Planetary orbital distances.

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Sat May 14, 2016 7:59 pm

Kepler 122
Current science consensus states that the distances of planetary orbits from stars are random.
Incorrect. I'll place a circle on the outer orbit of these planets in the Kepler 122 system and add a series of circles reducing at .9, or 90%, towards the star. And there are orbital distances, snug as bugs in rugs. Mostly, the systems run on the simple .9 ratio but there are some exotics.

Planet d is bracketed and that means that it resides at the square root of .9 which is .9487. Counting the circles in from orbit e to d there are 3 x .9 increments plus the .9487. From orbit d to orbit c there is the .9487 plus another 3 x .9 increment reductions. That means that the drop from e to d is the same as d to c.

So .9 x .9 x .9 x .9487 =.691 or a 69.1% drop between e and d and the same between d to c. This means that orbit c is at the logarithmic bisection point between d and e. That's important when it comes to defining heliocentricity and eccentricity and it's not the only occasion this phenomena is observable. Should you care to draw some of these systems yourself, you'll find plenty of charts available at

The files appear to be non-downloadable png files but nothing beats a screenshot. Actually, there used to be charts of orbital systems all over the internet but they have all disappeared apart from these habitable zones type galleries. Funny that - all that work from the Kepler et al and now it is, well, censored. Can't think why.

Anyway, I'll act as your guide to these orbital distance relationships but it is very important that lots of others draw and measure the systems as well or else this information, and there is a glittering Aladdin's cave of discoveries to be made, may well be suppressed for political reasons. Next post, I'll show you how the ratio gives the game away for heliocentric and eccentric orbits.
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 16, 2016 7:23 am

What about the Titius-Bode Law? Charles Chandler found that the solar system planets seem to repel each other electrically like Debye cells, which along with gravity results in the TB law spacing. His paper on that is at:

What do you think accounts for the .9 and .95 spacings?

Might the charts of orbital systems still be available on the Deep Web or the Dark Web? I don't have TOR yet to check that out. Does anyone else use that?
Posts: 4112
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Mon May 16, 2016 10:58 pm

Hello Lloyd

I have no knowledge of or access to the dark net. Titius-Bode. It is certainly is the benchmark in planetary distance formulae but it is incorrect. Actually, the link you provided is the best attempt I have seen to find something that Bodes law might mean because otherwise, it's just a meaningless mathematical construct. It's an example of the right idea - that these is a rhyme and reason to planetary distances - but it's a miss as far as the actual truth is concerned.

.9 x .9 x.9 x.9 x.9 x .9 = .531441. Here is a link to some data ... stems/Sol/
and if you start at Uranus and reduce by .531441 you'll see the planets passing by. Yes, it's true that .9 seems to be an arbitrary amount and while I have some ideas, I can't absolutely say why that amount as against any other is correct. One idea is that the inverse square law states that at a distance of 10 d the strength of the field is a 100th of the strength at 1 d. If you were to move towards the center by a tenth so that you would be 9d away, the strength is an 81st. If you were to move toward the center by the square root of .9, .9487, the strength would be a 90th.

That still doesn't do it for me though. Sometimes you just have to let observation be your guide, I believe.
You have asked me how I get planets arranged at .9 increments from, if I interpret you correctly, a practical point of view. Okay. If you take a piece of paper and a pencil and draw a spiral from the edge to the center, you are making a diagram of the Parker spiral where the rotation of the sun twists the electromagnetic field of the solar system into a giant spiral. The spiral represents you drawn represents ingoing energy. From the center, and without changing the rotational direction, draw another spiral back out to the start point to represent outgoing energy because all energy fields exist as loops. The two spirals must be inverse, the lines must cross. Energy fields form field lines and where these field lines cross, the energy density will be stronger and if the spiral is logarithmic, the distances at which the spirals cross will become steadily greater and of course, because the field is continuous the x points will form rings which I believe are literally helixes comprised of intertwining strands of outgoing and ingoing energy.

As far as drawing the spiral to .9 ratio is concerned, I've already done mine (it's like one of those cooking programs where they whip the final thing out of the microwave) and I believe it's the right spiral because I can see it. The spiral shaped field is continuous but let us say that is breaks in different numbers of sectors. So, I'll take a six split circle where the spirals break the circle at every 60 degrees and add the inverse or reflected spirals. This gives me an apparent hexagonal shape that is in fact made of inverse vortex spirals. In a six split field, the circle reduction is .9. If I were to add another six spirals plus their inverse counterparts, the reduction would be .9487.


Anyway, at six splits we have the geo-stationary polar vortex of Saturn and the spirals are inverse simply because spiral shaped energy is moving into and away from the pole. Now try this:


This is what I call an exotic. If the circle is split by nine the reduction ratio is .932.
.9 x.9 = .81 so .9 is the square root of .81. .932 x .932 x .932 = .81 so .932 is the cube root of .81. The drop from orbit e to d in Kepler 341 is .932 x .932 x .932 x .932 = .754. The drop from c to b is also .754 and there is no chance of Bodes law defining that. The drop from d to c is .430. The square root of .430 is .6561 and the square root of .6561 is .81 with the square root of that being .9.

All of the systems are dripping with .9 ratio and in the solar system the accuracy is about 99% if not greater. As an example, and to use .9 ratio to explain heliocentricity and eccentricity, consider if you will, the orbit of Mercury. The difference between the aphelion and perihelion distances is .6561. This can then be divided by .81 to give the logarithmic bisection. That's the dotted circle between the aphelion and perihelion circles.


In all cases that I have seen the bisection circle is always equal to the minor axis of the orbit. It's as if the orbit circle has moved over to link the inner and outer circles and because it isn't quite big enough to reach the distance required, it has elongated a bit and the greater the difference between the perihelion and aphelion distances, the more eccentric the orbit becomes.
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby Chickenmales » Sun May 22, 2016 1:51 am

Interesting discovery, thanks for posting.

There are a series of books by a guy called Bruce Cathie in which he talks about a world grid (grid points are ufo hotspots) and his unified field theory. The calculations he makes in the books are based on some weird rules, which are similar to how you calculate the orbital distances. He calls these calculations Harmonics.

The rules are:
1) The zeros in front and behind a value don't matter. So 144000 is the same as 14400, 1440, 144...
2) The position of the decimal point doesn't matter. So 1.44 is the same as 14.4, 144...

At first glance what he does looks like jibberish, but after seeing some of his results in not convinced that it is. However, I've tried to make sense of it and it's hard to see what's actually happening.

At any rate, we can create a harmonic operator, similar to the modulo operator, where:

a = abn har b

Bruce Cathie always has b set to 10, but if we set b = 0.9 then we get your orbital distances.

I think that's really interesting.
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Tue May 24, 2016 9:13 pm

Actually, I couldn't do algebra for a free lunch so I'm glad you can. I've never seen anything like a ufo but I am of the opinion that it is not the vehicle we're after - although that would be good - it's the intelligence we actually want. The science.

Here are two single planet orbits. The first, HD 102117 has a drop of .81 between the apastron circle and the periastron circle with the orbit of the planet at the square root of that, .9.


The second, GJ 436, drops by .729 from the outer to the inner with the orbit at .9 x .9487 = .8538.


The point here is that 1 x .9 x .9 = .81 and so the second circle in becomes the square root of the three. However, because 1 x .9 x .9 x .9 = .729 there is no center circle so we have to have a split between .9 and .81 which is .81 x the square root of .9 or .9 x .9487 = .8538. In the solar system, the orbit of Ceres aphelion to perihelion drop is .8538 and so the actual orbit then becomes the square root of .8538 which is .924.

Clear as mud? Don't worry because we'll be going over and over it again and again.


This is why. You see, the planetary orbits aren't the only set of diagrams wherein I can measure .9 ratio and it's derivatives. While the ratio does not feature in all of the diagrams we have come to know as the crop circles, it is there in abundance and whoever has designed this artwork has known about the universal ratios of planetary systems for a very long time. The diagram above looks quite sketchy but it is deadly accurate to the ratio. The large set of circles drop at a consistent .729 while the smaller set has four .81 reductions then two .729s.

It probably means that while you may find one ratio derivative throughout a solar system's planetary orbits, the ratio of the moons to those planets may well be individually defined but still related to the master .9 ratio.

Note: the furthest and closest distances of a planet's orbit around a star that is not the sun are known as the apastron and periastron, for solar system planets they are called the aphelion and perihelion and for a moon orbiting a planet, the apogee and perigee.
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:34 am


In the crop circle above, the drop from the outer circle to the next one is .531441. I've added some more .531441 reductions until the center comes up at .797, or 7.97% of the outer circle size. In the solar system there is only one sequence like that which is the drop from Uranus to Mars.



Because the ratio is .531441, I can cut it to the square root and cube root and so on.

Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:42 am


Jupiter semi-major axis x .531441 = Ceres semi-major to four decimal points. Then, Vesta is at .8538 to Ceres.

Ceres x .531441 goes to Mars.


That's the dotted line. Another two .531441 drops and we hit just outside Mercury. Earth and Venus are bracketed here by .8538 ratio. They're a pair of sitting ducks for .924.
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:55 am


Bingo, Mercury is the last .531441 increment.
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby Chickenmales » Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:42 pm

Why do the orbits come off center? Is there something in the ratios or something else?
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:43 pm

I don't know. One thought though, is that the rings will be more defined, ie circular and centered, in general, where the field is closer to the star because of the greater amount of energy. In the outer solar system, smaller moons have lost system integrity. At one time, there was enough energy out there to form the planets on the ratio, but as more matter accreted into the sun, the outer area rings lost their energy support and broke away from centered on the plane of the ecliptic.

master.gif ... l2016.html

So I've started with the inner circles and increased by 111% which the gives .9 reducing.


I then moved the circles back to whence they came. It's all .9 ratio this one-not a hint of .8538. This means that everything is part of the same system.


.8538 and .9 share the .729, .531441, .2826 increments though, and that's the ratio on NGC 474.


Spherical Shells, they are thought to be. There are spherical shells around stars as well and these might be the precursors of the ring systems.
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:07 am

master6.jpg (4.28 KiB) Viewed 2446 times
master8.jpg (6.8 KiB) Viewed 2446 times

If I take two circles and overlap them and then delete some arc, I'll get the center section of a spiral bar galaxy.

master9.jpg (10.27 KiB) Viewed 2446 times
master10.jpg (7.51 KiB) Viewed 2446 times
master11.jpg (4.86 KiB) Viewed 2446 times

It's one of the topics.


And here they are. Big-bubble traffic jams in the Coiled Creature galaxy. ... -the-Night
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby Chickenmales » Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:10 pm

I just want to say that I'm really interested in this. I haven't checked the numbers for myself yet but I want to at some stage, just to make sure it's all correct. If it is, then I think it points to a big discovery, or at least part of a big discovery in science. That's just my opinion, however.

Also I've had a go at decoding crop circles, so I'm a believer in CC's as well.
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:51 pm

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby willendure » Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:13 am

What's your view on the crop circles? There is some inherent electrical phenomena that produces them and these ratios? OR Some individual or group knows about these ratios from astronomy and deliberately plays on them in the 'hoax' designs that they create?

I'm interested in crop circles, having discovered a few myself as a child. I always thought the big showy designs next to busy roads are obvious hoaxes, but the ones I found were very small and far from roads or population leading me to ask, why would a hoaxer even bother to create them? I have no idea how they were created, but am pretty sure they were genuine natural phenomena.
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby willendure » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:34 am

There is a guide here on recognising genuine vs hoax crop circles: ... hp?lang=en

I don't know if you have any links to the crop circle database for the images posted above? If so, maybe we can match that up with a genuine vs hoax assessment of them?
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Planetary orbital distances.

Unread postby xionIII » Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:34 pm

Quantity surveyors quote five days just to stake these designs out and unless you've got the permission of the farmer and paid for the loss of income from the crops, you'll get prosecuted for trespass and the courts will make an example of you to discourage all the theoretical others. You can't do this at night because the lights you will need will be visible for miles. If these showy units are indeed made by human hand then that's the worlds greatest artist because none else has the media. They are incredibly accurately rendered and if it was me making these things, I'd at least have a website and be claiming copyright on image reproduction. I suggest this site

for some more reading.

There is an online calculator here

Try entering .2824 and hitting the square root key. You'll see the various .8538 ratios. If you enter the .9 ratio specific amount of .43046721 you'll see some .9 ratio favorites. Try also multiplying various ratios until you see how it all works.

There's been two circles this year that feature .2824 which I've indicated with dotted lines;


The outer ring of one is .924, indicating a .8538 system while the other is .9487. The core of that one then breaks to .81 and .729. If there is a message, it might be to measure the outer ring proportions for an idea of which way the internal ratios are going to go. Anyway, so far we've covered .9 and .8538 ratios fairly extensively. There are others and it works like this;


If I spilt a circle with a multiple of three spirals, at 120 degrees per, I'll get a reduction rate of .81. If I split by six I'll read .9. If I split the circle by multiples of two spirals I'll be on the .8538 ratio. Those ratios share .729 and .531441 increments. If I split the circle by five, I get .881 and that shares the increment of .531441. Because they all share .531441 they will also share .2824 which is the square root of .531441.

In the crop circle designs, all of the designs that are based on a circles divided by multiples of five are based on the reducing ratio of .881 and square and square root derivations thereof.


White circles indicate .881 registration hits. This one also features the square root of .881 which is .938 in the outer rings. To indicate .938 I need to double the amount of spirals from five, plus their inverses, to ten, like this;


There are plenty of distances between planets and so on in our solar system to think it is a .8538 breakdown and science also agrees that the system is broken into a four quadrants electromagnetically speaking. What of five split systems though?

Neptune has a number of radials emanating from the north pole which would appear to indicate some chance that this is a .881 ratio or five split planetary subsystem.

5-split6.jpg (7.94 KiB) Viewed 2255 times

Neptune does have a ring system but they get sketchy as far as ratios are concerned because they break to quad roots and so on. The Fraternity ring meanwhile, though, gives us a visual idea of the helical electromagnetic structure of the rings. Two strands carrying opposing direction current. In the ring, it's clockwise and anti clockwise but it is actually a result of ingoing and outgoing energy twisting together.


Uranus also has a clue pointing towards .881 ratio. Its the series of rings shown here and while they do register to .938 fairly well I wouldn't regard this evidence as conclusive for either planet.


There isn't any perspective in those rings which means that they are actually that shape. Imagine getting hold of a steel ring about three feet across and say 5mm thick. You won't be able to increase the size of the ring or contract it but you will be able to squeeze it into an ellipse. I get the feeling that the rings don't change size once they've formed possibly beacause the energy moving within is going to take a certain amount of time to complete a circuit and to change the size, you'd have to change the speed which is not a possibility. They might become fatter or thinner though as that would not affect the energy velocity. So maybe the rings of Uranus started out as circular and then became distorted by the electromagnetic attraction of the planet.

5-split3.gif (9.33 KiB) Viewed 2255 times

If I take a heliocentric orbit and spin it around the star, which is how apsidal precession occurs, and freeze-frame the progression at every 72 degrees (in this instance) I'll get a distinctive composition.


This particular design, in different ratios, has appeared in numerous crop circle designs and what we have here is a five split system sitting inside a five split apsidal precession of some kind. I'd like you to take special note of the trails extending from the tips of the central blades. Streamers, I call them.

Well that gets us going on five split systems but they're not always geometrically perfect. The ancient and dying star R Scultoris probably had a .881 ratio of wondrous beauty but like many of us, it's not as pretty as it used to be. Note the central spiral of the actual star. It is the same spiral we use to measure our ratios.

Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:16 am


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest