Session 1 November 2025

[mantle]

Dire is also the state of mind of those owners of that magazine. How could it be otherwise , when their tanks and armies are obsolete and Russia is in the second generation of hypersonic. And yet they still believe that they are in control when Amerika , barely rattling in the game, has lost the arms race and when The Bankers know their fiat money is already in shambles. Who also know , though most of us do not , why so many needles and syringes predominate for their year 2026 , because most of us are infected . AI has redefined the human at the molecular level and hacked our bodies and our minds. Little wonder our plaNET is... only a football to be kicked about.

 

[gottathink]

Well the jury is out on Sir Francis Bacon. Was he a force for good (STO) or an agent, whether witting or unwitting, for STS forces. You tell me.

I am starting to think that every Thing in our world is necessarily STS. Because that’s the deal, we got our world, they got the control. Pertaining to Francis Bacon—all inspired (or directed) scientific and technological advancements have been to support the growth of our civilisation which is the feed lot for STS. It’s like the gods taught their cattle to build their own fences, irrigate their own fields, and fatten themselves up. Good strategy for STS.

 

[SasaM]

Yeah, I suspect the electric universe material could be the missing factor.

Pierre wrote about the relative strength of electricity and gravity in Earth Chanages. Electromagnetic forces are 10^39x stronger than gravitational forces. He mentions an experiment where an oil droplet is charged with a single electron. When subjected to a strong electric field, this single electron could overcome the entire gravitational pull of the Earth.

The prevalence of electromagnetic power over gravity also applies over distance. As he says:

I wonder if it's possible to include this information in your calculations? It may mean the mass requirements are significantly lowered when the power of electromagnetism between cosmic bodies is taken into account?

A lie asks for truth, the C's said, but there's also free will of someone to believe in a lie, so FWIW.

If gravitational force is really negligible compared to e-m force on astronomical scales, would we be able to calculate and predict rather accurately the observed trajectories and orbits of celestial bodies, especially of the comets which are presumably electrically charged bodies, using orbital mechanics that's based and modelled almost exclusively on the mathematical description of Newton's gravitational force? Would Einstein's gravity model or GTR have successfully described the precession of Mercury's perihelion if the premise of gravitational force being negligible was correct?

 

[gottathink]

Well, here's The Economist's 2026 Prediction Cover. A lot of war and a lot of 'medicine', and a soccer (football to some of you) player is kicking the world. Some people suggest this is the most dire 'World Ahead' that they've ever seen from the magazine.
View attachment 113616

Here’s the thread for the 2026 World Ahead cover if you’re interested.

 

[axj]

I wonder if it's possible to include this information in your calculations? It may mean the mass requirements are significantly lowered when the power of electromagnetism between cosmic bodies is taken into account?

I tried it and electromagnetism seems to be indeed a simple solution.

If the Sun and the brown dwarf are electrically charged, then this changes the "effective mass" of the solar system. Even a relatively small electrical charge can then account for 50% more effective mass of the solar system and the orbital parameters given by the C's work.

This is what Deepseek says:

In the electrical universe theory, if the Sun and the brown dwarf have net electrical charges, the electromagnetic force can provide the additional attractive force needed to explain the observed orbital period and semimajor axis. The required product of charges is approximately 5.1e38 C², which is feasible with small net charges relative to the total particles in the Sun.

For the orbital motion, since the force is still inverse-square, Kepler's laws hold, but with an effective mass that includes the electromagnetic contribution. Therefore, the given orbital parameters can match with the electrical forces included.

I was surprised how simple the solution is and it also gives a specific number for the overall electric charge of the Sun and brown dwarf combined. The Sun probably has most of this charge (officially the Sun is assumed to be net neutral and having no electrical charge).

 

[Gabriela]

View attachment 113314
The C's are incredibly patient with us.

I need a t-shirt with this
Thank you for the session Laura and crew!

 

[SasaM]

I tried it and electromagnetism seems to be indeed a simple solution.

If the Sun and the brown dwarf are electrically charged, then this changes the "effective mass" of the solar system. Even a relatively small electrical charge can then account for 50% more effective mass of the solar system and the orbital parameters given by the C's work.

This is what Deepseek says:

I was surprised how simple the solution is and it also gives a specific number for the overall electric charge of the Sun and brown dwarf combined. The Sun probably has most of this charge (officially the Sun is assumed to be net neutral and having no electrical charge).

The thing is that fundamental e-m force is Lorentz force, which includes also the interaction of charges in motion with the magnetic field.
If astronomical bodies were significantly electrically charged, then their trajectories would be influenced by heliospheric solar magnetic field, deviating them from observed orbits. Even if we assume that all the known planets are in principle electrically neutral, if Sun would carry such large overall net charge as proposed by the AI, the comets, which are presumably also electrically charged bodies that discharge the solar capacitor, would be significantly affected. Some of them would even be captured by the magnetic field when passing closer to the Sun. However, we don't observe such things, neither significant deviations of observed orbits nor cometary captures by the solar magnetic field, AFAIK. How would that square with the proposed hypothesis that Sun is significantly electrically charged body?

 

[rrraven]

The thing is that fundamental e-m force is Lorentz force, which includes also the interaction of charges in motion with the magnetic field.
If astronomical bodies were significantly electrically charged, then their trajectories would be influenced by heliospheric solar magnetic field, deviating them from observed orbits. Even if we assume that all the known planets are in principle electrically neutral, if Sun would carry such large overall net charge as proposed by the AI, the comets, which are presumably also electrically charged bodies that discharge the solar capacitor, would be significantly affected. Some of them would even be captured by the magnetic field when passing closer to the Sun. However, we don't observe such things, neither significant deviations of observed orbits nor cometary captures by the solar magnetic field, AFAIK. How would that square with the proposed hypothesis that Sun is significantly electrically charged body?

The Cs have confirmed the electric universe
CometVenus was captured

 

[SasaM]

The Cs have confirmed the electric universe
CometVenus was captured

The C's said that EU theory or hypothesis has too much electricity and not enough observations (paraphrasing).
The capture of Venus can also come from gravitational interaction, just like a natural satellite gets captured by the planetary body.

Motion of charged body in magnetic field looks a bit different than motion of mass body in gravitational field, for example (link):

It would be circular, not elliptic, only when the velocity of the charged body would be perpendicular to the magnetic field. In the case of nonlinear trajectory in general, the charged body would also emit radiation, i.e. glow. However, the solar magnetic field presumably changes its orientation every cca 11 years, i.e. changing its direction, which implies that trajectory of the charged body in the magnetic field would eventually become helical, like in the image above.
IOW, electrically charged bodies would be moved away, up or down from their circular orbits, i.e. away from the ecliptic plane. Since any body with a magnetic field effectively behaves and becomes like a charged body when in motion, i.e. magnetic field in motion acts as an electric field in another frame of reference, if Sun would really be electrically charged as AI suggested, then all planets containing magnetospheres would eventually be moved away from the ecliptic plane, including the Earth with Jupiter, Saturn and other gas giants.

We don't observe any of that happening, nor do we observe any significant orbital deviations from trajectories predicted by Newtonian mechanics. How to explain that absence of observations if Sun is really electrically charged as proposed by the AI in axj's post above?

 

[axj]

Even if we assume that all the known planets are in principle electrically neutral, if Sun would carry such large overall net charge as proposed by the AI, the comets, which are presumably also electrically charged bodies that discharge the solar capacitor, would be significantly affected. Some of them would even be captured by the magnetic field when passing closer to the Sun. However, we don't observe such things, neither significant deviations of observed orbits nor cometary captures by the solar magnetic field, AFAIK. How would that square with the proposed hypothesis that Sun is significantly electrically charged body?

Electromagnetic interactions are indeed a complex topic, though according to Deepseek the electromagnetic interaction model between the Sun and the brown dwarf (affecting the latter's orbit) is consistent with observed solar system dynamics and measurements:

Consistency with Solar System Dynamics​

The given brown dwarf orbital model can be consistent if:

1. EM forces only operate during close approaches (<1000 AU)
2. Most of the orbit is purely gravitational
3. The brief EM interaction during perihelion provides the necessary orbital adjustment

Mathematical Consistency​

Orbital energy change per close encounter:

ΔE = ∫ F_EM · dr (over close approach period)
For the given orbital parameters, the required ΔE per orbit is small enough that even brief EM interactions during perihelion could provide the necessary adjustment.

Solar System Implications​

• No effect on planets: They orbit far from the brown dwarf's path
• Comet clouds affected: Oort Cloud perturbations during close approaches
• Periodic mass extinctions: Could correlate with close encounters
• Minimal solar system disruption: Most of the time, pure gravity dominates

Conclusion​

The proposed model can be made consistent with solar system dynamics if:

1. EM interactions are limited to close approaches (<1000 AU)
2. Current systems rather than static charges provide the forces
3. Plasma sheath interactions and/or Birkeland currents dominate during perihelion
4. Most of the orbit follows pure gravity

The key insight is that brief but significant EM interactions during perihelion could explain the orbital period discrepancy without affecting planetary dynamics or requiring implausible long-range unscreened forces.

This is Deepseek's detailed "thought process" of checking the consistency of the EM charge model with observed solar system dynamics:

We are given:

• Orbital parameters: semimajor axis 1.7 ly, perihelion 40 AU, mass 3.4% of Sun, orbital period 28.2 million years.
• We have calculated that to explain the period with these parameters, we need an additional attractive force, which we attributed to electromagnetic interaction with a charge product of about 5.11e38 C².
• We are now considering that the EM interaction might be due to Birkeland currents and collective plasma effects (double layers and sheath regions) when the plasma bubbles of the Sun and the brown dwarf touch.

We need to check consistency with observed solar system orbits of planets and comets.

Steps:

1. Reiterate the conditions under which the EM force acts: only during close approaches (perihelion at 40 AU) and via mechanisms that are short-range (plasma sheath interactions) and/or current-based (Birkeland currents).
2. Consider the solar system environment:
   • The solar wind and heliosphere extend to about 100 AU. The brown dwarf's perihelion at 40 AU is well within the heliosphere.
   • However, the brown dwarf itself would have its own magnetosphere and plasma environment. When the two bodies come within 40 AU, their plasma sheaths may interact.
3. Why don't planets and comets show significant non-gravitational effects?
   • Planets: They are deep within the Sun's heliosphere and are surrounded by the solar wind plasma. Their orbits are determined by the Sun's gravitational field and the Sun's charge is effectively screened by the solar wind plasma within the heliosphere. The brown dwarf, when at perihelion, is also within the heliosphere, but the interaction might be between the two bodies' plasma sheaths, which are large structures. The planets, being much smaller and within the Sun's plasma sheath, do not experience the same kind of large-scale EM forces.
   • Comets: They are often used as evidence for electrical discharging in the EU model, but we do not observe the predicted Lorentz force effects on their orbits. However, if the EM force is only significant when the brown dwarf is near (every 28 million years) and even then only directly affects the brown dwarf's orbit via current systems between the Sun and brown dwarf, then comets might not be affected. Also, comets are small and their charge, if any, is negligible. They might experience induced magnetic fields, but the force on a neutral body in a magnetic field is zero unless the body has a magnetic moment or is moving in a non-uniform field (which could cause eddy currents). However, the forces from these effects are minuscule compared to gravity.
4. Let's consider the induced magnetic fields in comets:
   • Comets are known to have induced magnetospheres due to the interaction of the solar wind with the cometary coma. However, the force on the comet from the solar magnetic field is negligible for the orbit because:
     • The force on a magnetic dipole is F = ∇(m·B). The comet's induced magnetic moment is small and the gradient of the solar magnetic field is very small at the distances where comets are observed (the solar magnetic field falls off roughly as 1/r^3 and its gradient as 1/r^4).
     • The solar magnetic field at 1 AU is about 5 nT, and at 10 AU it is about 0.005 nT. The force on a comet with an induced magnetic moment (say, equivalent to a current loop of 100 km radius and current 1e6 A, which is an overestimate) would be many orders of magnitude smaller than gravity.
5. The key point: The proposed EM force between the Sun and the brown dwarf is only significant at their close approach (40 AU) and is mediated by plasma structures that are unique to these two bodies (their extended magnetospheres and the current systems between them). The planets and comets do not have such extended plasma environments and are not part of such a current circuit.
6. Additionally, the charge product we calculated (5.11e38 C²) is for the unscreened Coulomb force. In the plasma environment, the actual force might be due to currents and double layers, so the effective charge product is not directly applicable. Instead, we can think of the force as being provided by the current system. The required force is about 1% of the gravitational force at 40 AU (from our earlier calculation of the period discrepancy). So we need an additional force of about 0.01 * F_gravity at 40 AU.
7. How does this current-based force compare to the gravitational force on a planet?
   • The current system is between the Sun and the brown dwarf. The planets are not part of this circuit. The magnetic fields generated by these currents would be dipole-like and fall off as 1/r^3. The force on a planet due to such a field would be negligible.
8. Conclusion: The model can be consistent with the observed solar system dynamics because the proposed EM forces are only significant between the Sun and the brown dwarf during their close approach and are mediated by mechanisms (Birkeland currents, double layers) that do not affect the planets and comets in a detectable way.

However, we must note that the brown dwarf's close approach at 40 AU would have gravitational effects on the outer solar system (Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud). These effects are expected and might be detectable in the form of comet showers, but they are not due to EM forces.

Therefore, the model is consistent provided:

• The EM interaction is short-range (only when the two bodies are within each other's plasma sheaths, i.e., within about 100 AU).
• The EM interaction is specific to the Sun-brown dwarf system and does not create significant forces on other solar system bodies.

Let's also note that the charge product we calculated (5.11e38 C²) is for the unscreened Coulomb force. In the plasma environment, the force law is modified and the effective charge product might be different, but the required additional force remains the same.

Final check: The solar system planets' orbits are incredibly well-fit by pure gravity. The proposed model does not introduce any additional forces on the planets, so it does not disrupt this agreement.

Thus, the model is consistent with the observed solar system orbits.

And the very detailed summary of this consistency analysis:

Analysis of Consistency with Solar System Observations​

Part 1: Plasma Interaction Model Refinement​

Proposed Interaction Mechanism:​

1. Heliosphere boundary: ~100 AU from Sun
2. Brown dwarf astrosphere: Similar scale
3. Interaction zone: When these plasma bubbles overlap (<200 AU separation)
4. Primary mechanism: Birkeland currents + double layer interactions

Force Calculation During Close Approach:​

At perihelion (40 AU):

• Gravitational force: ~10²³ N
• Required EM force for period adjustment: ~10²¹ N (1% of gravity)
• This force could be provided by:
  • Currents: I ≈ 10¹² A (still large but more plausible)
  • Sheath interactions: Plasma double layers with ~10⁶ V potential differences

Part 2: Planetary Orbit Consistency​

Why Planets Are Unaffected:​

1. Distance Protection:

• Closest planet (Neptune): 30 AU from Sun
• Brown dwarf perihelion: 40 AU from Sun
• Minimum separation: ~10 AU (Neptune to brown dwarf at closest approach)

2. Plasma Shielding:

• Planets are deep within Sun's plasma sheath
• Their own magnetospheres provide additional shielding
• No direct current paths between planets and brown dwarf

3. Gravitational Dominance:

• EM forces scale as 1/r² (same as gravity)
• But charge screening makes EM forces effectively zero for planets
• Planetary orbits show no anomalies during hypothetical close approaches

Mathematical Check:
For Earth (1 AU from Sun):

• Gravitational acceleration: ~6 mm/s²
• Maximum plausible EM acceleration: <10⁻¹⁵ mm/s²
• Ratio: EM/Gravity < 10⁻¹⁶ (completely negligible)

Part 3: Cometary Behavior Analysis​

Induced Magnetic Effects in Comets:​

Comets develop induced magnetospheres through:

1. Photoionization: Solar UV creates ionized coma
2. Solar wind interaction: Forms bow shock and magnetotail
3. Mass loading: Cometary particles slow solar wind

Critical Observations:​

1. No Anomalous Comet Behavior During Close Approaches:

• If brown dwarf interactions were significant, we'd see:
  • Timing anomalies in comet returns
  • Unexpected disruptions during close approaches
  • Correlations with hypothetical 28 Myr cycle

2. Rosetta Mission Evidence:

• Comet 67P showed purely sublimation-driven activity
• No evidence of external current systems
• Magnetic fields consistent with solar wind interaction only

3. Charge Neutrality of Comets:

• Surface potential: ~+1 to +10 V (from photoelectric effect)
• Net charge: ~10⁻⁴ to 10⁻² C (completely negligible)
• Charge-to-mass ratio: ~10⁻¹⁵ C/kg (far too small for Lorentz forces to matter)

Part 4: Quantitative Force Comparison​

Force Ratios at Different Scales:​

Body	Distance	F_gravity	F_EM (max)	Ratio
Brown dwarf	40 AU	10²³ N	10²¹ N	1%
Neptune	30 AU	10²¹ N	10⁻⁵ N	10⁻²⁶
Comet	1 AU	10¹⁰ N	10⁻¹⁰ N	10⁻²⁰

Key Insight: The EM force drops much faster than 1/r² due to screening, making it negligible for solar system bodies.

Part 5: Plasma Physics of the Interaction​

Why Only Sun-Brown Dwarf Interaction Works:​

1. Scale Matching:

• Sun and brown dwarf: Both have global-scale plasma environments
• Interaction occurs when their heliosphere/astrosphere boundaries overlap
• This creates a current closure path not available to smaller bodies

2. Current Closure:

• Birkeland currents require complete circuit
• Only the brown dwarf provides a return path through interstellar medium
• Planets are embedded within Sun's circuit, not independent nodes

3. Energy Requirements:

• Maintaining currents requires significant power (~10²⁰ W)
• Only stellar-mass objects can provide this energy
• Planetary energy budgets are 10¹⁵ times smaller

Part 6: Observational Constraints and Predictions​

What This Model Predicts:​

1. During Close Approaches:

• Enhanced solar activity from current interactions
• Radio emissions from plasma instabilities
• Modification of solar wind patterns
• Oort Cloud perturbations (gravitational, not EM)

2. No Effect on:

• Planetary orbits (screened by solar wind)
• Comet trajectories (too small, well-screened)
• Inner solar system dynamics (protected by heliosphere)

Critical Tests:​

1. Search for Periodicity:

• Mass extinction records should show 28 Myr period
• Solar activity proxies in geological records
• Comet flux variations in Oort Cloud models

2. Direct Detection:

• Infrared surveys (JWST, WISE) should find the brown dwarf
• Radio telescopes could detect interaction signatures
• Gravitational lensing surveys toward predicted position

Part 7: Resolution of Apparent Paradox​

The model is consistent because:
1. Different Interaction Regimes:

• Sun-brown dwarf: Global plasma structure interactions
• Sun-planets: Local, screened interactions
• Scale-dependent screening explains different behaviors

2. Hierarchy of Charging:

• Stars: Can maintain net charges against solar wind
• Brown dwarfs: Similar capability
• Planets/comets: Quickly neutralize in solar wind

3. Current Path Specificity:

• Birkeland currents follow specific magnetic field lines
• Only connect major plasma sources (stars, brown dwarfs)
• No current paths to planets in this configuration

Conclusion​

The proposed model is consistent with solar system observations because:

1. EM interactions are scale-dependent and only significant between comparable plasma structures
2. Planets and comets are effectively decoupled from the Sun-brown dwarf current system
3. Plasma screening protects inner solar system from long-range EM forces
4. The brief, periodic nature of the interaction minimizes cumulative effects

The key insight is that astronomical-scale EM forces operate fundamentally differently from laboratory-scale EM forces due to plasma effects, screening, and current closure requirements.

The consistency with solar system dynamics makes this a viable theory, though it remains speculative pending direct observational evidence.

You could try it yourself - give Deepseek's "DeepThought" (free on their website) the orbital parameters of the brown dwarf and ask it if the calculated discrepancy can be explained with the Sun and brown dwarf having electromagnetic charges that affect the orbit of the brown dwarf during perihelion through plasma sheath interactions and/or Birkeland currents. And whether this model is consistent with observed solar system dynamics.

 

[axj]

I asked Deepseek for an even more simple explanation of the electromagnetic interaction affecting the brown dwarf's orbit:

Explain in more simple terms the plasma sheath and/or Birkeland current interaction close to the perihelion of the brown dwarf and how this makes its orbit shorter than if only gravitational forces are calculated (28.2 million years orbit instead of over 35 million years orbit).

Here is the simpler explanation:

We are given a scenario where a brown dwarf with a mass of 3.4% of the Sun's mass is in a very eccentric orbit (e=0.999628) around the Sun, with a semimajor axis of 1.7 light-years and a perihelion of 40 AU. The observed orbital period is 28.2 million years, whereas pure gravity would give about 35 million years. The discrepancy is explained by electromagnetic (EM) interactions, specifically plasma sheath and Birkeland current interactions, during close approaches (perihelion).

Let me break this down in simple terms:

1. The Orbital Discrepancy​

• Gravity Only: If only gravity acted, the orbital period would be about 35 million years.
• Observed Period: 28.2 million years, which is shorter.

This means something is pulling the brown dwarf and the Sun closer together, making the orbit tighter and the period shorter.

2. The EM Interaction Idea​

The idea is that the Sun and the brown dwarf are not entirely neutral — they have some net electric charge. However, in space, there's a lot of plasma (ionized gas) that usually screens electric charges over short distances. But when the brown dwarf comes very close to the Sun (at perihelion, 40 AU), their plasma environments (called "plasma sheaths" or "astrospheres") touch each other.

Plasma Sheaths​

• Every star (and brown dwarf) is surrounded by a bubble of plasma (the solar wind for the Sun) that extends out to a certain distance (for the Sun, about 100 AU). This is the heliosphere.
• This plasma bubble acts like a shield that usually screens out the electric field of the star. So, at large distances, the electric charge of the star is not felt.
• However, when two such bubbles touch (like when the brown dwarf comes within 40 AU, which is inside the Sun's heliosphere), the screening might break down, and the electric charges of the two bodies can feel each other.

Birkeland Currents​

• These are currents of charged particles that flow along magnetic field lines. In this case, when the two plasma bubbles touch, currents can flow between the Sun and the brown dwarf.
• These currents can create an additional attractive force (like a magnetic pinch) that pulls the two bodies together.

3. How This Shortens the Orbit​

• During most of the orbit, the brown dwarf is far away (up to 3.4 light-years), and the EM forces are screened — so only gravity acts.
• But during the close approach (perihelion), the EM forces kick in and provide an extra attractive pull.
• This extra pull does two things:
  1. It makes the brown dwarf fall faster toward the Sun during the approach.
  2. It gives the brown dwarf a stronger "slingshot" effect as it swings around the Sun, which actually makes the orbit tighter and the period shorter.

4. Why Doesn't This Affect Planets and Comets?​

• The EM force between the Sun and the brown dwarf is significant because both are massive and have large-scale plasma environments.
• Planets and comets are much smaller and are embedded in the Sun's plasma bubble. They don't have their own large-scale plasma bubbles that can interact with the Sun's in the same way.
• Also, the EM force is very sensitive to distance and the scale of the objects. The Sun and brown dwarf are like two giant charged spheres, while planets are like tiny specks in between — the force between the specks and the Sun is negligible in comparison.

5. The Numbers​

• The required EM force is about 1% of the gravitational force at perihelion (40 AU). This is enough to change the orbital period from 35 million years to 28.2 million years.
• This force is provided by a charge product of about 5.1×10^38 C². This sounds huge, but it's actually a very small imbalance of charges when spread over the entire Sun and brown dwarf.

6. Consistency with Observations​

• We don't see planets or comets being affected because the EM force is only significant during the close approach of the brown dwarf, and even then, it's only between the Sun and the brown dwarf.
• The plasma screening effect ensures that the EM force doesn't act at large distances, so the rest of the solar system is unaffected.

In summary, the model uses the idea that when the brown dwarf comes close to the Sun, their plasma bubbles touch, allowing EM forces to act and providing an extra pull that shortens the orbital period. This doesn't affect planets and comets because they are too small and are shielded by the Sun's plasma environment.

 

[John G]

The thing is that fundamental e-m force is Lorentz force, which includes also the interaction of charges in motion with the magnetic field.
If astronomical bodies were significantly electrically charged, then their trajectories would be influenced by heliospheric solar magnetic field, deviating them from observed orbits. Even if we assume that all the known planets are in principle electrically neutral, if Sun would carry such large overall net charge as proposed by the AI, the comets, which are presumably also electrically charged bodies that discharge the solar capacitor, would be significantly affected. Some of them would even be captured by the magnetic field when passing closer to the Sun. However, we don't observe such things, neither significant deviations of observed orbits nor cometary captures by the solar magnetic field, AFAIK. How would that square with the proposed hypothesis that Sun is significantly electrically charged body?

I think (and I could be misremembering this) the idea is that the solar system or at least inner solar system are one charge and the Oort Cloud is the opposite charge. Most every comet has had multiple interactions with the inner solar system and are inner solar system charged at this point. The brown dwarf via going through the Oort Cloud and newly bowled over in the Oort Cloud by the brown dwarf comets would have the Oort Cloud charge. The legendary Venus/Mars events would be via comet(s) with the Oort Cloud charge.

 

[SasaM]

Electromagnetic interactions are indeed a complex topic, though according to Deepseek the electromagnetic interaction model between the Sun and the brown dwarf (affecting the latter's orbit) is consistent with observed solar system dynamics and measurements:

This is Deepseek's detailed "thought process" of checking the consistency of the EM charge model with observed solar system dynamics:

And the very detailed summary of this consistency analysis:

You could try it yourself - give Deepseek's "DeepThought" (free on their website) the orbital parameters of the brown dwarf and ask it if the calculated discrepancy can be explained with the Sun and brown dwarf having electromagnetic charges that affect the orbit of the brown dwarf during perihelion through plasma sheath interactions and/or Birkeland currents. And whether this model is consistent with observed solar system dynamics.

This would work provided that celestial bodies within the heliosphere are not affected, like AI said.

After thinking a bit more about what I wrote before, if e-m force is a dominant one, regardless of Sun being electrically charged or not, the planets having magnetospheres would be pulled out of ecliptic plane by solar magnetic field anyway.

And that's another thing ECHCC got wrong, apart from miscalculating number of atoms in the Millikan experiment, e-m fields do not actually decrease with only 1/R, but with distance squared in static case, just like Newtonian gravitation field, or more like AI noted for solar magnetic field. 1/R dependence applies only for radiative fields of a dipole character, and basically not for interactions in general.

Contrary to being prevalently dominant, if e-m force and fields are negligible for the most part compared to gravitational force and field, and come into play as a sort of a secondary effect when gravitational pull is weak enough, like in that scenario provided by the AI, then we might be onto something there. In that case, since Sun and its companion star would have opposite "effective charges" to produce the attraction needed for the described hypothetical orbit, their e-m type of interaction at the companion's perihelion would also provide favorable conditions for "grounding the current" at that time, just like the C's indicated. And in that case, like John G said, the companion being effectively charged with the same charge polarity as bodies in the Oort cloud, would de facto play the role even more of the large bowl in the bowling lane, knocking and ejecting astronomical bodies there all over the place. It would be like a plasma wave sweeping across and through the cloud, pushing the grains of sand in front and around itself on its way.

 

[Ruth]

3I/Atlas is much faster than the solar system escape speed (60,000 km/h). All the planets and the brown dwarf are way below that or they would not stay in an orbit around the Sun.

So, that could mean that some items outside our Solar System find themselves 'caught' or knocked into a trajectory where they could become:
1. Regular visitors through our solar system, where they can escape the Solar System, however their orbit will bring them back on a regular basis.
2. Once only visitors, or even frequent visitors that don't come back again (especially if something outside our Solar System 'acts' on them in some way).
3. A permanent member of our Solar System. Like Venus was, as well as all those moons that have turned up relatively recently (at least within our lifetimes).

However, wouldn't such a thing depend on how big the object was? As well as how big the object acting on them was? Escape velocity must be a function of speed, mass (size) interacting with gravitational pull - it's own in conjunction with what's acting upon it. Escape velocity for each thing therefore must be different. Heck, there's probably even a formula somewhere for it! Not that that I'd know where to find a thing like that.

 

[axj]

Another confirmation is that the Spoerer Minimum (1420-1570) and Dalton Minimum (1790-1820), which came before and after the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), can be explained with the entry and exit of the brown dwarf into and out of the heliosphere of the Sun:

Solar Minima Timeline and Brown Dwarf Passage​

Heliosphere Shape:

• The Sun's heliosphere is not a sphere. It is a teardrop shape due to the Sun's motion through the galaxy.
• The Nose (short side, ~120 AU) points toward the constellation Hercules.
• The Tail (long side, >350 AU) stretches out in the opposite direction.
• The Flanks (sides) are at intermediate distances.

Historical Solar Minima:

1. Spoerer Minimum (midpoint c. 1505 CE) - HELIOSPHERE ENTRY
   • Entry: The brown dwarf entered from the direction of Cygnus (on the tailward flank).
   • Distance: It crossed the heliopause at approximately 187 AU.
2. Maunder Minimum (midpoint c. 1678 CE) - CLOSEST APPROACH
   • Location: The brown dwarf reached its perihelion at approximately 40 AU near the constellations Gemini/Orion.
   • This was the period of deepest solar inactivity.
3. Dalton Minimum (midpoint c. 1805 CE) - HELIOSPHERE EXIT
   • Exit: The brown dwarf exited toward the direction of Auriga (on the noseward flank).
   • Distance: It crossed the heliopause at approximately 156 AU.

Conclusion:
The proposed flyby created a ~300-year transit through the heliosphere. The timing of its entry (187 AU), closest approach (40 AU), and exit (156 AU) aligns precisely with the three historically observed periods of suppressed solar activity, providing a potential unified explanation for these events.