Session 1 November 2025

[axj]

Been very sceptic about the AIs for as long as the appeared, and also when the C's said that they are essentialy like feeding tubes. This last incident only sort of strenghtened or tested already preexisting working conclusion about them. Interacting with Ark on his blog provided numerous empirical examples of how AIs operate in misguiding and sort of a 'deceptive' way, if not being attentive enough and very well informed about the subject to be able to spot when they start to spit out lies or hallucinate and make things up out of thin air.

Last night spent a significant amount of time and energy to get the AI in question to even start making sense, i.e. it took like 5 or more iterations to stop it making wrong claims about defining an ellipse by confronting each succesive erroneous claim by contra-argument in the form of a question.

Deepseek seems to be not quite as bad, especially when you activate the "DeepThought" feature where it takes a lot of time and double-checks its own results. Doing the calculations a few times with it seems to work quite well.

Regarding the remarks coming from the C's, although I give high probability that they might bring us (closer) to truth, there have been instances where they 'confirmed' something that later turned up to not be exactly so, especially when those asking questions had rather strong assumptions and preconcieved beliefs attached to possible answers. The C's are known to respect the free will almost absolutely, even or in particular the free will or choice to believe in lies, i.e. they in principle do not mess up with the belief centers of those who communicate with them. In that respect, the C's advised us to crosscheck and test even their own claims whenever that's possible, IRC.

Yes, the C's said themselves that the early sessions are about 70% accurate. For the current sessions that number could be higher. And regarding the brown dwarf having already passed by 400 years ago, it seems unlikely that anyone at the board had strong beliefs about that - unlike religious topics in the early sessions and such.

 

[SasaM]

I'll also calculate the area of the segment explicitly using integral calculus, prolly in Mathematica, as AI is very prone to errors as you said. Then we could compare the results.

The numbers, after calculating the expressions by hand and using online Wolfram Mathematica for integral evaluation, turned out even 'better' than your AI suggested. The area of the orbital segment around the perihelion, from entry point at 187 AU til exit from heliosphere at 156 AU is cca 10888 units squared, which is about 1.099×10^(-5) part of total area of the orbital ellipse.

For total orbital period of 27 My, this gives that the time of companion's passage from entry to exit would be roughly 297 years, which is in excellent agreement with what's written in "Help is on the Way" SOTT article. Using the same area method and extrapolating from the exit point, the companion would now be at 250-300 AU from the Sun, only entering into Oort cloud from the 'inner' side of the solar system, which explains why the C's said that it hasn't passed through it yet on its way out.

According to internet sources, brown dwarves have notable (electro)magnetic fields, and interaction of two 'heliospheres' then goes hand in hand with diminished number of sun spots as indicators of solar (electro)magnetic activity, i.e. 'close' interaction with brown dwarf's (electro)magnetic field can easily 'ground' the Sun in the sense of stabilizing its field. With the strong companion's e-m field, the effective central mass of the binary system can then be such that Kepler's 3rd law is satisfied along the whole orbit, in line with what the 2nd law about the areas states for the time of the close passage during those three solar minima.

Linking global drop of temperatures on Northern Hemisphere, the Little Ice Age, to low numbers of sun spots during those times is a bit trickier, as according to our current scientific understanding of electrodynamics, the e-m radiation coming from the Sun would not be affected by outside solar e-m field. Modern example of increased solar activity during second half of the last century got associated with lower global temperatures during those times when compared to lower solar activity during last few solar cycles, which kinda suggested the trend in the opposite direction. In that sense, it seems we're still missing something to properly understand how all these things are related, starting from basic solar physics and stellar energy production. Or, maybe more appropriate term to use would be what the C's once said, it's not missing, but just not yet discovered.