduk encountered the other planets of the solar system en route to his battle with Tiamat. These other 'planets' (Ea and Anu) were in fact the gods which had emanated from the interior of the exploded planet Apsu.
Fifthly, the battle between Marduk and Tiamat was not a collision between two planetary systems. Yes, Tiamat was a physical planet, but Marduk was a metaphysical avenger-god who rose up from the Earth. The result of the battle was the death of Tiamat - a planetary explosion (and incidentally the second of two planetary explosions which are described in the Epic).
Sixthly, it is incorrect to suggest (as Sitchin did) a break in the battle, pending a future orbital return of Marduk. What the Epic actually says is that 'Valiant Marduk... turned back to Tiamat' (Tablet IV line 128). This could be read in many different ways, but in any event Marduk did not take the form of a physical planet with a conventional orbit.
Seventhly, where ancient texts referred to Marduk as travelling between the locations AN.UR and E.NUN, it must be understood that these were not the perigee and apogee of an orbiting planet . On the contrary, AN.UR was simply the Earth, whilst E.NUN was simply the Deep, i.e. Heaven. By the same token, when Marduk saw 'all the quarters of the universe', this meant that his realm spanned the twin planets of Heaven and Earth, for the Sumerian term for 'universe' was AN.KI, meaning 'Heaven and Earth'. (Virtually all of the activities of the gods in Sumerian legends occurred between these two planets, which were at the heart of the exploded planet mythos.)
In summary, it must be emphasised that Enuma Elish does not refer to the role of an intruder planet and it is entirely incorrect to associate Marduk with the Planet X which has been sought by modern astronomers.
NIBIRU AND PLANET X
So much for Marduk, but what about the Babylonian god Nibiru? Might he be identical to Planet X as Zecharia Sitchin suggested?
In 'The Twelfth Planet', Sitchin presented little or no evidence to support his case that Nibiru was Planet X. Having presented his theory of Marduk as the intruder planet, Sitchin just baldly stated that: 'the Sumerians called the planet [of Marduk] NIBIRU'.[17] He then went on to translate every reference to 'the star' Nibiru as 'the planet' Nibiru.
But was Nibiru really identical to Marduk as Sitchin assumed? In Enuma Elish, following Marduk's battle with Tiamat, we find the first mention of Nibiru in Tablet V line 6, which reads:
Marduk founded the station of Nibiru to determine the heavenly bands.
So, if Marduk founded the station of Nibiru, how could Marduk actually be Nibiru?
Mesopotamian texts contain very few references to Nibiru and it is not at all clear what Nibiru actually was. Scholars generally suppose that Nibiru was Jupiter, but this identification is by no means certain. In 'Hamlet's Mill', the writers de Santillana and von Dechend covered the various theories of Nibiru - that it was the planet Jupiter, the star Canopus, or even a comet - but they ended up by concluding that Nibiru was 'an unknown factor'.[18]
Who or what, then, was Nibiru? The best description appears in Tablet VII of the Enuma Elish, where Nibiru was listed as the forty-ninth of Marduk's fifty names:
Nibiru shall hold the crossings of Heaven and Earth,So that the gods cannot cross above and below; they must wait upon him.
Nibiru is the star which is brilliant in the skies.Verily he holds the central position; they shall bow down to him.Saying: "He who restlessly crosses the midst of the Sea,Let Crossing be his name, he who controls its midst...May he shepherd all the gods like sheep.May he vanquish Tiamat...
Because he created the spaces and fashioned the firm ground,Father Enlil called his [Nibiru's] name 'Lord of the Lands'."[19]
On the one hand, the reference to vanquishing Tiamat suggests that Nibiru was Marduk after all. This would imply that Nibiru, like Marduk, was a mythical Titan-like god, born in the Earth, who crossed metaphysically over the celestial 'Sea' between Earth and Heaven. But ancient mythology just aint this simple, because gods often borrowed some of their attributes from other gods.
What kind of celestial body can 'cross the midst of the (celestial) Sea'? There are two possibilities, a planet or a comet, and both could be described as 'a brilliant star'. But how was it that either of these bodies managed to 'vanquish Tiamat' and 'fashion the firm ground', thus warranting the title 'Lord of the Lands'?
The answer, I suggest, is that Nibiru was not any planet or comet that is known to us today but a manifestation of the exploded planet, which was at the heart of all religions in the ancient Near East. According to the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians, the exploded planet (God) had laid the foundations of the Earth at the beginning of time. It would thus follow that Nibiru 'controlled the crossings' in the same way that the Sumerian god Utu controlled the crossings between Heaven and Earth.
Nibiru, then, would have been an invisible, metaphysical, ghost-like god. And, like all exploded planet gods, the invisible Nibiru would have been worshipped in the form of visible symbols . This would explain why Mesopotamian texts often referred to Nibiru in the manner of a visible star or a comet as, for example, in the following passage:
The great star:At his appearance, dark red.The Heaven he divides in two,And stands as Nibiru.[20]
This reference to Nibiru dividing the Heaven in two echoes the Enuma Elish where Marduk attacked Tiamat and 'split her like a shellfish into two parts'.[21] Furthermore, the imagery of Nibiru standing between the two halves of the divided planet echoes the cylinder seal depictions (1) of Marduk standing in the midst of Tiamat and (2) Utu - the fiery god of the exploded planet - emerging from his twin-peaked mountain in the eastern Sky.
The exploded planet hypothesis also explains why Marduk/Nibiru was said to have a weapon called 'Deluge' and 'Flooding Storm', for it was a common belief that the exploded planet had unleashed a huge flood of waters which fell to the Earth. Consider, for example, the following passage which refers to Marduk by various names including SHILIG.LU.DIG, SHUL.PA.KUN.E and, ultimately, Nibiru:
His weapon is the deluge...Supreme, Supreme, Anointed . . .Who like the Sun crosses the [two] lands...He who split the occupier [Tiamat] in two, poured her out,Lord who at Akiti time within Tiamat's battle place reposes,He whose seed are the sons of Babylon...He who shall create by his glow...Hero Supervising Lord, Who collects together the waters,Who with gushing waters,Cleanses the righteous and the wicked.He who in the twin-peaked mountain,Arrested the . . . When the savant shall call out 'Flooding',It is the god Nibiru,It is the Hero, the god with four heads.The god whose weapon is the Flooding Storm shall turn back;To his resting place he shall lower himself.[22]
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, it is my view that neither Marduk nor Nibiru was a planet akin to the hypothetical intruder planet known as Planet X.
Marduk, for his part, was a Titan-god, born of the Earth, who ascended to the heavens metaphysically in order to vanquish Tiamat. Admittedly he was then elevated to the status of a planetary hero, but there is nothing in the Mesopotamian texts to suggest that this conquering planet came forth like an intruder planet from the outer realms of our solar system. Unfortunately the various Mesopotamian texts which deal with 'the battle of the gods' are very vague concerning the origin of the two combatants in the original physical battle of the planets.
Nibiru, for his part, appears to be very similar to the Sumerian god Utu (alias the Akkadian god Shamash). In other words, he was a god of the exploded planet, but only in the sense of personifying the physical explosion and the subsequent metaphysical resurrection of the planet. Hence Nibiru, like Utu, controlled the crossings between Heaven and Earth.
Both Marduk and Nibiru, then, personified - each in their own way - key aspects of the Babylonian exploded planet cult. They were not, I repeat not, physical intruder planets.[23] Hence there is not a single ancient text which speaks of the gods coming down to Earth 'from Nibiru' or 'from Marduk'.
As for the real Planet X, there are scientific clues to suggest that it did once exist, although it is unlikely to still be attached to our solar system. Furthermore, there is every possibility that Planet X has been discovered - not as an intact planet but rather in the form of the asteroids of an exploded planet, which now circulate in the mysterious depths of trans-Neptunian space.
References
[1] For a history of the early search, see C. Tombaugh, 'Plates, Pluto and Planet X' in 'Sky Telescope' (USA), 81:4 (1991), p. 360-1. The name Planet X was first suggested by Lowell in 'Memoir on a Trans-Neptunian Planet', Mem. Lowell Observatory, 1915.
[2] Harrington R. & Van Flandern T., 'The satellites of Neptune and the origin of Pluto' in 'Icarus' 39 (1979), pp. 131-6. See also Van Flandern T., 'Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets', North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, 1993, pp. 305-14 & 416.
[3] Van Flandern T., Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets', op. cit., p. 312.
[4] NASA Press Release, Ames Research Centre, 17th June, 1982.
[5] 'The Washington Post', 30th December 1983.
[6] Harrington R. in 'The Astronomical Journal', October 1988; see also Notes of the American Astronomical Society meeting, Arlington, Virginia, 16th January 1990.
[7] 'Newsweek', 13th July 1987, p. 45.
[8] See Alford A.F., 'Gods of the New Millennium', Eridu Books, 1996, pp. 160-61.
[9] Sitchin Z., 'The Twelfth Planet', Avon Books, 1976.
[10] Van Flandern T., 'Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets', op. cit., p. 313; also pp. 335-36.
[11] Van Flandern T., 'Dark Matter, Missing Planets & New Comets', op. cit., p. 313.
[12] Van Flandern T., personal email correspondences with Alan Alford, 1 January 1998 and 4 January 1998.
[13] Van Flandern T., 'Origins of Trans-Neptunian Asteroids', in 'Meta Research Bulletin' 4:3 (September 1995), pp. 42-6.
[14] Van Flandern T., in 'Meta Research Bulletin' 4:3 (September 1999), p. 48.
[15] Van Flandern T., personal email correspondences with Alan Alford, 21 November 1997.
[16] Van Flandern T., personal email correspondences with Alan Alford, 21 November 1997.
[17] Sitchin Z., 'The Twelfth Planet', op. cit, chapter 8, p. 237.
[18] De Santillana G. & Von Dechend H.,'Hamlet's Mill', David R. Godine, 1969, pp. 431-37.
[19] Pritchard J.B., ed., 'ANET' ('Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament'), Princeton University Press, 3rd edition, 1969, p. 72.
[20] Sitchin Z., 'The Twelfth Planet', op. cit, chapter 8, p. 242.
[21] Pritchard J.B., ed., 'ANET', op. cit., p. 67.
[22] Sitchin Z., 'The Twelfth Planet', op. cit, chapter 14, pp. 405-7.
[23] A better case can be made for the Egyptian god Seth being an intruder planet; see Alford A.F., 'The Phoenix Solution', Hodder & Stoughton, 1998
