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.