Re: Planet X: Planets LEAN Toward Orion

In Article <9d6l1m$63c$1@zot.isi.edu> Brian Tung wrote:
>  Let's shift phase by 45 degrees and retabulate:
>    0 ..  90 :  1 (Pluto, and perhaps 3/4 of Orion is here)
>   90 .. 180 :  1 (Mars, and the rest of Orion is here)
>  180 .. 270 :  3 (Mercury, Jupiter, and Neptune)
>  270 .. 360 :  4 (Venus, Earth, Saturn, and Uranus)

In Article <H6EJ6.2049$n81.1410287@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> The ones that do "lean" (that is, have the highest
> eccentricity) are the ones that should be given the
> most weight, and surprisingly enough, those happen
> to be Pluto and then Mercury, the two smallest planets!

In Article <3AFA92E2.E736A209@vtt.fi> Mikko Levanto wrote:
> So you say, but the table your link points to says otherwise.
> According to that table seven of the nine orbits point to the
> same half of sky (longitudes 180 .. 360) and five (i.e., more
> than 50%) to the same quarter (longitudes 225 .. 315).

I must appologize to sci.astro for reporting that all the planets lean
toward Orion, as apparently they do not.  This was based on a report
someone gave me, who checked with an online Simulator
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Solar) in early 2000 and found
all the planets leaning toward Orion.  Didn't all the planets recently
line up, in their orbits, in 2000, such that they would all be more or
less in a line from the Sun?  Perhaps it is that they all PERTURB in the
direction of Orion, if anywhere in particular, but here I'm
speculating.  I was checking my Britanica on magnetism recently as well
as my pathetic and outdated 1991 book called The Solar System, a
Practical Guide, and note the following.

- The Earth and Mercury have magnetic fields, though most planets do not
- Mercury leans AWAY from Orion
- Pluto, the outermost, leans TOWARD Orion
- Mercury and Pluto both have the highest ecliptic inclination, in opposite directions.

Who knows what that means (surely not I).  Perhaps more than gravity is
afoot, here, and magnetism plays a part.  Here's an interesting quote on
what the crust of the Earth tells us about our own magnetic field
disturbances.  Where the geologists don't have an explanation for the
Steens Mountain phenomena, a pole shift with a shifting crust (per
Hapgood's theory), and a swirling magnetic core during this time (per
ZetaTalk), would account for the data.

Almost Inconceivable Changes in the Geomagnetic Field,
Science Frontiers #101 Sep-Oct 1995.

    A decade ago, a trio of geophysicists published a group of
    papers based on their measurements of the remnant
    magnetism of the 16-million-year-old layered lava flows
    at Steens Mountain, Oregon. (SF#45) At that time, they
    claimed that these finely bedded lava flows testified that,
    during a field reversal, the earth's field swung around at
    the astonishing rate of 3° per day! This rate is about one
    thousand times the current rate of polar drift. Mainstream
    geophysicists could not believe the 3°/day figure because
     it implied incredibly rapid changes in the flow of those
    molten materials within the earth that supposedly
    generate the geomagnetic field. The Steens Mountain data
    were "tabled"; that is, dismissed.

    The three researchers, though, continued their labors at
    Steens Mountain and have now offered additional, even
    more impressive data. They now find that the geomagnetic
    field probably shifted as much as 6° in a single day. Their
    work has been carried forward so professionally and
    meticulously that other scientists are finding their
    conclusions harder and harder to dismiss. Instead, the
    search is on for explanations of the rapid field changes.
    Three possibilities have been advanced - all of them
    unpalatable to geophysicists:

        - The Steens Mountain rocks are not faithful recorders
          of the main geomagnetic field. Should this be actually
          so, the whole field of paleomagnetism, including plate
          tectonics, is undermined, for it depends upon similar
          measurements.
        - The earth's molten core can change rapidly, at least
          in some regions, in response to forces still unrecognized.
          This, of course, is not really a satisfying "explanation."
        - The dynamo theory of the origin of the geomagnetic
          field is incorrect.