Session 1 November 2025

[SasaM]

To me his name was difficult to write at first. As I am French, writing it as it sounds worked (found out that his real name was Michael)

If you like his work you must check about Richard B. Firestone, he has been studying along the same lines!

Those are two different persons:
Mike Baillie was into dendrochronology, while M. E. Bailey, probably an astrophysicist or/and an astronomer, worked with Clube and Napier.
Check CatHoM for more details, for example.

Mike Baillie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The origin of comets : Bailey, M. E : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xxiii, 577 p., [1] leaf of plates : 24 cm

archive.org

FWIW.

 

[Windmill knight]

Regarding this fragment:

Q: (L) And from what I have here on my little paper, is that the Little Ice Age lasted from 1450 to 1850, and the Maunder minimum was kind of like a period of particular intensity in the middle of that from 1645 to 1715. So, would it be safe to say that the period of the Maunder minimum within the Little Ice Age was the period when this companion star was closest to earth - or closest to our sun or perihelion?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And since the Little Ice Age lasted from 1450 to 1850, that was the period of its generalized influence?

A: Yes

Q: (L) So that suggests that it takes like 400 years for something like that to pass through the Oort cloud?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) And how long does it take to come back?

A: No dice.

Q: (Joe) Would it be 180 years?

A: No. You will certainly soon be experiencing the effects of this last passage for some time to come.

Q: (Joe) So the last passage that ended in 1850?

(L) It ended more like 1715. Yeah. It takes... Do you know how far away those things are and how many years it takes?

(Joe) But the effects were occurring. The effects were the Little Ice Age, and…

(L) That was just the grounding of the current that caused the drop in sunspots.

(Joe) The perihelion was during the Maunder Minimum.

(L) The sun’s drop in sunspots. The perihelion was during the Maunder Minimum, the closest approach. So it's already the bowling ball that hit the pins.

(Gaby) It has an orbit of millions of years.

(Joe) Exactly. So it's a longer term series of impacts that…

The twin sun already passed perihelion, the closest point to the Sun. Joe asked if it might come back in 180 years and the Cs replied 'No dice' - yet we know that the total orbit is thousands or perhaps millions of years. Which makes me wonder what Joe had in mind or why the Cs replied that way, given that thousands or millions of years won't make any difference to us on this lifetime. So I was wondering if the orbit of the twin sun could have such a configuration as to have 2 perihelions - one on its way in and one on its way out. Let me explain:

Picture a very eccentric (flattened) elliptic orbit. The sun is surrounded by a large sphere of cometary bodies (the Oort cloud, which is located further away than Pluto). The sun is placed on one of the focal points of the ellipse (towards one end of the ellipse). As the twin sun approaches on its way in, it brushes one side of the Oort cloud (lets call it the 'Northern side'), then carries on a little further, then comes back for another brush on the other side of the cloud (the 'Southern side'). That way, we could have a scenario in which there are 2 perihelions, not that far from each other, and the time between those two passes would not be thousands or millions of years, but perhaps hundreds.

Watch this video to see what I mean. Just imagine the Oort cloud around the sun and replace the planet doing the orbit for the twin star:

So here's the question for those of you versed in math, physics and astronomy. Is that scenario possible according to orbital laws? That an orbit has a certain eccentricity that allows for the orbiting body to be closest to the Sun on two spots ('North' and 'South') rather than on the far end of the ellipse? If you look at the video on second 37 it appears that is indeed possible. Is that right? If so, the twin star may yet come close to us again instead of just wandering away for thousands or millions of years.

 

[Gaby]

The twin sun already passed perihelion, the closest point to the Sun. Joe asked if it might come back in 180 years and the Cs replied 'No dice' - yet we know that the total orbit is thousands or perhaps millions of years. Which makes me wonder what Joe had in mind or why the Cs replied that way, given that thousands or millions of years won't make any difference to us on this lifetime.

The Cs reply is in accordance to their historical refusal to give an exact number for sol's companion orbit in terms of precise years. The ballpark is millions of years, 27 million years being close enough for horseshoes, but not necessarily the precise figure. Again, they would say "close". Joe might have just given a random figure with the idea that perihelion was still to come. The session clarifies that perihelion is past us, it was during the Maunder Minimum of the 17th- early 18th Century.

As you can see from the last weeks, the sun is definitely not looking very grounded by sol's companion. If anything, it's discharging more than expected for this solar cycle. Comets are playing a role in this.

The video doesn't really portray sol's companion orbit, as its closest approach is in the outer regions of Pluto, not nowhere near the sun.

 

[Gaby]

Is this cometary cluster like a perfect belt, forming a periphery to the sun?

Here's Pierre illustration of a 3,600-year Solar orbit:

More info here: Volcanoes, Earthquakes And The 3,600 Year Comet Cycle

There are many depictions on the internet that might be more appropriate, but here's the Leonids orbit, with obviously much smaller. They'll be showing in the sky soon:

 

[SasaM]

Joe asked if it might come back in 180 years and the Cs replied 'No dice' - yet we know that the total orbit is thousands or perhaps millions of years. Which makes me wonder what Joe had in mind or why the Cs replied that way, given that thousands or millions of years won't make any difference to us on this lifetime.

The C's replied "No" to that question, but said "No dice." to "Q: (Joe) And how long does it take to come back?".

So here's the question for those of you versed in math, physics and astronomy. Is that scenario possible according to orbital laws? That an orbit has a certain eccentricity that allows for the orbiting body to be closest to the Sun on two spots ('North' and 'South') rather than on the far end of the ellipse? If you look at the video on second 37 it appears that is indeed possible. Is that right? If so, the twin star may yet come close to us again instead of just wandering away for thousands or millions of years.

No, perihelion is a single distinct position at certain time in the trajectory of orbiting body. Check the comets for example, like recent 3I/ATLAS, they have one perihelion position, but can be relatively close to Sun before and after.

The companion star could be for some time in the 'vicinity' of the Sun though, just like comets can, i.e. passing through the Oort cloud for certain number of years as it presumably did, before, after and exactly during the Maunder minimum when it was roughly at the perihelion, but its perihelion for this round of passage or orbit would be only that one, AFAIK.

Binary star - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[axj]

So here's the question for those of you versed in math, physics and astronomy. Is that scenario possible according to orbital laws? That an orbit has a certain eccentricity that allows for the orbiting body to be closest to the Sun on two spots ('North' and 'South') rather than on the far end of the ellipse?

For quick answers to questions like this, Deepseek is a good choice. It also says that it is impossible to have more than one perihelion, unless it is an orbit around two stars of similar size or something like that (then it becomes kind of an unpredictable orbit, "the three body problem").

The companion star could be for some time in the 'vicinity' of the Sun though, just like comets can, i.e. passing through the Oort cloud for certain number of years as it presumably did, before, after and exactly during the Maunder minimum when it was roughly at the perihelion

The Oort Cloud is not close to the brown dwarfs's perihelion, it is sort of mid-orbit and was passed by the brown dwarf thousands or even millions of years ago. The C's said in another session that the brown dwarf's orbit is 28 million years and that it goes out to 3.4 light years away. The Oort Cloud extends from around 0.03 ly (2000 AU) to around 1.5 ly (100,000 AU).

There is one unrelated problem and that is that the pretty exact orbital parameters the C's gave over the years are impossible (according to solid calculations by Deepseek) - unless the solar system has about 50% more mass.

But apparently even the whole Oort Cloud or the still undiscovered three larger planets weigh much, much less than that. Jupiter weighs 3% of the brown dwarf, which in turn has a mass of 3.4% of the Sun. Nothing comes even close to the mass of the Sun and its companion in the solar system.

 

[Windmill knight]

Thanks guys. Well, I found this online ellipse generator and it answered my question, as I cannot make it have the shape I had in mind. You cannot have an ellipse where the focal points (one of which is occupied by the Sun) are such that the closest point to the ellipse (the perihelion) is anywhere other than the extreme end of the ellipse along the axis of the focal points. Grok says the Sun must always be in a focal point, even in parabolic or hyperbolic trajectories (not closed, therefore the object 'flies off into space') - and that yes, the perihelion is always on the extreme end of the ellipse on the Sun's side, along the axis.

The Oort Cloud is not close to the brown dwarfs's perihelion, it is sort of mid-orbit and was passed by the brown dwarf thousands or even millions of years ago. The C's said in another session that the brown dwarf's orbit is 28 million years and that it goes out to 3.4 light years away. The Oort Cloud extends from around 0.03 ly (2000 AU) to around 1.5 ly (100,000 AU).

If the Oort cloud is spherical around the Sun (here's a visual representation), then it extends in all directions equally and just as it reaches out 1.5 ly towards the furthest point of the brown dwarf's orbit, it also reaches out in the other direction, towards the closest point, i.e. perihelion. So the perihelion of the brown dwarf has to be well within the cloud, yes?

There is one unrelated problem and that is that the pretty exact orbital parameters the C's gave over the years are impossible (according to solid calculations by Deepseek) - unless the solar system has about 50% more mass.

The 26-28 million year orbit: I believe that was deduced from the average periodicity of 12 mass extinctions by the proponents of the Nemesis hypothesis (see here) and the Cs might have just confirmed that the figure was close enough. So it's strange that Deepseek thinks it's not possible. I suppose it is because of the alleged mass of the brown dwarf, which messes up it's math?

 

[axj]

If the Oort cloud is spherical around the Sun (here's a visual representation), then it extends in all directions equally and just as it reaches out 1.5 ly towards the furthest point of the brown dwarf's orbit, it also reaches out in the other direction, towards the closest point, i.e. perihelion. So the perihelion of the brown dwarf has to be well within the cloud, yes?

The Oort Cloud "sphere" is centered around the Sun and starts at about equal distance from the Sun in every direction (2000 AU or 0.03 ly).

You could say that the Oort Cloud starts relatively close to the brown dwarf's perihelion (near the orbit of Pluto, about 40 AU), since the companion passes this part of its orbit closest to the Sun in "just" thousands of years, whereas its overall orbit takes millions of years. Deepseek just calculated that the brown dwarf needs about 5000 years to get from the perihelion near Pluto to the Oort Cloud at 2000 AU.

The 26-28 million year orbit: I believe that was deduced from the average periodicity of 12 mass extinctions by the proponents of the Nemesis hypothesis (see here) and the Cs might have just confirmed that the figure was close enough.

There was another session with exact orbital parameters that I also missed at first (January 30, 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

A semi-major axis of 1.7 light years is half of the distance between perihelion and aphelion, which would be 3.4 light years.

So it's strange that Deepseek thinks it's not possible. I suppose it is because of the alleged mass of the brown dwarf, which messes up it's math?

Deepseek says that one of these five parameters has to be changed significantly:

Mass: 3.4% of the Sun (given above)

Perihelion: Close to Pluto orbit in the middle of Maunder Minimum (was also confirmed)

Aphelion: About 3.4 light years (based on semi-major axis of 1.7 light years given above)

Orbit period: 28.2 million years (given above)

Total mass of the solar system: basically only the Sun and the brown dwarf matter (together they have 99.9% of the solar system mass)

According to Deepseek, these 5 parameters are impossible together. Either the orbit duration has to be over 35 million years, or the orbit would have to be more circular (it would never go near the inner solar system), or the aphelion has to be shorter (2.8 ly instead of 3.4 ly), or the mass of the brown dwarf needs to be very different, or the total mass of the solar system needs to be about 50% larger.

Another possibility is that our astronomical formulas become inexact at orbital distances of light years. Maybe because there is no "dark matter" to hold galaxies together and instead electromagnetism may play a bigger role or gravity itself may act differently than assumed.

 

[Pearce]

The Oort Cloud "sphere" is centered around the Sun and starts at about equal distance from the Sun in every direction (2000 AU or 0.03 ly).

You could say that the Oort Cloud starts relatively close to the brown dwarf's perihelion (near the orbit of Pluto, about 40 AU)

This whole thing is way above my pay grade, but these two statements appear to contradict each other. 2000 AU is 50x further than 40 AU, so how do you consider them to be relatively close?

Total mass of the solar system: basically only the Sun and the brown dwarf matter (together they have 99.9% of the solar system mass)

Where does this information come from?

According to Deepseek, these 5 parameters are impossible together. Either the orbit duration has to be over 35 million years, or the orbit would have to be more circular (it would never go near the inner solar system), or the aphelion has to be shorter (2.8 ly instead of 3.4 ly), or the mass of the brown dwarf needs to be very different, or the total mass of the solar system needs to be about 50% larger.

Is it possible that these ai programs are programmed on extremely faulty calculations and assumptions? Not your input parameters but the coding behind the math itself.

I appreciate the effort into figuring out all we can, even if I struggle to understand it, the twin sun phenomenon has long been one of my favorite topics.

 

[palestine]

Thanks @Gaby for the reply. Thank you for your consideration!

On the above picture - the sun is the black central circle, right? (Would be logical that as the cluster is closer to the sun, the gravity is stronger so that it produces the above orbit)

But where is the Oort cloud on the above picture? Is it the small white dots?

I plan to gather four pictures, so as to organize the knowledge:

• this picture
• same picture for Nemesis
• same picture for the Oort cloud

I would make a post with those three, so as to get "an overview of the main interactions". Then, vectorizing those and superposing? Did you guys already do that?

 

[axj]

This whole thing is way above my pay grade, but these two statements appear to contradict each other. 2000 AU is 50x further than 40 AU, so how do you consider them to be relatively close?

Personally, I would not say that the Oort Cloud is close to the brown dwarf's perihelion (it takes 5000 years to get from one to the other), but from a different perspective these 5000 years are a tiny fraction of the overall orbit of 28 million years. So in that sense the perihelion is "close" to the Oort Cloud.

Where does this information come from?

I had Deepseek calculate it, it seems to be excellent with calculations like that (as opposed to Grok). It double-checks its own calculations several times with different approaches and also shows its "though process" in real time, making it easier to catch errors it may have missed.

Is it possible that these ai programs are programmed on extremely faulty calculations and assumptions? Not your input parameters but the coding behind the math itself.

Yes, I tried Grok at first to make these orbital calculations and it just cannot do them. It kept giving me wrong results after a few seconds of calculating. Deepseek takes as much time as necessary, eg. 3-5 minutes to make the initial orbital calculations and remembers everything said and calculated in a conversation (you can have different saved conversations with it on different topics).

 

[palestine]

Hmmm if this body of comets can escape the sun's gravity and follow its own perdiodical orbit - it must be very strong. The 3600 year cataclysms may have fixed patterns in term of scope of damage. Could be, not in term of "the numbers of comets" but I believe it's safe to assume the overall same consequences at each passing. Because it goes through, makes its way, and this is it.

But then, it can meet the various bodies already orbiting around the sun. That's quite a lot of randomization - and potential for much much more. Could be that each passing does something different?

 

[Claus]

This EM carving technology is quite interesting. It seems that it was widely used in Atlantis times and probably for some period after its demise. The technology had to be scalable enough to be used on really fine objects like Egyptian vases made of very dense stone like granite with very high precision up to giant blocks and statues.

Independent researchers found a lot of evidence of stone machining in Egypt particularly made with rotary saws and tube drills. Though those marks suggested that instrument feed speed was so high, that no known to us instrument material could stand such strain and power required to operate such instruments would be immense.

The case of unfinished Aswan obelisk adds more details of this technology. The granite around the obelisk was removed with consistent scoop marks just like it was removed with an instrument capable of carving granite like raw clay though it's impossible to say exactly how "soft" was granite to those instruments.

Considering all this information and C's answers I can think of several ways this technology could operate:

1. Stone was "evaporated" — the most unlikely one. No signs of extreme heating were found by researchers.
2. Stone was temporarily "softened" — the most likely one. Scoop marks in Aswan quarry, trace metal (including titan) residues inside magnificent hard stone vases and enormous feed speed of tube drills support this hypothesis.
3. Stone was "teleported away" — the most sci-fi one, but it couldn't be disregarded and could be used along with softening one. There are no actual evidence for this, but this way operator wouldn't need to do any machining — just get your "purse" and get the job done.

Few years ago I watched a really old (like VHS) video where some dude experimented with electromagnetic field generators and made items made from different materials like iron and wood "smelt" together without any visible thermal damage. It feels very similar to stone softening technology. (I can't remember the name of this guy, so I can't find the video, please drop a link if you do.)

I'm sorry I didn't ask a follow-up question right away to clear this up.

This guy was Hutchison, there were several effects, like levitation and so on... You can look up Hutchison effect.

 

[iamthatis]

Another possibility is that our astronomical formulas become inexact at orbital distances of light years. Maybe because there is no "dark matter" to hold galaxies together and instead electromagnetism may play a bigger role or gravity itself may act differently than assumed.

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:

To use a concrete example, when electromagnetic forces are divided by 100 (10^2) because of the distance between two bodies, gravitational forces are divided by 10,000 (10^4) because of the same distance. While gravity may play a significant role along with electromagnetic forces within celestial bodies, for distant interactions between bodies (star-star, star-planet, star-comet, etc.) gravitation is generally negligible and electromagnetic forces become the main player.

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?

 

[Alix]

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.