Planet X
A tenth planet of the solar system has been hypothesized several times to explain various otherwise inexplicable anomalies and perturbations.
Since childhood, we have learned that there are nine planets in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, etc. However, recently, the possibility of the existence of a tenth planet has been put forward by some scholars.
The hypothetical planet should have a mass 2 to 5 times that of Earth and be located 50 to 100 astronomical units from the Sun. So far, no celestial body has been found beyond the orbit of Pluto; moreover, it has been shown that the perturbations could partly stem from calculation errors or margins of instrument imprecision. But with the many surprises the solar system presents, one never knows.
A new planet in the Solar System is located between Neptune and Pluto
2000 WR106 is the name of the latest addition to the list of celestial bodies in the solar system: a "minor planet" observed for three consecutive days by astronomers at the University of Arizona. Using the telescope provided by the Spacewatch project, scientists located the planet between the orbits of Neptune and Pluto, 6.5 billion kilometers from the Sun (approximately forty-three times the distance from Earth to the star).
After Pluto, 2000 WR106 is the brightest object in that particular region of the solar system. Although its diameter could not be measured with certainty, belonging to the class of minor planets numbering 346, its size is estimated to be between 650 and 1300 kilometers, roughly half the diameter of Pluto.
In Arizona, astronomers will continue to observe 2000 WR106 to calculate its orbit and physical properties. Through data on the electromagnetic spectrum, they aim to determine its chemical composition.
MAN AND THE UNIVERSE
Today we know that we are just one planet among many in the universe, yet we perceive this with an international consciousness unlike ever before: all people on Earth feel "small" in the universe, and this global awareness makes us feel "big," making the universe feel "close" despite its immensity. The fate of humanity on Earth seems to have become singular, prompting us to wonder what became of previous generations. We increasingly realize that nothing can be lost in the universe. The more we become aware that we are part of a greater whole that towers over us, the more we desire to remain united and compact. The more we discover ourselves on the periphery (and no longer at the center), the more we think we are not alone. The more we consider ourselves the final product of nature and the universe itself, the less we can resign ourselves to the idea of not being able to directly compare ourselves with the generations that preceded us.
Earth is the third planet from the Sun, at a distance of 8 light minutes (150 million km). The first living beings appeared approximately two and a half billion years ago (humans around two million years ago). The Sun is a yellow dwarf star. Earth orbits the Sun at 30 km per second; a complete orbit takes 365 days. The solar system is part of the Milky Way Galaxy (with over 100 billion stars). It is 30,000 light-years from the central nucleus of the Galaxy, around which the solar system has completed about twenty revolutions (one every 200/220 million years, at a speed of 300 km per second). Currently, we are in the Orion Arm of the Milky Way. Our galaxy is one among many (in our local group, Andromeda and the Milky Way dominate, spanning a radius of about 3 million light-years). The universe contains at least 100 billion galaxies that have been drifting apart for approximately 18 billion years: this is evidenced by the oldest stars and the velocity of galaxies from the center, which increases with distance. The Big Bang is believed to have exploded at 500 billion degrees.
LIFE AND DEATH IN THE UNIVERSE
If we assume that everything that has a beginning is also destined to have an end, we must conclude that death is an integral part of the universe's life. However, how can we conclude that, since the universe itself had a beginning, it too is destined to end? Is it possible to believe that death is a law of the universe that does not threaten the survival of the universe itself?
Or should we be led to affirm the opposite, namely that the current configuration of the universe is closely related to the configuration of Earth, so that the fate of the universe and Earth is analogous?
Is it possible to hypothesize that, since Earth is a "final" product of the universe, its evolution is interdependent, closely interconnected, with that of the universe? And therefore, will the death of the current form of our planet coincide with the death of the current form of the universe?
In short: will the inevitable death that awaits the entire universe result in the end of everything or just its transformation?
If being and nothingness were placed on the same level, there would be no true beginning unless one were to consider nothingness as part of being - but then the two principles would not be equivalent.
That nothingness is part of being is a law of the universe; there is no "pure being" that does not know the law of the transformation of matter. However, it must be asserted that being has an ontological priority over nothingness, in the sense that there is no "nothing" capable of destroying being. Being has a primacy that prevents death from being the end of life.
HUMAN AND UNIVERSE
Today we know that we are a planet among many in the universe, yet we perceive this with an international consciousness unlike ever before: all the people on Earth feel "small" in the universe, and this global awareness makes us feel "great," it makes us feel the universe is "close," despite its immensity. The fate of humanity on Earth seems to have become unique, so we cannot help but wonder what happened to previous generations. We are increasingly aware that nothing in the universe can be lost. The more we realize we are part of a whole that overshadows us, the more we desire to remain united and compact. The more we discover ourselves on the periphery (no longer at the center), the more we think we are not alone. The more we think we are the final product of nature and the universe itself, the less we can resign ourselves to the idea of not being able to directly compare ourselves with past generations.
Earth is the third planet from the Sun: 8 light-minutes away (150 million km). The first living beings appeared about two and a half billion years ago (humans about two million years ago). The Sun is a yellow dwarf star. Around the Sun, Earth travels at 30 km per second: one complete orbit takes 365 days. The solar system is part of the Milky Way Galaxy (with more than 100 billion stars). It is 30,000 light-years from the central core of the Galaxy, around which the solar system has completed about twenty orbits or revolutions (one every 200/220 million years, at a speed of 300 km per second). At this moment, we find ourselves in the Orion Arm. Our galaxy is one among many (in our local group, Andromeda and the Sun dominate, extending over a radius of about 3 million light-years). The universe contains at least 100 billion galaxies that are moving away from us at about 18 billion years: the oldest stars indicate this, and the velocity of galaxies from the center, which increases the farther they are.
If we consider that everything that has had a beginning is also destined to have an end, we must conclude that death is an integral part of the life of the universe. However, how can we conclude that, since the universe itself had a beginning, it too is destined to end? Is it possible to believe that death is a law of the universe that does not threaten the survival of the universe itself?
Or should we affirm the opposite, that the current configuration of the universe is closely related to Earth's configuration, so the fate of the universe and Earth is analogous?
Is it possible to hypothesize that, since Earth is a "final" product of the universe, its evolution is interdependent, closely interconnected, with that of the universe? And therefore, will the death of the current form of our planet coincide with the death of the current form of the universe?
In short: will the inevitable death that awaits the entire universe result in the end of everything or just its transformation?
If being and nothingness were to coincide or be equivalent, the origin of the universe would not be explained, as there would be no sufficient reason (necessary, not the "best possible," as Leibniz said) to explain its birth. If, instead, nothingness is part of being, it is so only in the sense that death aims at the conservation or transformation of being.
But if death has this purpose, it cannot have the characteristic of eternal permanence (invariance). Death must be considered a transitory process, a temporal phenomenon, internal to a dimension whose boundaries currently elude us (indeed, we still do not know the exact moment when the current configuration of the universe was born, nor can we predict its end).
Practically, the current existence of life on planet Earth renders the death of the individuals who have inhabited it so far irrelevant. As long as the formal, extrinsic condition persists, allowing humans to reproduce or evolve, the death of the individual has no absolute value, not even for those who have experienced it, because as long as Earth remains alive, the meaning of the death of the individual cannot be separated from the meaning of our planet or humanity as a whole. The death of individuals does not affect the evolution of humanity.
A death could be considered absolute, from all points of view, if the formal conditions for survival, that is, reproduction, were definitively destroyed. Can humans do this within the Earth? Would the laws of the universe allow it? Is it possible to demonstrate independence from these laws by self-destruction? Isn't this a contradiction in terms?
In any case, as long as the conditions for survival remain unchanged, the death of every single human being can only be considered a prefiguration of the future death of planet Earth and the current universe. The substantial difference lies in the fact that the death of the individual human being can never have the absolute character that the death of our planet and the current universe can have.
As long as only individuals die, we will be forced to think that the meaning of their lives (and therefore their death) fits into the broader meaning of the universe and its final product: Earth. In the sense that the death of the individual human being is part of the overall, global destiny of Earth and, consequently, that of the current universe.
The universe seems to have a plan for Earth, that of bringing it to destruction (which implies transformation and not annihilation). The realization of this plan, however, involves a feedback on the current configuration of the universe, in the sense that the universe itself will undergo a corresponding transformation.
Therefore, the death of our planet is part of a fundamentally life-oriented plan. Death, strictly speaking, is only a passage, a transition from one form of life to another, in which nothing from the past is lost. Identity lies in memory as well as in desire.
This means that at the origin of the universe there is being, that is, life, not death. Death is a process of life that helps life to perfect itself. Death is a kind of transformation of matter that makes matter more complex, more perfect.
Today, we are aware of the great complexity of things. This means that the experience of the death of individuals does not prevent us from understanding ever better the complexity or the true essence of things.
Practically, the human race never dies as a race. It progresses infinitely, in forms and ways that we cannot currently know. Humanity could progress so much, it could develop such a great consciousness that it would perceive the boundaries of the current universe as too narrow, too restrictive.
It's likely, in this respect, that the purpose of the universe is to make humanity aware of its own infinity. Therefore, there is a teleology in the universe that we can only understand from the human perspective. Microcosm and macrocosm are equivalent.
We must not forget that the closer we come to understanding this teleology, the more we perceive the universe as too small for our consciousness. There is therefore a responsibility from which we cannot escape: humanity has the task of evolving towards self-awareness. Perhaps here lies the meaning of the irreversibility of time.
Scientists say that comets are the spermatozoa of the Universe... So, what is Earth then: a fertilized egg?
And humans? The fetus inside the womb of the Universe? And to whom do these spermatozoa belong?
Were the ancients right when they spoke of the "logos spermatikos"?
Is the "Big Bang" another way of saying that at the beginning of everything there was a relationship of sex and love?
Do we have to leave the womb of the universe to know who this "logos spermatikos" is, or can we know it right now?
Will we remain in the womb of the Universe until we feel it is too tight?
What does it mean that "All creation suffers the pains of childbirth"?
Is the universe expanding because the human fetus is growing?
And will it contract when the human fetus is about to be born?
But is it possible that the Universe is so closely linked to the human fetus?
Is our destiny the destiny of the Universe?
"What do you do, Moon in the sky, tell me what you do?"
A new planet in the solar system?
It is known that the discovery of Pluto (by C. Tombaugh in 1930) was not made optically, based on direct observation of the celestial vault, but rather mathematically derived from the orbital perturbations of Uranus and Neptune. Only later was this discovery confirmed using a telescope.
During 1972, while examining the trajectory of Halley's Comet, J. Brady of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California discovered that its orbit, along with those of Uranus and Neptune, was "disturbed." His calculations led him to hypothesize the existence of a "Planet X" at a distance of 64 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun (compared to Pluto's 39 AU), with an orbital period of 1800 Earth years. Brady, like other astronomers studying Planet X, presumed it orbited the Sun similarly to other planets, quantifying its distance from the Sun as half its major axis. This was in line with Kepler's Second Law ("The areas swept out by the radius vector are proportional to the times taken to sweep them"), meaning a planet moves slower the farther it is from the Sun. For instance, Mercury, which completes its orbit in just under three months, moves much faster than Pluto, which takes over 247 years.
However, according to Sumerian accounts, Nibiru orbits like a comet around the Sun, with its extremely elongated ellipse making its distance from the Sun equal to its entire major axis, not just half. It's curious that Brady's calculated orbit for Planet X (1800 years) exactly halves the 3600-year orbit attributed to Nibiru by the Sumerians. According to Z. Sitchin's theories in "Genesis Revisited" (1990), Nibiru's orbit trajectory at this time would be returning towards perigee, which could explain this strange coincidence.
Brady also concluded, in alignment with Sumerian traditions, that Planet X would have a retrograde orbit like Pluto, with a highly inclined plane compared to the ecliptic.
Initially, astronomers wondered if Pluto could be responsible for the perturbations in Uranus and Neptune's orbits, given its considerable orbital eccentricity that allows it to periodically cross Neptune's orbit (such a situation occurred from 1979 to 1999). These doubts vanished in June 1978 when W. Christie of the U.S. Naval Observatory discovered that Pluto, besides having a satellite (Charon), was much smaller than previously thought (less than 2/3 the size of the Moon) and therefore lacked the gravitational influence to cause significant effects.
The compilation of all these data strengthened the indication that a single "foreign force" – the Sumerian "planet of crossing" – had tilted Uranus, shifted and tilted Pluto, and imparted a retrograde orbit to Triton, Neptune's satellite.
Intrigued by these findings, two colleagues of W. Christie at the Naval Observatory (R.S. Harrington and T.C. Van Flandern) conducted extensive computer simulations, concluding that all these orbital anomalies were likely caused by an "intruder," a planet (2 to 5 times the size of Earth) with an inclined orbital plane and a semi-major axis "less than 100 AU."
The passage of the "IRAS Project" in 1983 represented a crucial point in the search for a possible "tenth planet" or celestial body beyond Pluto in the solar system. This space satellite, equipped with a highly sensitive infrared telescope, was launched to map the sky in search of celestial objects that might evade direct optical observation.
On January 25, 1983, the IRAS satellite was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California with the aim of exploring the solar system by detecting infrared emissions, particularly useful for identifying cold celestial bodies such as brown dwarfs or large distant planets. The satellite operated using a cryostat containing superfluid helium, essential for maintaining the telescope and detectors at the necessary temperature to detect heat emitted by celestial bodies.
During its approximately ten months of operational activity, IRAS managed to capture and transmit over 600,000 images to the control center, revolutionizing our understanding of the infrared sky. Among its most significant discoveries, IRAS identified about 250,000 celestial sources, 99% of which had never been observed before, including young stars, forming planetary systems, new comets, asteroids, and other moving objects.
This space mission significantly contributed to the scientific debate on the existence of an undiscovered planet in the outer solar system. Before the launch of IRAS, the scientific community had begun hypothesizing the existence of a large planet beyond Pluto based on orbital anomalies of other planetary orbits and comets. IRAS's discoveries supported these theories, providing further indirect evidence that a large object could exist in the outer solar system, influencing the orbits of space probes and comets.
Robert Reynolds of the Ames Research Center, anticipating IRAS's findings, made a statement to the New York Times on January 30, 1983, suggesting that astronomers were so confident in the existence of the "tenth planet" that it only lacked a name. This idea was supported by Zecharia Sitchin, who proposed the name "Nibiru" or "Marduk," as used by the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians to describe a distant planet with a long orbital period.
Subsequently, in the 1990s, John Murray of the Open University in the UK and John Matese of the University of Louisiana announced new evidence of a large invisible object in the outer solar system, which could be responsible for deviations in comet orbits and for slowing down spacecraft leaving the solar system.
In summary, the "IRAS Project" was fundamental in gathering crucial infrared data that contributed to our understanding of the solar system's boundaries and fueled scientific speculation about the existence of a distant and as yet undiscovered planet.
Let's go back to 1983. Towards the end of that year, in the absence of official announcements, a leak managed to emerge during an interview granted by the leading scientists of the IRAS project to the scientific section of the "Washington Post". The news was picked up by several U.S. newspapers, which headlined it as "Giant object puzzles astronomers", "Mysterious body found in space", "At the limits of the solar system a mysterious giant object", "A celestial body poses a cosmic puzzle to astronomers". Pressed for details, G. Neugebauer, Director of IRAS, stated: "All I can say is that we don't know what it is." Subsequently, NASA also issued an official report: "The mysterious body detected by IRAS is located 'only' 80 billion kilometers from the Sun and may be approaching Earth. It has been observed twice by the infrared telescope (six months apart), and the data collected shows that during this period, although very short in astronomical terms, it has moved slightly in its trajectory. This indicates that it is not a comet, as a comet cannot have a size 5 times that of Earth and, in any case, would have moved more. It is possible, therefore, that it is the tenth planet or planet "X" that astronomers have so far sought in vain."
If planet "X" exists, we are no longer "alone" in this solar system.
Because, if it exists and corresponds to Nibiru, then the Sumerians were telling the truth even when they spoke of the Anunnaki (corresponding to the biblical Nephilim), that is, "those who came down from heaven to earth."
The implications of this reality, if confirmed, would be so shocking as to instantly undermine that dogma, so cherished by the Enlightenment, which responds to the definition of "anthropocentrism."
