Computational modelling of the companion star and its interaction with Sol

[tohuwabohu]

I had to really think about the constellations because we are not interested in subjective astrology but in objective reality. I think when the Cs told us back in 1998 that the companion is in the Libra constellation they meant it objectively. So as to looking at the sky and finding the Libra constellation. This as it turns out is a big clue, nevertheless those rascals didn't mention how distant it is and therefore we know only the direction.
Since then the companion moved surely.

One has to dig to find the truth. Fortunately I came across links to International Astronomical Union which defined the constellations of the zodiac based on observations. It can vary by one or two days because of the leap years but it is as close as we can get. The result can be seen in Fig. 59.

And sure enough Sun is in Libra during November. So it seems that we are on the right track! It is in agreement with the peak in the fireball observations.

The density of the rocks in the vicinity of Earth orbit is visualized by the brown stripe. The intensity of the color is proportional to the number of observed fireballs averaged over last 10 years. The chart with the averaged values is shown in Fig. 60.

Only after I made the visualization I discovered anomaly in the fireball observations. Namely in the simulation the dense region was symmetric with regard to the peak value. The peak being in November means that December and January should be roughly equal to October and September values. Not only is September with higher values compared to January but there is also August with values almost on par with September. I cannot explain this except by admitting possibility of some other source the is contributing to August and September months. It is possible that the cometary swarm might have some precursor.

So the conclusion is that we know the direction where the companion was some time ago in the past. But that is all. And because we do not know how far it was, it is not possible to determine how long it takes for the rocks to reach the inner solar system.

 

[Palinurus]

So the conclusion is that we know the direction where the companion was some time ago in the past. But that is all. And because we do not know how far it was, it is not possible to determine how long it takes for the rocks to reach the inner solar system.

If I understand your figure 59 correctly, this Sun passing through Libra thing repeats itself every year (more or less). When your simulations have revealed anything tangible about the speed with which the companion moves relative to the solar system, it should be comparatively easy to calculate its trajectory since 1998 and also its current position wherever that may be.

Apart from this, I have to congratulate you with the progress shown in the spate of your recent posts. It seems, the time of harvest from all the preceding hard work is now upon you.

Fascinating to watch how it all unfolds per your guidance !

 

[DougEE]

Thank you tohuwabohu!! What an excellent job of piecing all these pieces together to make a graphical depiction of the companion and its movements. A picture is worth a thousand words!! I particularly like your concise explanations and commentary along the way.
Do you think that you could eventually run this simulation backwards to nail down previous encounters with the companion and whether you could corroborate the timing of these events (Noah flood, Exodus, fall of Roman Empire etc)?

 

[tohuwabohu]

Yesterday and also today I tried to pinpoint the maximum in the dense region. We already know that there is peak in November but I was curious whether I could identify also the day when this peak occurs during the month.

So I fired up the AMS database and extracted daily values for October, November and December for years 2005-2014. There is a lot of noise in the daily fireball data so I averaged it over the 10 years and there was global maximum on November 8th.

So I summarized the whole situation in Fig. 61. There is the position of the outer planets as of today. The brown area delimited by the Libra constellation shows possible location of the companion star as of 1998. The area can be limited only on the inner side (from the direction of the Sun) to 50 AU. I assume that the perihelion distance of the companion might be somewhere around 50 AU and also I assume that until now the companion didn't reach perihelion. There is also the white line corresponding to 8th November peak so that should be the direction from which the rocks came and which we experience now when the Earth travels through the dense region.

On the outer side there can be placed limit only by assuming that the companion is nearing the perihelion and because we know the orbital parameters it is indeed possible to roughly estimate the position of the companion as Palinurus suggests. However there are some uncertainties.

First one is that the argument of perihelion is not known. Of course if the exact direction in 1998 would be given then the perihelion would be logically resolved from that position. But looking at the brown area in Fig. 61 one can see that it covers vast space. So the companion could be on the most left side back then (in 1998) meaning it just entered the Libra sector but as well it could be on the most right side about to leave the Libra sector. If I could make some educated guess I would tell that it would take the companion some 25 to 30 years to pass through the brown area (Libra constellation/sector) assuming it is about to reach perihelion. So this is a large uncertainty. So I will try to reduce the possible whereabouts of the companion somehow.

In Fig. 62 which is attached are shown the daily data that were used to pinpoint the day with peak value in November. There is a lot of noise but the maximum can be approximated to 8th November. Of interest is the other maximum occurring on 14th December. The values are even higher here but they are very much localized as the peak spans only three days. I am thinking for now as Saša suggests that the position of the planets might have such effect especially the largest ones.

 

[tohuwabohu]

Thank you tohuwabohu!! What an excellent job of piecing all these pieces together to make a graphical depiction of the companion and its movements. A picture is worth a thousand words!! I particularly like your concise explanations and commentary along the way.
Do you think that you could eventually run this simulation backwards to nail down previous encounters with the companion and whether you could corroborate the timing of these events (Noah flood, Exodus, fall of Roman Empire etc)?

The companion nears the solar system only once per 26 to 28 million years so any event that is younger than that cannot be directly caused by companion (only indirectly). BUT there are other factors like cometary showers and large scale collisions with some lone space wanderers etc. Given that there is so many unknowns, I mean we barely know what is just behind Pluto, backward simulation is not possible.

Even during this project I feel like navigating razor's edge because the informations that are public are so limited that we have just bare minimum to make some valid conclusions.

But if you are interested in the history of solar system and connection to the earthly events then I recommend you this thread where thorbiorn made a good compilation from the transcripts:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,8401.0.html

 

[Human]

The companion nears the solar system only once per 26 to 28 million years so any event that is younger than that cannot be directly caused by companion (only indirectly).
[...]

First of all, kudos for all the work done on this project! It's quite impressive!
(I forgot to stress that in my previous post here)

Reading your last comments, 3rd Kepler's law came to my mind
P2 = 4 pi2 a3 / G (MSun + Mcompanion)
Would it be possible to use it, in addition to "known" parameters like orbital period P (26-28 My) and maybe companion's mass Mcompanion (few % of Solar mass MSun if I remember correctly from the Cs) to narrow the perihelion distance, i.e. to find out some more info about the companion's trajectory (a - semimajor axis of their orbital ellipse)?

If this was already tried and discussed here before, I apologize for not reading the entire thread - searching for "Kepler" and "law" in this topic didn't return any significant results WRT to this idea.

 

[Windmill knight]

Just to clarify tohu, in Fig 61 you put 'Libra - November' on the upper right hand side, opposite to the direction of both the sun and the companion to indicate where Earth would be at that time of the year. But, if I understand correctly, the constellation of Libra would actually be on the same side as both the sun and the companion, right?

 

[Mikey]

I was reading this article about "Speed of Gravity" http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/speed-of-gravity.html. Which "speed of gravity" does the simulation use? Infinite (Newton) or c (Einstein)? Or maybe it doesn't matter - I'm out of my depth on this question.

Added: This article claims that "speed of Gravity" is 2 x 1010 c. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

 

[John G]

I was reading this article about "Speed of Gravity" http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/speed-of-gravity.html. Which "speed of gravity" does the simulation use? Infinite (Newton) or c (Einstein)? Or maybe it doesn't matter - I'm out of my depth on this question.

Added: This article claims that "speed of Gravity" is 2 x 1010 c. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

Your second link refers to Lorentz relativity aka Lorentz ether theory. The idea of a compressible ether (which could be an information thing not just a physical medium thing) would kind of let you keep the normal c as a constant; it's just that some situations may have equations based on c that let you go faster than c (like for superluminal group velocities which are a known thing). I think this simulation is Kepler-based and could relate to compressible ether math; Ark's conformal gravity work would also relate I think. Non-local quantum physics models that can have probabilities based on things far away and in the future would also I think relate.

 

[tohuwabohu]

Just to clarify tohu, in Fig 61 you put 'Libra - November' on the upper right hand side, opposite to the direction of both the sun and the companion to indicate where Earth would be at that time of the year. But, if I understand correctly, the constellation of Libra would actually be on the same side as both the sun and the companion, right?

Yes Windmill knight that is correct. The Sun is in Libra during November. The companion was in the direction of Libra.

 

[tohuwabohu]

I was reading this article about "Speed of Gravity" http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/speed-of-gravity.html. Which "speed of gravity" does the simulation use? Infinite (Newton) or c (Einstein)? Or maybe it doesn't matter - I'm out of my depth on this question.

Added: This article claims that "speed of Gravity" is 2 x 1010 c. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

Propagation of gravity in the simulation is instantaneous. Anyway thank you Data for the links very interesting reading. But I think the most obvious error in most papers I read is the lack for accounting the variability of mass. Not in the sense of relativity but more like in the sense of UFT.

For the reason I'll explain I think that the companion approach is all about UFT. I was having problems with the simulation from the very beginning if you remember. The two body simulation according to Kepler's law was giving false results. If I put the companion mass to 3.4 % of the Sun and set the semimajor axis of the companion orbit to 1.7 ly then the orbital period was over 32 million years and not 28.2 as it should be. I was forced to reduce the semimajor axis to 1.5 ly which then produces the correct orbital period.

But I noticed even back then that adding 50% mass to the Sun would correct the problem.
Nevertheless yesterday I made once again the simulation of the whole orbit of the companion and included the planets to plot the trajectory. I knew that if I increase the mass of the Sun then the planets will shrink their orbits and the simulation would be messed up. So I added mass to the companion star to be precise I put the mass of the companion equal to 56 % mass of the Sun (So to say I transferred the additional mass from the Sun to the companion). And lo and behold the period was correct! Actually only half period because as soon as the companion approached the solar system it kinda ripped it apart. But the period was in perfect agreement with what the Cs said (and all other orbital parameters) and also it is in good agreement with Keplers law (thank you Saša).

If you remember the C's have given the 56 % value back in 1998 in fact it was in the same session where they mention the Libra constellation.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030219132949/http://www.cassiopaea.org/sessions/980711.html

I thought that the 56 % value has to be wrong because as I said it would disrupt the solar system. Moreover in more recent transcript the value was 3.4 percent.

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,15927.0.html

But as I said the 56 % value gives proper orbital parameters. So I was thinking about this and I reread Pierre's book for inspiration and the chapter about grounding captured my attention. And a thought occured to me that what if the companion is somehow connected to the Sun. I mean by some beam or something and there is some kind of energy transfer. The Sun would increase gravity and thus inhibit more flares and the companion perhaps the opposite. So that temporarily it would lose some gravity.

If I visualize the solar system as a large capacitor then surely there has to occur something when the companion enters the heliosphere. Something similar to when one touches plasma ball and a plasma filament is created. So I was thinking that well there has to be at least some region where the current is more dense compared to ambient values. So I fired up SOTT WorldView and selected only the events which I thought were linked to electric activity. And the result is in Fig. 63. And one can clearly observe once again the seasonality. This time the peaks are during summer months.

So is it possible that if the companion is close to the plane of ecliptic and it is connected somehow to the Sun that each time the Earth crosses between the Sun and the companion all the Earth changes tied to electricity are exacerbated?

 

[tohuwabohu]

Saying that I have to admit I had big difficulty to fit the orbit of the companion so that there is the peak at 8th November and also that in 1998 it is in Libra constellation.

This is because I made some chcecks to see how long it takes for the rocks to arrive from some ambient distance. So I found that it would take over 30 years for the rocks to arrive from heliocentric distance 60 AU and it was more like 40 years for them to arrive from distance 70 AU.

And because of this it is not possible that the companion would be in Libra in 1998 because we would have to be in year 2028 now. I could not fulfill both conditions - the November peak and also Libra because it did not mesh. But I do think that the companion crossed Libra just it had to be earlier.

Anyway I made a sample orbit just to see what it might look like (Fig. 64). I tried to make some compromise between the two. The perihelion distance was unknown so I have chosen some close to 50 AU. Also I assume that the companion is not yet at perihelion but might be there in near future (This actually neatly followed when trying to align the November peak and the summer activity).

So we can observe several things. The peak in November would have to be caused back in 1978 when the companion was approximately 65 AU away. In 1998 it would be about to exit Scorpio constellation or it would be entering Ophiuchus constellation. Today in 2015 it would be near the plane of eclitpic slightly to the right of the Pluto dwarf planet. The distance would be 50 AU but this depends on the perihelion distance. The Earth would be aligned with the Sun and companion at the end of June.

The perihelion would be somewhere around 2025. There is some uncertainty because the argument of the perihelion is not exactly known. I would say more like 2025-2030.

Nevertheless as I observed the orbit it remainded me of prof. Zharkova results about the solar cycles and how combining two wave generators can accurately predict the behavior of the Sun.

http://www.sott.net/article/298913-Scientists-say-Suns-heartbeat-will-bring-on-Ice-Age

And what occured to me is what if the second generator is the companion. If the two stars are connected they should interact. This would be tied to changes in magnetic field on Earth and eclipsing of realities.
What she predicts is more like changes in gravity.

 

[MusicMan]

Extremely interesting.
I can only add that if the companion is a 'dark star', then it will be a neutron star, and electrically neutral, as opposed to Sol which is emitting a stream of protons, so it must be positively charged.
Not sure how this will affect your calculation, my guess is that it would not.
Maybe it is the companion that is grounding Sol.

 

[Human]

Extremely interesting.
I can only add that if the companion is a 'dark star', then it will be a neutron star, and electrically neutral, as opposed to Sol which is emitting a stream of protons, so it must be positively charged.
Not sure how this will affect your calculation, my guess is that it would not.
Maybe it is the companion that is grounding Sol.

To my knowledge of astronomy, neutron star would be too massive to be Solar companion. I think the companion was designated to be brown dwarf (Wiki:Brown dwarf), which is defined (for most astronomers) as an object with mass [15 MJupiter , 75 MJupiter].
When taken that companion mass is approx. 3.4% of MSun, the obtained value for Mcompanion is 36.6 MJupiter [1] which lies nicely in the above interval.

And brown dwarfs would have all the properties (including electromagnetic activity) of a very large planet (like big Jupiter) and/or not quite yet ignited star (according to SSM - Standard Solar Model).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_mass

 

[Human]

Propagation of gravity in the simulation is instantaneous. Anyway thank you Data for the links very interesting reading. But I think the most obvious error in most papers I read is the lack for accounting the variability of mass. Not in the sense of relativity but more like in the sense of UFT.

For the reason I'll explain I think that the companion approach is all about UFT. I was having problems with the simulation from the very beginning if you remember. The two body simulation according to Kepler's law was giving false results. If I put the companion mass to 3.4 % of the Sun and set the semimajor axis of the companion orbit to 1.7 ly then the orbital period was over 32 million years and not 28.2 as it should be. I was forced to reduce the semimajor axis to 1.5 ly which then produces the correct orbital period.

But I noticed even back then that adding 50% mass to the Sun would correct the problem.
Nevertheless yesterday I made once again the simulation of the whole orbit of the companion and included the planets to plot the trajectory. I knew that if I increase the mass of the Sun then the planets will shrink their orbits and the simulation would be messed up. So I added mass to the companion star to be precise I put the mass of the companion equal to 56 % mass of the Sun (So to say I transferred the additional mass from the Sun to the companion). And lo and behold the period was correct! Actually only half period because as soon as the companion approached the solar system it kinda ripped it apart. But the period was in perfect agreement with what the Cs said (and all other orbital parameters) and also it is in good agreement with Keplers law (thank you Saša).

If you remember the C's have given the 56 % value back in 1998 in fact it was in the same session where they mention the Libra constellation.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030219132949/http://www.cassiopaea.org/sessions/980711.html

I thought that the 56 % value has to be wrong because as I said it would disrupt the solar system. Moreover in more recent transcript the value was 3.4 percent.

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,15927.0.html

But as I said the 56 % value gives proper orbital parameters. So I was thinking about this and I reread Pierre's book for inspiration and the chapter about grounding captured my attention. And a thought occured to me that what if the companion is somehow connected to the Sun. I mean by some beam or something and there is some kind of energy transfer. The Sun would increase gravity and thus inhibit more flares and the companion perhaps the opposite. So that temporarily it would lose some gravity.

Have you thought about modelling the mass (variability) with some dependence on relative distance between the Sun and companion, instead of taking fixed value of 1.56 MSun?
In that way the potential electromagnetic (plasma) effects could be accounted for, IMO.
For instance, in very simple case, assuming that Sun and its companion are charged objects with the same sign of their respective net charges, the gravitational pull between them would be decreased by the repulsive electrostatic force which depends on their relative distance. Also, Lorentz force would act on, at least, companion when inside of heliosphere, due to Solar e-m field and companion's charge (and velocity).
In first approximation, all these (and other) e-m effects could maybe be described with some simple relative distance dependence of binary system mass.