Since this was the first thread where the recent anomalies were reported, i decided to post the following update here which I also posted elsewhere,
but I don't want this information to get lost.
There is a large gravitational field from some unknown object, not our Sun, in our Solar System, that is causing many anomalies within the Solar
System, but even scientists who are investigating this can't find the source of this gravitational field.
One of the scientists investigating what is causing all the recently discovered anomalies in our Solar System is Prof. Lorenzo Iorio.
Sometime back in 2009 I discovered some of the research done by Prof. Lorenzo Iorio, and I posted this information in the following
. It started as a thread about "Ultracool subdwarf stars", but as I kept
researching I found the research which stated that three different group of scientists reported that recent secular increase in AU between our Sun and
the planets in our Solar System.
Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006
PDF (313 KB) | HTML | References | Articles citing this article
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy
Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three
different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present,
there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual
four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a
multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other
things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a
variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The
recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted
value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.
This is affecting our Moon as well, asteroids, which are arriving days earlier than they are supposed to, and causing other anomalies such as
redirecting the incoming cosmic microwave radiation which is even speculated to be caused by some "unknown gravitational source in our Solar
6 The increase of the Astronomical Unit
6.1 The observation
From the analysis of radiometric measurements of distances between the Earth and the major planets including observations from Martian
orbiters and landers from 1961 to 2003 a secular increase of the Astronomical Unit of approximately 10 m/cy has been reported (36) (see also
the article (37) and the discussion therein).
6.2 Search for explanation
Time–dependent gravitational constant and velocity of light This increase cannot be explained by a time–dependent gravitational constant G because
the ˙ G/G needed is larger than the restrictions obtained from LLR.
It has also been speculated that a time–dependent change in the velocity of light can be responsible for this effect. Indeed, if the speed of light
becomes smaller, than ranging will simulate a drift of distances. However, a inspection of Kepler’s third law
a3 = GM⊙
shows that, if one replaces the distance a by a ranging time a = ct, then effectively the quotient G/c3 appears. Only this combination of the
gravitational constant and the speed of light governs the ratio between the orbit time, in our case the orbit time of the Earth. Consequently, a
time–dependent speed of light is equivalent to a time–dependent gravitational constant. Since the latter has been ruled out to be possibly
responsible for an increase of the Astronomical Unit, also a time–dependent speed of light has to be ruled out.
Cosmic expansion The influence of cosmic expansion by many orders of magnitude too small, see Sec.9.2. Neither the modification of the gravitational
field of the Sun nor the drag of the planetary orbits due to the expansion is big enough to explain this drift.
Clock drift An increase of ranged distances might also be due to a drift of the time scale of the form t → t + αt2 for α > 0. This is of the same
form as the time drift needed to account for the Pioneer anomaly. From Kepler’s third law one may ask which α is suitable in order to simulate the
increase of the Astronomical Unit. One obtains α ≈ 3 · 10−20 s−1 what is astonishing close to the clock drift needed for a clock drift
simulation of the pioneer anomaly, see Eq.(16) and below.
7 The quadrupole and octupule anomaly Recently an anomalous behavior of the low–l contributions to the cosmic microwave background has been
reported. It has been shown that (i) there exists an alignment between the quadrupole and octupole with > 99.87% C.L. , and (ii) that the
quadrupole and octupole are aligned to Solar system ecliptic to > 99% C.L. . No correlation with the galactic plane has been found.
The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational field within the Solar system slightly redirects the
incoming cosmic microwave radiation (in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the cosmological
background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modifications of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more
pronounced for low–l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational field needed for such a redirection and then
to compare that with the observational data of the Solar system and the other observed anomalies.
8.2 Other anomalies?
There is one further observation which status is rather unclear bit which perhaps may fit into the other observations. This is the observation
of the return time of comets: Comets usually come back a few days before they are expected when applying ordinary equations of motion. The
delay usually is assigned to the outgassing of these objects. In fact, the delay is used for an estimate of the strength of this outgassing.
On the other hand, it has been calculated in (44) that the assumption that starting with 20 AU there is an additional acceleration of the
order of the Pioneer anomaly also leads to the effect that comets come back a few days earlier. It is not clear whether this is a serious
indications but a further study of the trajectories of comets certainly is worthwhile.
Then there is other research that I also posted back in 2009, such as the following which adds up the fact that there is some large gravitational
field, probably a failed/dead star, which causes the odd orbit of Sedna.
Evidence Mounts For Companion Star To Our Sun
by Staff Writers
Newport Beach CA (SPX) Apr 25, 2006
The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has found that orbital characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid, Sedna, demonstrate the
possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a
common center of mass.
Once thought to be highly unusual, such systems are now considered to be common in the Milky Way galaxy.
Walter Cruttenden at BRI, Professor Richard Muller at UC Berkeley, Dr. Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana, amongst several others, have
long speculated on the possibility that our sun might have an as yet undiscovered companion. Most of the evidence has been statistical rather than
The recent discovery of Sedna, a small planet like object first detected by Cal Tech astronomer Dr. Michael Brown, provides what could be indirect
physical evidence of a solar companion. Matching the recent findings by Dr. Brown, showing that Sedna moves in a highly unusual elliptical orbit,
Cruttenden has determined that Sedna moves in resonance with previously published orbital data for a hypothetical companion star.
In the May 2006 issue of Discover, Dr. Brown stated: "Sedna shouldnt be there. Theres no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close
enough to be affected by the sun, but it never goes far enough away from the sun to be affected by other stars... Sedna is stuck, frozen in
place; there's no way to move it, basically there's no way to put it there – unless it formed there. But it's in a very elliptical orbit like
that. It simply can't be there. There's no possible way - except it is. So how, then?"
"I'm thinking it was placed there in the earliest history of the solar system. I'm thinking it could have gotten there if there used to be stars a
lot closer than they are now and those stars affected Sedna on the outer part of its orbit and then later on moved away. So I call Sedna a fossil
record of the earliest solar system. Eventually, when other fossil records are found, Sedna will help tell us how the sun formed and the number of
stars that were close to the sun when it formed."
In here you can see the odd orbit of Sedna, and the fact that whatever Sedna is orbiting, is NOT far off into the Oort cloud, like some keep
Not only that, but there is another research, also done by Prof. Lorenzo Ioro where he states that the only explanation for the anomalous secular
increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon would be a trans-Plutonian object, but in his opinion he says it is not possible because it
would put an Earth size object at 30 AU, or a gas giant like Jupiter at 200 AU, which is very close, and we "should" be able to see.
Here is the part of this research where he states this, which another member found.
Within the Newtonian framework, we considered the action of a circular massive ring modeling the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt of Trans-Neptunian Objects, but
it does not induce secular variations of e. In principle, a viable candidate would be a putative trans-Plutonian massive object
(PlanetX/Nemesis/Tyche), recently revamped to accommodate certain features of the architecture of the Kuiper belt and of the distribution of the
comets in the Oort cloud, since it would cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of the eccentricity.Actually, the values for its
mass and distance needed to explain the empirically determined increase of the lunar eccentricity would be highly unrealistic and in contrast with the
most recent viable theoretical scenarios for the existence of such a body. For example, a terrestrial-sized body should be located at
just 30 au, while an object with the mass of Jupiter should be at 200 au.
This would put an Earth size object right on Neptune's orbit which is at around 30 AU. But of course this would be impossible since any amateur
astronomer should be able to see it almost as easy as Neptune can be seen with an amateur telescope.
Now, meanwhile a gas giant at 200 AU should be seen, you would need a telescope with a large aperture. But the thing is, what if it is not just a
simple gas giant? what if it is a failed/dead star within 200-300 AU? or it could be farther away, but still within the Solar System.
So essentially Prof. Lorenzo Iorio is dumping what the facts seem to be pointing out simply because like many other astronomers he puts his
preconcieved conceptions before what the evidence seems to be telling him.