The Sun-like Stars: ζ1 Reticuli and ζ2 Reticuli
(ζ1 = Zeta 1 and ζ2 = Zeta 2)
By Steve Pearse
“In my opinion, Zeta 1 Reticuli and Zeta
2 Reticuli simply do not have the required distance from each other
to be the two large stars on Betty Hill’s map, using either the 1969
data or the Hipparcos data.
The 3D models I have constructed over
the years bear this out.”
-- Charles A. Huffer
For years I
believed that Marjorie Fish’s Zeta Reticuli theory was right, and
the ETs responsible for abducting the Hills and many other people
since that time, really did come from Zeta Reticuli. However, when
better information presented itself and I had time to thoroughly
investigate
In the Zeta Reticuli interpretation,
the two large nickel sized stars that are depicted in the Fish star
map drawn by Betty Hill are identified as the “base stars,” and home
of the “Greys” according to Marjorie Fish. The lower of the two
nickel sized stars is Gl 138 (Zeta 2), which is further identified as
their actual home world. When the book Captured! came out in
2007 the authors Stanton T. Friedman and Kathy Marden missed the
opportunity to update the UFO Community about the current status of
these stars that Fish had originally identified as being part of her
star map interpretation. To correct this situation, both Charles A.
Huffer and I -- independent of each other -- re-investigated
them to see if they have lived up to their billing as still being
sufficiently sun-like with habitable planets like our own star Sol.
In the Zeta Reticuli theory, everything is based upon Zeta Reticuli
being identified as the two nickel sized stars shown, and the start
point of her controversial Zeta Reticuli interpretation.
One of the more famous quotes comes from Stanton Friedman who was
quoted saying:
“All fifteen of the stars on the Hill sketch were identified by Miss
Fish, and all of them are the kind of stars that are likely to have
habitable planets...The chances that the Fish map would grab fifteen
and come up with the right kind are, well...astronomical...Every
one of the stars on the map are the right kind of stars, and all the
right kind of stars in the neighborhood are part of the map.”
Today we must ask the hard
question of whether or not this is still true.
Stanton Friedman is also quoted saying:
“It turns out every one of the
dozen stars that are linked by lines on the map, are of the sort we
would expect to have planets for a variety of physical and
astronomical reasons. Out of the 200 star systems within roughly 40
light years of the Earth, only these twelve are suitable for
Earth-type planets.”
Today it’s this very same argument: For a variety of physical and
astronomical reasons, the Zeta Reticuli interpretation can no longer
be believed. The truth is that a lot of them are quite unlike
our sun in a vital way, so that in the end, it precludes them from
having habitable planets. This is based upon current scientific
information available today.
“The crucial part of Marjorie Fish’s
work,” Friedman said, “was the identification of the stars on
Betty’s map. The base stars were Zeta One and Zeta Two Reticuli.
That’s the constellation of Reticulum, which means ‘The Net’ in
Latin. All the stars connected with lines are sun-like stars, even
though only five percent of the stars in the local neighborhood are
sun-like stars. And all the sun-like stars in this very well
defined, three-dimensional volume of space are part of the map. So
you’ve got all the right kind and only the right kind.”
“Now, by sun-like,” he continued, “I mean not too hot, not too cold,
not too old, not too new, not too close to another star, not varying
in energy output -- a lot of criteria here.” Granted, there are
positive aspects about Zeta Reticuli one must consider in assuming
that planets might have been able to form, but a word of caution
must be given about jumping to conclusions. It would appear that
there was an over-emphasis on some of the more general sun-like
characteristics, and not enough emphasis was placed on the
fundamental role that iron plays in planetary formation.
When referring to Zeta Reticuli, Jeffrey Kretsch said, “the metal
deficiencies is rather disturbing” and ultimately not
paying attention to his admonishment about the noticeable lack of
iron, this should have raised some red flags that were in the end
brushed aside. The star may be 60 percent as enriched as Sol with
elements heavier than hydrogen (metallicity) based on its
abundance of iron per del Peloso, 2000. A more recent estimate by
Gray, 2006 shows that its overall metal abundance (M/H) is -0.35
in comparison to Sol our Sun.
It’s imperative that we take the time
to see if the label of being called “sun-like” is still
viable since it can only be viable when it’s supported by the
facts. The 12 main pattern stars (6 trade and 6 exploration stars)
are still being labeled as the right kind of stars that are likely
to have habitable planets, but the questions now are: Are they
really sufficiently sun-like by today's standards, and are the
binary stars of Zeta Reticuli really sufficiently sun-like to have
habitable planets? The scientific community has never accepted the
Zeta Reticuli theory. It's important that we speak the same language
if we are going to make progress in convincing the scientific
community that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the only valid
explanation worthy of consideration to explain the UFO phenomenon.
The sun is a 4.6 billion year old main sequence star with four inner rocky planets, four large gas giant Jovian planets, and three smaller dwarf planets. The main sequence is a continuous and distinctive band of stars that appear on plots of stellar color versus brightness. These color-magnitude plots are known as the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Stars on this band are known as main-sequence stars or dwarf stars. The main sequence is a continuous and distinctive band of stars that appear on plots of stellar color versus brightness. A star remains near its initial position on the main sequence until a significant amount of hydrogen in the core has been consumed, after which it begins to evolve into a more luminous star. On the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, the evolving star moves up and to the right of the main sequence. Thus the main sequence represents the primary hydrogen-burning stage of a star’s lifetime.
Planets form from the protoplanetary disks of gas and dust that are observed to orbit young stars. This is known as the Nebula Hypothesis, which was advanced by Kant, Laplace, and others in the 18th century. Once formed, planetary orbits may be modified as a result of interactions with the gas disk, or with other planets, stars or small bodies present in the system. Such modification can result in planetary migration. The origin of planets is thought to be a by-product of star formation where a cool diffuse interstellar cloud of gas and dust gravitationally collapses to form a star. Planets and other bodies then form by accretion in a centrifugally supported disk of gas and dust.In promotion of her Zeta Reticuli interpretation of the star map, Marjorie Fish made a series of comments in Astronomy Magazine, which was published in December of 1974:
“We don’t want to waste our time and efforts -- we only want to go to stars that we would think would have a high probability of having planets harboring advanced life forms. This seems like a tall order. How do we even begin to determine which stars might likely have such planets?...The first rule will be to restrict ourselves to life as we know it, the kind of life that we are familiar with here on Earth -- carbon based life...The conclusion we can draw is this: The star has to be like the sun.”
“So far, we have assumed all stars have planets, just as our sun does.” Yet spectroscopic studies of stars of class F4 and brighter reveal that most of them are in fact unlike our sun in a vital way -- they are rapidly rotating stars. The sun rotates once in just under a month, but 60 percent of the stars in the F0 to F4 range rotate much faster. And almost all A stars are rapid rotators too. It seems, from recent studies of stellar evolution that slowly rotating stars like the sun rotate slowly because they have planets. Apparently the formation of a planetary system robs the star of much of its rotational momentum.”
“For two reasons, then, we eliminate stars of class F4 and above: (1) most of them rotate rapidly and thus seem to be planet less, and (2) their stable life spans are too brief for advanced life to develop. Another problem environment for higher forms of life is the multiple star systems. About half of all stars are born in pairs, or small groups of three or more. Our sun could have been part of a double star system. If Jupiter was 80 times more massive it would be an M6 red dwarf star. If the stars of a double system are far enough apart there is no real problem for planets sustaining life (see Planet of the Double Sun, September 1974). But stars in fairly close or highly elliptical orbits would alternately fry or freeze their planets. Such planets would also likely have unstable orbits. Because this is a potentially troublesome area for our objective, we will eliminate all close and moderately close pairs of systems of multiple stars.”
In their day, it was the assumption that all the stars were solar type stars, but this has now been proven to be wrong. The primary problem was the poor observation of the stars in the southern hemisphere. Continuing their dissertation they say, “...further elimination is necessary according to the catalogs. Some otherwise perfect stars are labeled as variable stars.” This means that astronomers have observed variations of at least a few percent in the star’s light output. A one percent fluctuation in the sun would be annoying for us here on Earth. Anything greater would cause climatic disaster. Could intelligent life evolve under such conditions, given an otherwise habitable planet? It seems unlikely. We are forced to scratch all stars suspected or proven to be variable.” Today, we know that some of Marjorie Fish stars are variable, so do we scratch them? One prime example is 107 Piscium, which is variable and binary!
Through this rush to judgment selection process, a giant leap of faith has occurred that assumes all the planets they have selected have planets just like our sun does. This is more than just a tall order, as they draw the conclusion that all stars they selected have planets, i.e., “the star has to be like the sun.” What proof did they have in 1974 and what proof do they have now that this is possible? We don’t have the capability of seeing any of the inner rocky planets in orbit around our neighborhood stars. Marjorie Fish is essentially saying that being labeled “sun-like” is the magic password that allows you to assume they also have a high probability of having planets just like our Sun. Quoting Fish: “...we only want to go to stars that we would think would have a high probability of having planets harboring advanced life forms...” This statement is really saying: “The star has to be like the sun.” Is that in some aspects or all aspects?
Our Sun-like Solar system
Within our solar system, the
terrestrial planets are the closest planets to the Sun. The four
inner terrestrial planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. The
terrestrial planets all have roughly the same structure: a central
metallic core, mostly iron, with a surrounding silicate mantle.
Mercury is the closest planet to the
Sun and has a very high density that indicates it is very rich in
iron, which generates a magnetic field about 1.1% as strong as that
of the Earth. Geologists estimate that Mercury’s core occupies about
42% of its volume. For Earth this proportion is 17%. Mercury's core
has a higher iron content than that of any other major planet in the
Solar System, and its actual mass compared to Earth is 0.055.
Mercury is too small for its gravity to retain any significant
atmosphere over long periods of time; however, it does have a
“tenuous surface-bounded exosphere containing hydrogen, helium,
oxygen, sodium, calcium and potassium.” Mercury’s magnetic field is
strong enough to deflect the solar wind around the planet, creating
a magnetosphere. The planets magnetosphere, though small enough to
fit within the Earth, is strong enough to trap solar wind plasma.
Mercury is too hot, as temperatures rise to a blistering 800° F
during the day and then plummets to -290° F at night.
Earth, the third planet from the sun is the largest terrestrial planet in the solar system, and as a terrestrial planet also ranks in terms of mass, diameter, and density. It is also the only planet to have liquid water on its surface. Earth has a solid iron nickel alloy inner core with an estimated radius of 1,220 km (758mi), and a molten iron nickel alloy outer core. The Earth is unique in the solar system in that it has abundant liquid water and an oxygen rich atmosphere capable of supporting life. Our companion, the moon, formed 4.53 billion years ago, most likely as the result of a Mars-sized object (sometimes called Theia) with about 10% of the Earth’s mass impacting the Earth in a glancing blow. Some of this object's mass would have merged with the Earth and a portion would have been ejected into space, but enough material would have been sent into orbit to form the Moon. The Moon and the Earth together rotate about the center of mass of the system called the Barycenter. For this system, the Barycenter is located beneath the surface of the Earth, so for practical purposes we usually think of the Moon revolving about the Earth. This is not exactly correct. In fact, if one completes the calculations it is easy to show that the moon and Earth system together revolve about the Sun rather than the Moon about the Earth. The system then should be considered a “Double Planet” system.
Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun in the Solar system and is known as the “Red Planet” because of its reddish color from the iron-rich minerals in its soil. This color is also similar to the color of rust, which is composed of iron and oxygen. Mars has a much smaller inner solid iron core. Its mass is 0.11 of Earth, and its size is about half the size of Earth. Mars has a thin atmosphere that is 95.72% carbon dioxide. Both Mars and Venus are oddballs as space probes have found no evidence of structured magnetic field lines on either planet. Earth is shielded from the solar wind by a magnetic bubble extending 50,000 km into space -- our planet’s magnetosphere. Without a substantial magnetosphere to protect it, much of Mars's atmosphere is exposed directly to fast-moving particles from the Sun.
Jupiter the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest planet within the Solar system is the largest of the Jovian gas giants, and has 318 times the mass of Earth, and rotates every 9.93 hours. The magnetic field of Jupiter is nearly 20,000 times as strong as Earth’s magnetic field. Jupiter is about 90% hydrogen and 10% helium (by numbers of atoms, 75/25% by mass) with traces of methane, water, ammonia and rock.
Saturn is the sixth planet from the Sun, and the second largest planet in the Solar system, after Jupiter. Saturn has 95 times the mass of Earth, and rotates every 10.66 hours. Saturn has an intrinsic magnetic field that has a simple, symmetric shape-a magnetic dipole. Its strength at the equator is approximately one twentieth than that of the field around Jupiter and slightly weaker than Earth’s magnetic field, estimated to be 71% of Earth. The outer atmosphere of Saturn consists of about 96.3% molecular hydrogen and 3.25% helium.
Uranus is the seventh planet from the Sun, and the third-largest and fourth most massive planet in the Solar system. Uranus has 14.5 times the mass of Earth, and rotates every 17.24 hours. The magnetic dipole moment of Uranus is 50 times that of Earth. The outer atmosphere of Uranus is 82.5% molecular hydrogen, and 15.2% helium and 2.3% methane.
Neptune is the eighth planet from the Sun has a similarly displaced and tilted magnetic field, suggesting that this may be a common feature of ice giants. Like Earth and the other Jovian planets, Neptune has a strong magnetic field and a sizeable magnetosphere. A magnetic field has been measured on Neptune, tilted from its axis at a 48-degree angle and just missing the center of the planet by thousands of miles. This field is created by water beneath the surface that measures 4,000 F (2,204 C), water so hot and under so much pressure that it generates an electrical field.
Comments from Jeffrey L. Kretsch made in 1974
“For main
sequence stars like the sun, as all these stars are, it is generally
believed that after the star is formed and settled on the main
sequence no mixing between the outer layers and the thermo-nuclear
core occurs. Thus the composition of the outer layers of a star,
(from which we receive the star’s light) must have essentially the
same composition as the interstellar medium out of which the star
and its planets were formed.....Terrestrial planets are composed
primarily of heavy elements. The problem is: If there is a shortage
of heavy elements in the primeval nebula, would terrestrial planets
be able to form? At present, theories of planetary formation are
unable to state for certain what the composition of the cloud must
be in order for terrestrial planets to materialize, although
it is agreed to be unlikely that Population II stars should have
terrestrial planets. But for objects somewhere between Population I
and II -- especially Disk Population II -- no one really knows.”
This statement was made 35 years ago,
and today our knowledge about planetary formation has significantly
changed. This is at the heart of the problem that we face today;
because the progress of science has advanced our understanding of
the real dynamics of planetary formation.
In Kretsch’s
article, The Age of Nearby Stars, he mentioned that the
classification system used in the formation of the Fish’s Zeta
Reticuli theory was in part based on the work of Adriaan Blaauw. The
reference information that he developed was then used to postulate
that most of the 16 stars are in the same class as the sun --
implying that they are roughly of the same composition and age as
the sun. Again, quoting Kretsch:
“The sun would seem to be a natural unit for use in comparing the
chemical compositions and ages of the stars of the Fish-Hill pattern
because it is, after all, the standard upon which we base our
selection of stars capable of supporting life.”
It’s been said that science books need to be rewritten approximately
every five years, and this is the perfect example of how some
theories fall by the wayside.
A passage in
Captured! says, “We have found that it comes as a surprise to
many people that stars vary much more than people do as to age,
intensity, size, nearness to other stars , and so on.” (Captured! Pg
239). The “and so on” part is the star’s metallicity that is
acknowledged to be very lean. The next Kretsch quote tells it like
it is:
“The evidence that the Zeta Reticuli system is metal
deficient is definite. From this knowledge of metal deficiency and
the velocities and eccentricities, we can safely conclude that the
Zeta Reticuli system is older than the Sun. The question of
terrestrial planets being able to form remains open. A final point
concerning the metal deficiencies is rather disturbing. Even though
terrestrial planets might form about either star in the Zeta
Reticuli system, there is a specific deficiency in carbon to well
within the error range. This is disturbing because carbon is the
building block of organic molecule chains. There is no way of
knowing whether life on Earth would have emerged and evolved as far
as it has if carbon were not as common here.”
Again quoting Kretch: “If planets
formed, but lacked large quantities of useful industrial elements,
could a technical civilization arise? If the essential elements were
scarce or locked up in chemical compounds, then an advanced
technology would be required to extract them. But the very shortage
of these elements in the first place might prevent this technology
from being realized. The dolphins are an example of an intelligent
but nontechnical race. They do not have the means to develop
technology. Perhaps some land creatures on another planet are in a
comparable position by not having the essential elements for
technological development.”
An often overlooked comment by Jeffrey
Kretsch is extremely important to consider, as he says that “the
resemblance between the Fish map and the Hill map is a striking
one...” yet he also says “The only area of significant
incongruity is the wide separation of Zeta Reticuli in the Hill
version.” What he is really saying is that this
alteration is inappropriate and not
harmonious in character, and making this change is a
discordant alteration to Betty’s star map. The identification of,
and calling the two nickel sized stars “base stars” is wrong,
because the entire Zeta Reticuli theory is based upon her alteration
of the spatial distance between them. There is no doubt that she
“fell in love” with these two iron poor G2 stars years ago, and that
she then significantly reduced the spatial distance between them in
order to proclaim that the star maps start point was Zeta Reticuli.
The Zeta Reticuli theory is based upon
a false premise that identifies the two nickel sized stars shown on
the star map as “base stars.” This is the alleged start point of the star map that
is to be properly viewed from an unusual vantage point. This vantage
point is
reportedly some nebulous, unidentified slice of space that
has never been properly identified.
[Editor's Note: The second half of this
article is published unedited. -- Kay Wilson]
The role of iron in planetary
formation
Zeta Reticuli I and Zeta Reticuli II
are low in Fe/H and its overall heavy element abundance M/H is -0.35
of Sol, which makes it metal deficient in its ability to form a
planet. Second, and more important is the fact that if a planet was
even able to form, a low iron core would produce a weak
magnetosphere which is needed to protect life on any potential
planet in orbit around either one of these stars. Planets with less
than half of Earth’s mass don’t have enough gravity to hold onto a
life sustaining atmosphere. In addition, solar radiation would kill
any life on the planet if the iron core was too small to generate a
sufficiently strong enough magnetosphere around the planet to
protect any life forms that may develop. Current scientific theory
is of the opinion that a star needs at least the same level of iron
that our sun has to form planets around a star. This is the one of
the major drawbacks of Fish’s Zeta Reticuli theory that claims Zeta
Reticuli is the start point for the star map.
What is the proper definition
of “sun-like”?
The
majority (approximately 90
percent) of stars in the galaxy,
including our Sun, are all main sequence stars. The Sun's relative
longevity and stability have provided the conditions necessary for
life to evolve here on Earth, but the question is: Did it also
provide the same conditions for life for the binary stars of the
Zeta Reticuli system?
They are both yellow-orange main
sequence stars like our own Sun, Zet1 is a spectral type G3-5V, with
93% of Sol’s mass, 91% of its diameter and 79% of its luminosity.
Zet 1 has become one of the top 100 target stars for NASA’s
Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) Zet2 is spectral type G-2 star with
99% of Sol’s mass, 99% of Sol’s diameter, and 102% of its
luminosity. The age is good at a current estimate of 8 billion
years, but the bottom line is if the star doesn't have enough iron
in its atmosphere, it is likely the parent material did not contain
enough heavy metals for planets to form.
Sol is a moderately rich singular dwarf
star, while Zeta Reticuli 1 and 2 are binary stars that are noted to
be iron poor. We cannot see any inner rocky planets, nor do we have
the ability to predict their orbit if they really existed in the
first place. It remains to be seen if this widely separated binary
star system has any planets. As Fish noted “stars in fairly close or
highly elliptical orbits would alternately fry or freeze their
planets. Such planets would also likely have unstable orbits.
Because this is a potentially troublesome area for our objective, we
will eliminate all close and moderately close pairs of systems of
multiple stars.”
As of June 2009, a total of 353 exo-planets
are listed in the
Stars Are Not All The Same
Comments from two of the world’s leading experts give us vital information on the dynamics of planetary formation:
Debra A. Fischer PhD San Francisco State University
"Astronomers have noted that only 5 percent of stars have planets, but that's not a very precise assessment," said Debra Fischer, a research astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley. "We now know that stars which are abundant in heavy metals are five times more likely to harbor orbiting planets than are stars deficient in metals. If you look at the metal-rich stars, 20 percent have planets. That's stunning."‘The data show that stars like the sun, whose metal content is nearly typical of stars in our neighborhood, have a 5 to 10 percent chance of having detectable planets. Stars with three times more metal than the sun have a 20 percent chance of harboring planets, while those with 1/3 the metal content of the sun have about a 3 percent chance of having planets. The 29 most metal-poor stars in the sample, all with less than 1/3 the sun's metal abundance, had no planets.” The stars, designated ζ1 Reticuli and ζ2 Reticuli, are both yellow dwarf (main sequence) stars similar to our Sun. Small, terrestrial planets around less metal-rich stars are less likely according to our current knowledge "These data suggest that there is a threshold metallicity, and thus not all stars in our galaxy have the same chance of forming planetary systems," Fischer said. "Whether a star has planetary companions or not is a condition of its birth. Those with a larger initial allotment of metals have an advantage over those without, a trend we're now able to see clearly with this new data."
Fischer said, “the new data suggest why metal-rich stars are likely to develop planetary systems as they form. The data are consistent with the hypothesis that heavier elements stick together easier, allowing dust, rocks and eventually planetary cores to form around newly ignited stars. Since the young star and the surrounding disk of dust and gas would have the same composition, the metal composition observed from the star reflects the abundance of raw materials, including heavy metals, available in the disk to build planets. The data indicate a nearly linear relationship between amount of metals and the chance of harboring planets.”
Margaret Turnbill, PHD, University of Arizona
Margaret Turnbill one of the world’s leading authorities on planetary formation screened thousands of stars, and came up with a shortlist of candidates; which failed to include Zeta Reticuli.Margaret Turnbull, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, has devoted herself to the painstaking search for candidate stars that may harbor zones of habitability where life - primitive or otherwise - might thrive. Turnbull announced her shortlist of so-called "habstars" at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis earlier this year. Out of an initial catalogue of 17,129 "habitable stellar systems" that Turnbull and her colleagues published in 2003, she selected a handful of stars that she considers her best bets, based on a variety of screening criteria. Turnbull also considered the star’s "metallicity." Stars and planets form out of the same parental cloud of dust and gas. If the star doesn't have enough iron in its atmosphere, it is likely the parent material did not contain enough heavy metals for planets to form. Turnbull's candidate stars had to have at least 50 per cent of the iron content of the Sun. Stars with higher metal content also tend to reside in more peaceful orbits in the plane of the galaxy, Turnbull said. She also states that, like our Sun that stars reside on the "main sequence" of stellar evolution.
Turnbull offered five top candidate stars for those seeking only to listen for radio signals from intelligent civilizations - the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence or SETI - and five candidates for those who undertake the demanding job of trying to detect Earth-like planets in orbit around nearby stars. Turnbull made her habstar choices "purely on the characteristics of the stars themselves," she said. "Stars are not all the same, and not all of them are like the Sun." Stars with low-metal contents probably formed from clouds that didn't have enough heavy metals to make rocky planets in the first place.
While the bulk of material in any star is hydrogen and helium, there is a great variation in the amount of heavier elements (metals) stars contain. A high proportion of metals in a star correlates to the amount of heavy material initially available in proto-planetary disks. A low amount of metal significantly decreases the probability that planets will have formed around that star, under the solar nebula theory of planetary systems formation. Any planets that did form around a metal-poor star would likely be low in mass, and thus unfavorable for life. Spectroscopic studies of systems where exoplanets have been found to date confirm the relationship between high metal content and planet formation: "stars with planets, or at least with planets similar to the ones we are finding today, are clearly more metal rich than stars without planetary companions." High metallicity also places a requirement for youth on hab-stars: stars formed early in the universe’s history have low metal content and a correspondingly lesser likelihood of having planetary companions.Low-mass planets are poor candidates for life for two reasons. First, their lesser gravity makes atmosphere retention difficult, although global magnetic fields can play a large role in atmospheric retention. Constituent molecules are more likely to reach escape velocity and be lost to space when buffeted by solar wind or stirred by collision. Planets without a thick atmosphere lack the matter necessary for primal biochemistry, have little insulation and poor heat transfer across their surfaces (for example, Mars, with its thin atmosphere, is colder than the Earth would be if it were at a similar distance), and provide less protection against meteoroids and high-frequency radiation. Further, where an atmosphere is less than 0.006 Earth atmospheres, water cannot exist in liquid form as the required atmosphere, 4.56 mmHg (608 Pa) (0.18 in HG), does not occur. The temperature range at which water is liquid is smaller at low pressures generally.
Secondly, smaller planets have smaller diameters and thus higher surface-to-volume ratios than their larger cousins. Such bodies tend to lose the energy left over from their formation quickly and end up geologically dead, lacking the volcanoes, earthquakes and tectonic activity which supply the surface with life-sustaining material and the atmosphere with temperature moderators like carbon dioxide. Plate tectonics appear particularly crucial, at least on Earth: not only does the process recycle important chemicals and minerals, it also fosters bio diversity through continent creation and increased environmental complexity and helps create the convective cells necessary to generate Earth’s magnetic field.
"Low mass" is partly a relative label; the Earth is considered low mass when compared to the Solar System's gas giants, but it is the largest, by diameter and mass, and densest of all terrestrial bodies. It is large enough to retain an atmosphere through gravity alone and large enough that its molten core remains a heat engine, driving the diverse geology of the surface (the decay of radioactive elements within a planet’s core is the other significant component of planetary heating). Mars, by contrast, is nearly (or perhaps totally) geologically dead and has lost much of its atmosphere. Thus, it would be fair to infer that the lower mass limit for habitability lies somewhere between that of Mars and Earth or Venus; 0.3 Earth masses has been offered as a rough dividing line for habitable planets.
However, a 2008 study by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics suggests that the dividing line may be higher. Earth may in fact lie on the lower boundary of habitability, since if it were any smaller, plate tectonics would be impossible. Venus, which has 85 percent Earth’s mass, shows no signs of tectonic activity. Conversely, "super Earths", terrestrial planets with higher masses than Earth, would have higher levels of plate tectonics and thus be firmly placed in the habitable range. Exceptional circumstances do offer exceptional cases: Jupiter’s 's moon Io (which is smaller than any of the terrestrial planets) is volcanically dynamic because of the gravitational stresses induced by its orbit, and its neighbor Europa may have a liquid ocean underneath a frozen shell also due to power generated from orbiting a gas giant. Saturn’s Titan, meanwhile, has an outside chance of harboring life, as it has retained a thick atmosphere and bio-chemical reactions are possible in the liquid methane on its surface. These satellites are exceptions, but they prove that mass as a habitability criterion cannot be considered definitive.
Finally, a larger planet is likely to have a large iron core. This allows for a magnetic field to protect the planet from its stellar wind, which otherwise would tend to strip away planetary atmosphere and to bombard living things with ionized particles. Mass is not the only criterion for producing a magnetic field—as the planet must also rotate fast enough to produce a dynamo effect within its core—but it is a significant component of the process.
As Terence Dickinson pointed out in an overview, Zeta Reticuli Update, published in 1980 when he was the editor of Star and Sky magazine “Space is three dimensional, and the stars are where they are-not where one would like them to be.” Captured! (pg 252). This goes for Fish’s triangle too, which is now invalidated, and the alteration of the star map by Fish as pointed out by Kretsch. I use this not in defense of Fish’s theory, but in opposition to her alternation of Betty Hill’s star map and their being miss-labeled as “base stars.” In the great public debate about the merits of the Zeta Reticuli theory Terence Dickinson also said that “Stars cannot be moved around "to optimize the desired resemblance.” I agree.
Size of the star map that was shown to Betty
(A verbatim quote from Betty while under hypnosis:)
"I walked across the room and I leaned against the table, and looked at it. And it was a map--it was an oblong map. It wasn’t square. It was a lot wider than it was long. And there were all these dots on it. And they were scattered all over it."
She said it was a lot wider than it was long, which means it was elongated and oblong in the shape of a rectangle whose length is greater than its width. The given dimensions of three by two feet now seems inaccurate. The dimensions of Fish’s working display model Psyche was 3’ X 2’, so it appears that its true size was modified size wise to conform to Fish’s interpretation. Oblong is just another word for rectangle. I’m certain that they do not use our measurements, and any estimates are approximate.
As far as the true size, a proper revaluation is that the true size of the star map that was shown to Betty could of been up to 3’ X 5’. Betty said “it was almost like looking out a window.” The statement that it was a lot wider than it was long is a clear indication that 3’ feet by 2 feet is therefore understated.
The true separation between the two large nickel sized stars must reflect a very high degree of pattern conformance to the original star map that Betty Hill originally drew. The heavy banding between the two nickel sized stars appears to have a visual separation of at least 6-8 inches within the rectangular holographic star map. The proportion of the width between the two nickel sized stars increases as we modify the dimensions of the star map.
In my opinion, she significantly altered the spatial distance between them in order to identify the two nickel sized stars as the binary star system Zeta Reticuli. The proper vantage point to view the star map cannot be properly identified.
That “point in space” cannot be identified
There is a major discrepancy that Fish
neglected to mention, in Fish’s interpretation the two large nickel
sized stars are said to represent Zeta 1 and Zeta 2, and Fish made the
comment that the travel pattern should be logical.
Zeta Reticuli two is billed as the primary
star of this binary star system, yet there is absolutely no outbound
trade or expedition routes that leave Zeta 2, which seems very odd.
Zeta 2 is closer to Sol as is Alpha Mansae, 82 Eridani, and
GJ86. As a matter of fact none of the trade routes or expeditions
leave from Zeta 2. I know that Fish wanted to follow the Betty Hill
star map pattern, but there is no explanation for this discrepancy.
It defies logic that there is no trade or expeditions going out of
the primary host star. This is a glaring inconsistency. I know too that Kay Wilson has seen a star map while on-board a craft and
also saw lines. Mary Wunder in A Message From The Stars did as well. Doreen Imper also was shown a
"curved line" in the
system Perseus. In all three maps and as explained by the aliens
during their experiences, these lines
represented travel routes - not distances. I do not buy into the "base star" concept, nor do I believe that the lines between
the two nickel sized stars reflects their proximity to one another.
Mercury is iron rich, but it is too
small and too close to the sun. Venus our sister planet rotates too
slow and doesn’t create a dynamo effect to produce a magnetosphere
to protect the planet. Mars the red planet has iron, but its mass is
very small at (0.11) of Earth, and we know it had liquid water on
its surface billions of years ago, that was blown away by solar
winds. Only Earth in the goldilocks zone has sufficient iron and
position to allow liquid water on its surface to foster the
development of life. Even when you have iron there is no guarantee
that a habitable planet could have formed.
ζ1
Reticuli and ζ2 Reticuli were formerly classified as old
disk population II stars whose age was estimated to be up to eight
billion years. Population II stars tend to be found in globular
clusters and the nucleus of a galaxy. They tend to be older, less
luminous and cooler than Population I stars. They have fewer heavy
elements, either by being older or being in regions where no
heavy-element producing predecessors would be found. Astronomers
often describe this condition by saying that they are "metal poor..”
The importance of heavy elements in planet formation suggests that
few, if any, Population II stars have worlds in orbit around them.
Now newer research by
(E.F.del
Peloso et al, 2000), says “the pair is now thought
to be part of the Zeta Herculis stellar moving (kinematic) group of
high velocity stars, which no longer includes Zeta Herculis itself.”
Per del Peloso, “We analyzed the stars' membership of the zeta Herculis stellar kinematic
group (SKG) of five stars. Some probable members have nearly the
same galactic orbital parameters, chemical composition and
evolutionary states, which confirm the existence of a metal
deficient SKG. Since we determined that zeta Herculis does not
belong to this group, we propose it be renamed zeta Reticuli SKG.” (ζ
Ret SKG). ) All stars should be approximately the same age.
Since they were formed in the same Giant Molecular Cloud, which
disperses on a typical time scale of 0.1 Gyr, their ages shouldn’t
differ by more than this value. They conclude that a reasonable
agreement with the general isochronal age of 5.0 Gyr for the group.
Currently (Bryden+ 2006) places their age at 7.9 Billion years.
Small, terrestrial planets around less
metal-rich stars are less likely according to our current knowledge
as documented by both Debra Fischer and Margaret Turnbill. A low
amount of metal significantly decreases the probability that planets
will have formed around that star. When
looking for planets beyond our solar system, astronomers often
target stars like the sun. But they may want to refocus their
attention on stars that hold more metals than our own. A new study
reveals that the more metal-rich a star is, the better the chance it
hosts a planet. Whether they ever have associated planetary
systems is an open question. Having planets does not mean that a
habitable planet will form in the goldilocks zone with sufficient
mass to allow liquid water to form on its surface to foster life.
The Important commentary of Charles A. Huffer
In my opinion, Zeta 1 Reticuli and Zeta 2 Reticuli simply do not have the required distance from each other to be the two large stars on Betty Hill’s map, using either the 1969 data or the Hipparcos data. The 3D models I have constructed over the years bear this out.In conclusion, there is no way to get around the fact that both of the Zeta Reticuli stars are metal poor and borderline metallicity-wise in their ability to form planets; and while they are sun-like in some aspects, the low metallicity is a major hindrance to the actual formation of a habitable planet around either one of these stars. There is still an outside chance that a habitable planet could have developed around one star of this binary star system, but the likelihood that they both developed habitable planets around them simultaneously is a pipe dream. Based upon what we know today, it’s simply not realistic. Marjorie Fish’s Zeta Reticuli interpretation claiming that she deciphered the star map was a noble effort, but in the end, we are forced to pay attention to the information that was divulged in the conversation that Erik Wilson had with a “Grey” about the true location of their home star. It’s my opinion that the two nickel sized stars on the star map that Betty Hill drew do not represent “base stars” nor do they depict Zeta Reticuli. The bottom line is that we must now move forward by paying particular attention to what they are now telling us. They have given us directions to find their home star, so in the end we must ask; who do you want to believe…?
References
The Zeta Reticuli Incident, Terence
Dickinson, Astronomy Magazine, December, 1974
Betty Hill’s Star Map, Sidebar Article
by Sean Casteel
http://www.seancasteel.com/SidebarArticleBettyHillStarmap.htm
Accessed: 8/2/09
D.K. Publishing, The Universe, New York, New York, USA. Accessed: 7/28//09
Jeffrey L. Kretsch, Article: The Age of
Nearby Stars, December, 1974
http://www.nicap.org/articles/hillzeta2.htm
Accessed: 8/3/09
Friedman, Stanton F. and Kathleen Marden, Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience, New Page Books, Franklin Lakes, N.J. 07417 (2007)
http://www.Solstation.com Article:
Zeta Reticuli
http://www.solstation.com/stars2/zeta-ret.htm
Accessed: 8/10/09
Wikipedia, Article, Planetary
Habitability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
Accessed: 8/6/09
Huffer, Charles, A. Critique of book
Captured! December, 2007 Accessed: 8/3/09
http://www.alienjigsaw.com/Reviews/CharlesHufferCaptured.htm
Margaret Turnbill, University of Arizona, TPF Darwin Conference, PDF Accessed: 8/6/09
Cosmos Magazine Article, Accessed:
8/10/09
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/400/full
Jeff Valenti and Debra
Fischer, Webcast Power Point Presentation, Correlation between Metallicity and Planets
http://www.stsci.edu/ts/webcasting/ppt/MaySymposium2005/
JeffreyValenti050205.ppt#446,2,Metallicity
of Planet Hosts
