Computational modelling of the companion star and its interaction with Sol

[thorbiorn]

A comment on the distance of the companion perihelion

We do not know how close the brown dwarf perihelion was, 40 AU is just the average distance of Pluto (it goes from 30 to 50 AU).

I had Deepseek calculate a few times the closest approach between Pluto and the brown dwarf (including the geometry), as well as the minimum and maximum effect it could have had.

Based on this, we can probably rule out the brown dwarf perhilelion at less than 35 AU, because this would have most likely resulted in catapulting Pluto out of the solar system. Pluto just happened to be close to the brown dwarf perihelion in the middle of Maunder Mininimum.

At a perihelion of 40 AU, the effect on Pluto (shortest distance to the brown dwarf about 10 AU in 1678) would have been minor (a few percent orbital change). And if the brown dwarf perihelion was closer to 50 AU, which is possible, the effect on the Pluto orbit would have been even less.

Earlier in the thread, there was:

I finished the simulation of the companion star together with the solar system including the planets.
I found proper initial conditions for the Sun and companion when the simulation starts from their farthest point on their orbit from the barycenter. The orbits are shown in Fig. 44.

So this was a success. I experimented also with variable perihelion distance and found that the distance should be not less than 45 AU because else the companion captures Pluto the dwarf planet and carries it off of the solar system. It was circling around the companion for the rest of the simulation which took three periods. So I guess the perihelion distance ought to be somewhere around 50 AU.

Well I then modified the orbital period of the companion to one tenth of the 26 million years to see the effect of the planetary positions on the aphelion distance. Well I reduced it in order to save time. So the simulation took only one day. I left the companion revolve for several orbital periods (Fig. 45). The barycenter moves to the left so the starting position was on the right most orbit.

One can see that indeed the aphelion distance and thus also the orbital period changes after each perihelion visit. This confirms that the planets have pronounced effect on the companion star. The perihelion distance for this case was 50 AU.

Regarding distance, the Cs also used the word roughly:
Distance of closest passage roughly corresponds to the distance of the orbit of Pluto from Sun
Session 4 July 1998

Q: (A) But I understand that the distance that the distance between the sun and this brown star is changing with time. Elliptical orbit means there is perihelion and aphelion. I want to know what will be, or what was, or what is the closest distance between this brown star and the sun? What is perihelion? Can we know this, even approximately. Is it about one light year, or less or more?

A: Less, much less. Distance of closest passage roughly corresponds to the distance of the orbit of Pluto from Sun.

Roughly, I take to mean it could be plus/minus, especially when the distance to Pluto varies between 30-49 AU, so 55 AU for sure, even 60 AU might be acceptable. For comparison the distance to Neptune is close to 30 AU throughout its orbit. If the distance had been closer to 30 AU would the Cs not have mentioned Neptune rather than Pluto?

A different approach to an evaluation for the distance to the perihelion of the companion is to consider whether a close passing would affect the structure of the Kuiper Belt, located at distances of 30-50 AU. This article, Potentially distinct structure in Kuiper belt discovered with help of clustering algorithm from Phys.org has

Back in 2011, a team of astronomers noticed a denser region of the objects located within the Kuiper belt at around 44 AU. The team dubbed this region the "kernel" and found that the objects within it had low ecliptic inclinations and eccentricities compared to other KPOs.

In other words, their orbits were more circular and lay closer to the plane of the solar system, rather than at an angle. The kernel itself is within another distinct population of KPOs, referred to as the "dynamically cold" population, in which all objects tend to have lower eccentricities and inclinations.

They go on to suggest the possibility that there is another similar concentration of regular orbiting objects at about 43 AU, however a question is: would the integrity in terms of low eccentricities and inclinations of such a concentration have been compromised in a still detectable manner if the companion had come too close to this distance of 44 AU? If there are not such signs, the passing must have taken place further out.

Continuing with roughly, there was:
The companion star: Period 28.2 million years, mass 3.4 % of the mass of the sun, semi-major axis 1.7 light years.
Session 30 January 2010

(Ark) Oh, it's predictable on a more or less... I mean, they are small anomalies, not big anomalies. I want to ask about my numbers. So, I put numbers. We were asking for these numbers years ago, you were evasive, and you even admitted that you are evasive for a good reason. Nevertheless, I did calculations with what I could - of course garbage in/garbage out as everyone knows. So, I put for the period 26 million years. Is it approximately true?

A: Very close 28.2 million years.

Q: (Ark) Then I had to put another number which was not told to us. I was asking about the mass of this companion star, and I was told that it was "much less than the sun". So, in my calculations, I put half a percent of the mass of the sun. Is it approximately true?

A: 3.4, closer

Q: (Ark) 3 percent?! And not half a percent?? That would mean that when it approaches, it will induce perturbation of the solar system.

A: Indeed!

Q: (Ark) Hmm.

A: It already has done so in the past. Just check the record.

Q: (Joe) It's already perturbed in the past?

(L) So in other words, you can examine the record and find out what kind of perturbations it does. Like the geological record, historical record, archaeology, etc.

(Ark) I will do this. Now, just one other question to check. I calculated from these data - the difference in the mass between what I thought. And what we just learned will not influence these calculations - it has to do with perturbations - so, I calculated what we call a semi-major axis. So there is the binary system, there is the sun and there is this companion. And they circulate around each other. But the sun moves only a little bit because it's heavy. So I calculated the semi-major axis. It's a flat elliptical orbit. So we know the semi-minor axis because we were told it's around Pluto distance. So I calculated the semi-major axis and I got the answer like 87,000 astronomical units, which is about 1.3 light years, a the semi-major axis of this elongated ellipse. Is this 1.3 light years more or less the right answer?

A: 1.7

In terms of mass Jupiter has in the current models a mass of around 1/1000 of the mass of the Sun (0.00095). The twin should then be 0.034/0.00095=3400/95=680/19 or 35-36 times heavier than Jupiter.

1.7 light years: if there are two significant figures, 1.7 ly would be as rounded up/down values in the interval from 1.65 to 1.75 light years. Converted to AU using 63,241 AU per light year gives 107509.7 AU with a plus or minus of 5375 AU. This would then be the rounded off values from the interval from 102134 AU to 112885 AU. From this perspective there is some tolerance while still remaining with the suggestion of a semi-major axis of 1.7 light years.

An earlier attempt using 1.7 ly did not quite work, but it was not far off either

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.

I don't know about UFT, but if there is much mass in the inner Oort cloud distributed among smaller and larger objects, might that influence the orbit of the companion, or would electric charge, or anomalies of space?

Regarding perturbations, when the Cs in Session 30 January 2010 say the mass of the companion is closer to 3.4 percent of the mass of the Sun, Ark says "That would mean that when it approaches, it will induce perturbation of the solar system." The perturbations could be gravitational, electrical, magnetic, and electro-magnetic. These may have been secondary effects which as Laura suggests could show up in "geological record, historical record, archaeology, etc."

Could disturbances show up in the astronomical records? Would the barycenter of the Solar System be affected? A barycenter is explained in the Wiki as "the center of mass of two or more bodies that orbit one another and is the point about which the bodies orbit" The barycenter of the Solar System is not stationary:

In the model, there is no companion mass. The Wiki explains that less is enough:

To calculate the actual motion of the Sun, only the motions of the four giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) need to be considered. The contributions of all other planets, dwarf planets, etc. are negligible. If the four giant planets were on a straight line on the same side of the Sun, the combined center of mass would lie at about 1.17 solar radii, or just over 810,000 km, above the Sun's surface.

A question might be if the current calculations of the barycenter of the Solar System are reliable and anomaly free? They claim so:
This new, super-accurate way to pinpoint our solar system's center may help spot monster black hole crashes

Astronomers have found a way to pinpoint our solar system's center of mass to within a mere 330 feet (100 meters), a recent study reports.

Alternatively, what consequences would there be for the barycenter calculations of the Solar System if one included a companion object with a mass of about 35 times that of Jupiter, somewhat further out? Could a possible effect be cancelled by other factors or somehow pale by comparison to the influence from the mentioned large planets?

Sun companion hidden in almost plain sight, or visible in the future?
As an example of something hidden in almost plain sight, the Wiki about Neptune has that it may have been observed by Galileo over two hundred years before it was recognized and confirmed in 1846.

Some of the earliest known telescopic observations ever, Galileo's drawings on 28 December 1612 and 27 January 1613 (New Style) contain plotted points that match what is now known to have been the positions of Neptune on those dates. Both times, Galileo seems to have mistaken Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared close—in conjunction—to Jupiter in the night sky. Hence, he is not credited with Neptune's discovery. At his first observation in December 1612, Neptune was almost stationary in the sky because it had just turned retrograde that day. This apparent backward motion is created when Earth's orbit takes it past an outer planet. Because Neptune was only beginning its yearly retrograde cycle, the motion of the planet was far too slight to be detected with Galileo's small telescope. In 2009, a study suggested that Galileo was at least aware that the "star" he had observed had moved relative to fixed stars.

Taking the idea from the story, it might already have been recorded, just not identified, at least not in a way that has been made public.

While we are on the topic of long gone astronomers and their achievements, there was a Polish/German brewer, Johannes Hevelius (1611-1687), who built a 46 meters long telescope in the Polish Baltic town of Danzig and used the results from his observations to map the surface of the Moon.

Incidentally, the second wife of Hevel was the allegedly first female astronomer, Catherina Elisabeth (1647-1693).
Now 400 years later we are discussing whether the Sun has a Twin? Might efforts and instrumental constructs parallel to those of the Hevels come to the rescue? With todays amateur abilities it might be possible. From an old article published in the UK in 2013: Truckdriver builds world's largest amateur telescope using 900 pound mirror originally meant for Cold War spy satellite

The long-haul trucker from West Jordan, Utah, has single-handedly built a 70-inch telescope — the largest one on record to be crafted by an amateur astronomer, enabling users to see constellations previously visible only through the $2.5 billion Hubble Space Telescope.

While the primary mirror is 70 inches, the black metal structure itself stands about 35 feet tall, supporting a secondary mirror that is 29 inches.

To register something as obscure as a dark companion, a combination of good calculations and good observations should be able to help. In that sense it may be a bit like trying to reveal the man behind the curtain, and who knows maybe the discoveries mirror each other. In a certain sense, they already do.

 

[axj]

An earlier attempt using 1.7 ly did not quite work, but it was not far off either

Yes, the orbital parameters given by the C's do not work if it is just gravity interactions. What can reduce the orbital period from around 35 million years (if it was just gravity) to 28.2 million years are electromagnetic interactions between the Sun and the brown dwarf.

In particular, the Lorentz force from Birkeland plasma currents between the Sun and the brown dwarf, which even according to 'official' science are created when a stronger and weaker magnetic fields and heliospheres touch. These currents then build up a positive charge on the Sun and a negative charge on the brown dwarf. The C's also hinted at that in several sessions.

Here is more detailed information (and calculations) about this electromagnetic interaction and how it can shorten the periodicity of the brown dwarf orbit.

 

[Wandering Star]

(Andromeda) That trembling was on the 18th, and a week later the sun did the singing.

(L) The sun was singing.

A: Loosely connected by effects of the same general influences in the solar system at present.

Q: (L) And what are those general influences?

A: External and internal.

Q: (L) Well that doesn't help.

(Pierre) Is the external Nemesis?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) Internal is the state of humanity?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Is internal also streams of comet dust?

A: Yes

Q: (L) So, it's basically the same mechanism. And external could also be the wave?

A: Yes

I just read this and maybe it's interpret that as meaning that in 2018 Nemesis was already outside the solar system.

Whar the C's consider to be outside the solar system is another matter.

 

[N34]

Here is a simple experiment. Two plates made of conductive material, with insulating material between the plates are suspended on a long thread. When high voltage is applied to the plates, the entire assembly deflects in the direction of positive plate. The power required to do so is miniscule, as the apparatus is just a two plate capacitor, and the current is in microamperes. The force is weak, but is definitely present and the amplitude seems to be proportional to the applied electric potential.

The problem is, how to explain this force. According to mainstream physics, there are only attractive forces between the plates of the capacitor. These forces are of the same magnitude and of opposite orientation and their net sum is zero. In theory, the capacitor should not move at all. Even the attractive force between the plates is not properly explained, because how can these two plates interact together without any kind of medium that links them together. We are to believe that electric energy is stored in vacuum, that is, in nothing, and the forces acting on the plates are due to charges. But what is a charge and how can a charge exist in nothingness? Besides, the term "charge" is as abstract as it gets. We can as well believe that it is leprechauns pulling the plates together and the entire assembly sideways, yet a sane person does not believe in fantasy, but believes in reality. And when it comes to reality, experiment is the king, and the accompanying knowledge that facilitates the understanding is the queen.

Earth is among other things also a giant capacitor. The atmosphere acts as an insulating material, which can store energy as electric stress, and ionised layer on top of the atmosphere together with the planetary surface create two conductive plates of the capacitor. It is evident from observations, that the density of air is not constant but changes with altitude. The air is most dense at the planetary surface, where due to gravity it is compacted and as we go higher in altitude, the density drops. This is exactly the same for any medium, be it water, air, or electric medium. Ultimately, all matter is made of the same medium and therefore matter reflects changes in this medium. We can measure the change in density of the electric medium as a voltage difference and if we take planetary surface as reference, then the electric potential increases with altitude. Clearly there is corelation between voltage and the density of this medium. Positively charged atmosphere is less dense, and is rarefied, with reference to ambient or neutral state. The same must be true for the medium as is evident from not only the experiment, where around the positive plate the medium is rarefied and the drop in pressure causes movement to the side, but also from lightning phenomena.

In stormy weather, it can be observed formation of cracks in the air which are originating always from the upper atmosphere. This is not the lightning itself, but a precursor of same. Due to high electric stress, the air breaks down and cracks are formed which slowly propagate in traditional zig-zag fashion toward the surface of the earth. It is interesting that these cracks never start at the planetary surface, but always start at high altitude. It is more than probable that medium which is less dense and is rarefied, is much easier punctured than more dense medium. We can observe the same effect in vacuum tubes. Many times, when the cracks propagate considerable distance and slowly approach the planetary surface, we can observe that another crack forms at the surface and propagate a small distance toward the positive crack. Once these meet, the conductive path is formed and now the energy transfer begins, which we call lightning. Compared to the propagation of the cracks, the lightning propagates fast - the speed of light. Now this might be confusing, but the energy is not flowing in the same direction as the cracks were propagating. The energy is flowing from the planetary surface toward the high altitude where the cracks originated. This is due to the universal law of balance, which states, that the universe always seeks balance. Therefore, the energy always flows from the region of higher pressure and higher density, towards region of lower pressure and lower density.

If we could encapsulate portion of the medium and change the tension inside, then it would naturally rise upward due to the universal law of attraction, which states that similar seeks similar. The principle is exactly the same as in hot air baloon, where we regulate altitude by regulating temperature of air inside the baloon and in this way we are changing the density of the air. The baloon will hower at altitude, where the air inside the baloon and outside has the same density. Clearly this can be done in any kind of medium whether it is water, air or electric medium. The universal principles are universal and thus applicable to everything that exists.

 

[N34]

Here is another experiment, which is inverse of the previous one. Previously, the capacitor was energized using power supply and in this way we could interact with electric medium surrounding the assembly. In the experiment presented in this post, we expand one plate of a capacitor to high altitude by adding an extra plate connected by conductor to the capacitor plate. The other plate of the capacitor is grounded. Because the plates are exposed to electric medium which has different density for each plate, the capacitor charges itself, albeit very slowly. This is due to natural convection of the electric medium around the extra plate.

The device should really be called condenser in this case, as it collects energy from the surrounding and converts it to usable electricity. The electric medium is composed of independent energy carriers which in balanced state cannot be utilized. They are everywhere around us and the process of collecting them is similar to condensation of water. Just like air can contain large quantity of water, if saturated to full humidity, we still cannot drink the water even if it is all around us suspended in the air. What we can do is build a condenser unit, which is two plates with heat pump which transfers heat from one plate to another one. The result is that one plate will have temperature above ambient and the other plate will have temperature below ambient, so one plate will be hot, and the other one cold. When the air is allowed to flow around the cold plate either by natural convection or by forced flow, the water molecules will condense due to cold air having higher density, and accumulate into water droplets, which can then be collected into a reservoir and then the collected water can be utilized for any purpose. The process is slow if only natural convection of air is used and the yield can be increased by forced flow of air around the cold plate, or by increasing the temperature differential.

Similarly, the electric medium is all around us but we need to condense the individual energy carriers just like water on a plate which is inductively energized by opposite plate of a condenser. This is comparable to reduction of the temperature on one of the plates, the ground plate which is connected to ground, and on the plate individual particles of the electric medium are accumulated and form electrons. It is obvious that electron is not an elementary particle as it is composed of huge number of true elementary particles. Electron is just a chunk of matter. Thinking that electron is an elementary particle is like thinking that drop of water is a single water molecule, or that an elephant is a single-cell organism. The real elementary particles are much smaller. These particles are tiny particles, they are so tiny we can not see them. And if we cannot see them are they really there? Well, yes, if electron is made of these particles, then all matter is formed from these particles, which are the true elementary particles, by condensation, and we can see physical matter, because it consists of huge number of the tiny particles.

Because matter requires intelligent design, we can realize that the medium is manifestation of universal consciousness and each particle possesses intelligence as well as free will. We can communicate with this medium either artificially or directly using our thoughts, as our consciousness is fragment of the universal consciousness. It is obvious that the medium is infinitely variable, as everything that we know as matter, however exotic, can be formed by the medium and if we can imagine something, then it can exist as the medium acts according to the information received. Of course this means that matter is also variable. From our experience in this world, we are conditioned to think, that physical matter is set in stone and cannnot change. We know that the frying pan made of cast iron today, will still be the same tomorrow and also in ten years, it will be the same pan made of the same iron. We can say this about any physical object in this world. The real tragedy of this is, that we tend to extend this limiting experience onto everything else. This of course is not true, especially not for the tiny particles.

It is said that the truth will set us free. This world, where physical matter is fixed, is a prison, whereas a world where we understand that everything is variable, and can be shaped to our imagination, is our home. It also shows how important it is to not anticipate, as non-anticipation means respecting free will of the tiny particles and of the universe. We interact with tiny particles all the time, even if we are not aware that we do. Every our thought and emotion creates ripple in the tiny particles and therefore it is important to have some basic emotional and thought hygiene. The law of attraction applies here. It is the nature of STS to artificially create imbalance to profit from it, but that also requires lot of effort because of the law of balance. STO respects and acts according to the universal laws, and as a result the universe always helps. Therefore it is always easier to restore balance, or go with the natural universal flow, than to destroy balance, or go against the natural flow. It can be said that STO connects to the very wheelwork of the universe, and the universe always provides everything that is needed.

 

[axj]

There is one thing that does not quite align with the theory that the two grand solar minima before and after the Maunder Minimum were caused by the brown dwarf entering and exiting the heliosphere.

And that is that according to current research and estimates there have been two dozen grand solar minima in the last 10,000 years:

A list of historical Grand minima of solar activity includes also Grand minima ca. 690 AD, 360 BC, 770 BC, 1390 BC, 2860 BC, 3340 BC, 3500 BC, 3630 BC, 3940 BC, 4230 BC, 4330 BC, 5260 BC, 5460 BC, 5620 BC, 5710 BC, 5990 BC, 6220 BC, 6400 BC, 7040 BC, 7310 BC, 7520 BC, 8220 BC, 9170 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum

These estimates are based on isotope measurements in tree rings and ice cores. Here is a Deepseek summary of it:

The primary evidence doesn't come from direct solar observations (which only cover ~400 years), but from cosmogenic radionuclides preserved in natural archives:

• ¹⁴C (Carbon-14): Found in tree rings (dendrochronology). Provides a high-resolution, annually dated record.
• ¹⁰Be (Beryllium-10): Found in ice cores (e.g., from Greenland or Antarctica). Also provides excellent resolution and cross-verification.

How it works: When the Sun is active (strong solar wind and magnetic field), it better shields Earth from galactic cosmic rays. During Grand Minima, the weakened shield allows more cosmic rays to hit Earth's atmosphere, producing more ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be. Anomalous peaks in these isotopes in dated archives are a proxy for periods of very low solar activity.

• Multiple, Independent Proxies: The correlation between ¹⁴C (tree rings) and ¹⁰Be (ice cores) is strong. They are produced by different atmospheric processes and stored in different archives, so when they agree, confidence is very high.
• High-Resolution Dating: Tree rings provide annual resolution. Ice cores have slightly lower but still excellent resolution (often decadal). This allows for precise timing of minima onset and duration.
• Reproducibility: Different research teams using different ice cores and tree-ring datasets have identified the same major events (e.g., the Maunder Minimum ~1645-1715, Spörer Minimum ~1460-1550, etc.).

So it appears that grand solar minima may be usually caused by something else than the brown dwarf.

It does seem though that the Maunder Minimum was the biggest one, as well as one in the 6th millenium BC, suggesting that these were caused by something else than the normal, much smaller grand solar minima:

https://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf

 

[Gaby]

These estimates are based on isotope measurements in tree rings and ice cores. Here is a Deepseek summary of it:

From the original study quoted in wikipedia, it says they used:

We used six 10Be series of different lengths (from 500–10 000 yr) from Greenland and Antarctica, and the global 14C production series.

The second quoted original study says:

We present an updated reconstruction of sunspot number over multiple millennia, from 14C data by means of a physics based model, using an updated model of the evolution of the solar open magnetic flux.

It seems that the primary method for radiocarbon dating is Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS), which measures the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C atoms in a sample.

10Be (beryllium-10) dating measures the accumulation of cosmogenic ¹⁰Be, produced when cosmic rays interact with oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere and with minerals in rocks and soil.

Although ¹⁰Be and ¹⁴C are both measured using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS), they are distinct methods.

It seems to me that they both fall into the following, though:

July 3rd, 1999

A: "They" fail to take into effect the influence of magnetic aberrations caused by ancient cataclysms.

Q: (L) How can these magnetic aberrations affect radiocarbon dating?

A: By altering the isotopal imprints of matter.

Sept 30th, 1994

In particular, what is not being considered is the possibility that magnetic aberrations caused by ancient cataclysms might alter the isotopal imprints of matter. Electromagnetic surges could scramble the radiological dating, as well as other dating methods. These problems are discussed by some scientists, but they are generally not allowed to be heard in the mainstream journals.

December 3rd, 1994

Q: (L) Is the carbon 14 dating process fairly accurate, if not, what is its major weakness?

A: To an extent.

Q: (L) What is its major weakness?

A: Same as yours.

Q: (L) Which is?

A: "Time" does not exist.

Pierre has a chapter on "Radiocarbon Dating Anomalies" (Chapter 16th) which discuses at length 14C data and how unreliable it is. He also factored in the over 2000 nuclear tests done since 1945.

Let's keep it in mind, though, for further research and inquiries.

My thinking is that the Maunder Minimum cycles exist, but it's a science that has to factor in plasma universe physics of the galactic current kind.

 

[axj]

My thinking is that the Maunder Minimum cycles exist, but it's a science that has to factor in plasma universe physics of the galactic current kind.

I'm thinking that these "minor" grand solar minima that seem to happen every few hundred years may be due to other large objects crossing in and out of the heliosphere, such as the comet cluster or the dozens of dwarf planets beyond Neptune (eg. Sedna crosses in and out of the heliosphere).

These heliosphere crossings could disrupt the solar dynamo (=grand solar minimum) in the same way that the brown dwarf crossing apparently did, but maybe to a lesser extent.

I was thinking if it would be interesting to apply this idea to the 3600 year cometary cycle. It would amount to consider the "approaching factor", in terms of events: something potentially visible, precursor events. Then, when it's the closest to earth, and, finally, when it's "leaving".

I don't know if the mass of the cometary swarm is something comparable to the brown dwarf so that it would still be interesting to study the effects in the same way. Just an idea!

The graph of the supposed grand solar minima since 10,000 BC that I posted above shows nothing major in 2100 BC (or 1600 BC), but interestingy enough there were big grand solar minima around 5700 BC and 9300 BC, which would have been the previous comet cluster visits (adjusted for 470 phantom years).

 

[palestine]

I'm thinking that these "minor" grand solar minima that seem to happen every few hundred years may be due to other large objects crossing in and out of the heliosphere, such as the comet cluster or the dozens of dwarf planets beyond Neptune (eg. Sedna crosses in and out of the heliosphere).

These heliosphere crossings could disrupt the solar dynamo (=grand solar minimum) in the same way that the brown dwarf crossing apparently did, but maybe to a lesser extent.


The graph of the supposed grand solar minima since 10,000 BC that I posted above shows nothing major in 2100 BC (or 1600 BC), but interestingy enough there were big grand solar minima around 5700 BC and 9300 BC, which would have been the previous comet cluster visits (adjusted for 470 phantom years).

Thanks, I just noticed your post; I will read it before posting more. Seems you are revising the boldness of the three minimas... But could be that the Brown dwarf emphasized the phenomenon.

 

[palestine]

@axj

I see a pattern here:

Until 7600 BC.

Then it goes in a "bump" - no more like before, it's a stable "curve":

And then:

I am of course not sure if the above matches a correct reading of the chart.

I quickly read the article. Interesting parts:

4.4. Quasi-periodicities

We have also studied possible quasi-periodicities in the rate of grand minima/maxima occurrence. We have found that the
occurrence of grand minima depicts a weak (marginally significant) quasi-periodicity of 2000–2400 years, which is a
well-known period in 14 C data (e.g., Damon & Sonett 1991; Vasiliev & Dergachev 2002). No other periodicities are observed in the occurrence rate of grand minima. We have found no periodic feature in the occurrence of grand maxima in the SN-L series, while a marginal hint for a periodicity of about 1200 years and its harmonics (about 600 and 400 years – cf. Usoskin et al. 2004) is found in SN-S data. This indicates that the 2400-year periodicity is related likely to the clustering of grand minima rather than to a long-term “modulation” of solar activity. Therefore, we conclude that the occurrence of grand minima and maxima is not a result of long-term cyclic variability but is defined by stochastic/chaotic processes as discussed in Sect. 6.

(Stochastic means "random factor")

In addition the author explains that there are two variants of minimas:

4.2.2. Duration of grand minima

A histogram of the duration of grand minima (Table 1) is shown in Fig. 7. The mean duration is 70 year but the distribution
is not uniform. The minima tend to be either of a short duration, between 30 and 90 years similar to the Maunder minimum, or rather long, longer than 110 years similar to the Spörer minimum. This agrees with the earlier conclusion on two different types of grand minima (Stuiver & Braziunas 1989; Goslar 2003). This suggests that a grand minimum is a special state of the dynamo whose duration is not random but is defined by some intrinsic process. Note, however, that only 3 of the 5 Spörer-like minima are clear long grand minima while the other 2 are composed of multiple sub-minima (# 25 and 27 in Table 1 – see Sect. 3.1).

6. Discussion and conclusions

The occurrence of grand minima/maxima is not a result of long-term cyclic variations but is defined by stochastic/chaotic processes. This casts significant doubts on attempts of a long-term prediction of solar activity using multi-periodic analyses.

We distinguish between grand minima of two different types: short minima of Maunder type and long minima of Spörer type ... This suggests that a grand minimum is a special state of the dynamo. Once falling into the grand minimum as a result of a stochastic/chaotic but non-Poisson process, the dynamo is “trapped” in this state and its behaviour is driven by deterministic intrinsic features.

leaving a grand maximum is a random process, in contrast to the grand minimum case

Well - it is my opinion that there is no random process, given all that we know in terms of potential factors. It can be that the author is right, that the phenomenons are indeed bound to randomness. It could be, too, that the author has not been finding "the special factor".

Any way the study is interesting in its discernment of different types of minimas/maximas.

I wouldn't be discarding the brown dwarf, for the three recent minimas. It could be that if there had not been a brown dwarf, the author would have been able to lay down a repeatable model. How much did the brown dwarf event affect the paper's capacity of repeatability?

Sorry if this is not much, I appreciated the article, thank you!

EDITED: found the db for data series here: EarthRef.org Digital Archive (ERDA) -- ArcheoInt - compilation of geomagnetic field intensity data for past 10 millennia (random serie in the link)