The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
X-RAY
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:42 pm

The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by X-RAY » Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:27 pm

The solar system is so complex that it requires specialists in the fields of cosmology, astronomy, and orbital mechanics to make some semblance of sense out of it all. But a recent discovery has revealed a simpler underlying reality–a scheme so grand that only “Mother Nature” could have conceived it.

Instead of total randomness as one might expect, a truly remarkable relationship was found to exists between the Sun’s photosphere and the orbits of the planet’s.

For example, the following simple formula will calculate the major-axis of every planet:

10^7 X AU X 18.59267746 = major-axis (all planets)

Here's what planet Earth would look like: 10^7 X 1.0 X 18.59267746 = 185,926,774.6 miles.

How simple is that?

Try the formula out for yourself and if you'd like to know more about this simpler underlying reality, check it out on
solar-system-schematic.com and then, let's hear what you have to say.

X-RAY

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by JP Michael » Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:32 am

Fascinating.

How do 'irregular' orbits (eg. comets, short or long period) factor into this?

Also, can this be applied to explain the orbital spacings of moons and space debris (asteroid belt, Saturn's rings/moons)?

I also notice that Messick utilises a gravity-nuclear (hydrostatic equilibrium) model of the sun. How does the overall hypothesis of planetary spacings/orbital periods play into EU/PU sun modelling?

My last point is that earth's orbital period is 365.2425 (over a 400 year Gregorian leap-year cycle), not 365 rounded as used by some of the calculations. This makes a significant difference in some of the math, especially under the heading Breakthrough #5.

X-RAY
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:42 pm

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by X-RAY » Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:04 am

Hi JP,

Thanks for your questions. It really helps in clarifying the meaning of all of this.

Hypothetically, if the comets orbit the Sun and are periodic, then, I believe the same formula would apply as with the orbiting planets. It appears to be all about distance--not size. Its time (or velocity) is simply a matter of dividing the so-called energy budget (18.59267746) by the square root of its distance.

The question about the spacing of moons and such is a good one. I haven't explored this other than the observation that the moon-Earth major axis is the moon's diameter (2,160 miles) X 216 (466,560 miles). That makes me think the same schematic is at play.

I believe that both the Sun and Moon are the two major players in the overall scheme of things as they relate to the solar system. For example, 12^7 = 35831808 / 5280 = 6,786.327273-miles (or the circumference of the moon). Furthermore, 12^7 X (AU) X 86,400 = the circumference of all planets (measured in feet). Also, 12^7 X 400 = the photospheric circumference (measured in feet).

I believe that the asteroid belts conform based on their mean distance from the Sun.

As for the 365.2425-day year, I will start by saying that the solar system schematic is based on the definition of an AU or axle length. Time (365 X 86,400 = 31,536,000 / 10^7) = 3.1536 which governs the amount of kinetic energy (centrifugal force) applied to the axile rotation. If this figure is scaled up to (3.1556952), the photospheric circumference would be 2,716,334.399-miles which would also rescale the Moon's circumference to 6790.835997-miles. Therefore, the key values of 10^7 and 12^7 would no longer work. Also, I don't believe the scaled-up values of the Sun and Moon match observation.

As for the solar system schematic, the source of the 365-day year begins with the equatorial circumference of Earth which is 24,903.95329 miles X 109 = 2,714,530.909 (Sun) X 216 = 586,338,676.4 (orbit) / 3.1536 (Pi) = 185,926,774.6 (major-axis) / 10^7 = 18.59267746 (velocity). 586,338,676.4 (orbit) / 18.59267746 (velocity) = 31,536,000 (seconds) /86,400 = 365-days.

The Earth's polar circumference is 24,883.2-miles X 108 = 2,687,385.6 (Sun) X 216 = 580,475,289.6 (orbit( / 3.1104 (Pi) = 186,624,000 (major-axis) / 10^7 = 18.6624 (velocity). 580,475,289.6 (orbit) / 18.6624 (velocity) = 31,104,000 (seconds) /86,400 = 360-days.

I think that 365-days is the real intended mean number over long periods of time (perhaps glacial cycles). The same being true for the lunar year which I believe is ultimately 355-days. (365 + 355 = 720 /2 = 360). My guess is that the Earth and Moon oscillate back and forth with their mean always being 360-days. I think 365.2425 reflects where we are in the cycle. That would make the current lunar year (720-365.2425) = 354.7575-days.

The ancient Egyptian, Mayan, and Vedic cultures used 360-day and 365-day calendars. I believe that Pope Gregory was doing a little insider trading.

I hope this helps,

Ron

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:02 am

Thanks for those points, Ron.
X-RAY wrote:The ancient Egyptian, Mayan, and Vedic cultures used 360-day and 365-day calendars. I believe that Pope Gregory was doing a little insider trading.
My next question is one of chronology: when did the Egyptian, Mayan and Vedic cultures use 360 and 365 day calendars? Velikovsky's chapter of Worlds in Collision, "The Year of 360 days" (pp. 330-359), irregardless of one's impression of the rest of that book, remains one of the landmark studies in the topic. He demonstrates rather cognitively that significant disturbances occurred on earth that precipitated the need to alter the earlier 360 day calendars in use by peoples around the globe. This lead to some cultures, like the Egyptians, Mayans and Hindus, having two different calendars in use at the same time: the old 360-day one, usually relegated to liturgical functions, and the new 365.25-day one for agricultural/seasonal functions. An interesting modern example of this is the Ethiopian calendar which, to this day, simply has a 13th month of the year, 5 days in length (6 in leap years), tacked onto their 'standard' 360-day year. Another evidence is that even in English, September, October, November and December come from Latin 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months. Yet they are the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th months?! What happened? Why were these 4 months all pushed back by 2? Thus, Velikovsky posits that the 360-day calendars are a vestige memory of a time when, indeed, the earth held to exactly a 360-day solar orbit just as accurately as the moon held an exact 30-day orbit around earth.

How does the supposition, widely held by members of this forum especially, that the skies and/or orbits of the earth, moon and other planets may have changed significantly in recent history affect the mathematical model of systematic, calculable clockwork you are proposing?

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by paladin17 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:21 am

X-RAY wrote: For example, the following simple formula will calculate the major-axis of every planet:

10^7 X AU X 18.59267746 = major-axis (all planets)
So you're calculating the semi-major axis of Earth by putting semi-major axis of Earth as your input?
You're a genius, man...

jacmac
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:12 pm

1/2 :D +1/2 :D = :D

Younger Dryas
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by Younger Dryas » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:38 pm

JP Michael wrote:Thanks for those points, Ron.
X-RAY wrote:The ancient Egyptian, Mayan, and Vedic cultures used 360-day and 365-day calendars. I believe that Pope Gregory was doing a little insider trading.
My next question is one of chronology: when did the Egyptian, Mayan and Vedic cultures use 360 and 365 day calendars? Velikovsky's chapter of Worlds in Collision, "The Year of 360 days" (pp. 330-359), irregardless of one's impression of the rest of that book, remains one of the landmark studies in the topic. He demonstrates rather cognitively that significant disturbances occurred on earth that precipitated the need to alter the earlier 360 day calendars in use by peoples around the globe. This lead to some cultures, like the Egyptians, Mayans and Hindus, having two different calendars in use at the same time: the old 360-day one, usually relegated to liturgical functions, and the new 365.25-day one for agricultural/seasonal functions. An interesting modern example of this is the Ethiopian calendar which, to this day, simply has a 13th month of the year, 5 days in length (6 in leap years), tacked onto their 'standard' 360-day year. Another evidence is that even in English, September, October, November and December come from Latin 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months. Yet they are the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th months?! What happened? Why were these 4 months all pushed back by 2? Thus, Velikovsky posits that the 360-day calendars are a vestige memory of a time when, indeed, the earth held to exactly a 360-day solar orbit just as accurately as the moon held an exact 30-day orbit around earth.

How does the supposition, widely held by members of this forum especially, that the skies and/or orbits of the earth, moon and other planets may have changed significantly in recent history affect the mathematical model of systematic, calculable clockwork you are proposing?
To answer your question specifically:

The date of 747 BC (actually -747) originally from Velikovsky in 1950, and verified by such diverse sources as the start of the Babylonian Chronicle by Nabonassar on February 27, 747 BC. Known as the "Era of Nabonassar" this chronology was promoted by Ptolemy in about AD 150 as a means of record keeping for celestial events, and remained in use to about AD 1600. The Romans rationalized their calendar on February 28th. The Olmecs started the "Long Count" on February 28, 747 BC, and added 5 days to the 360-day Haab year (for the purpose of the Long Count, 360-day years continued to be used for the past). The number of nations who had a 360-day calendar in use before 747 BC is extensive.

The year lengthened by five days, six hours, and 20 minutes to become 365.24 days -- nominally a change of 5 and 1/4 days and efforts were made throughout the world to rectify this. Here is a list of how the ancients took notice of the new celestial order of 365 and one-quarter days:

Ptolemy (150AD) uses the dates derived from the Babylonian Chronicle for a compilation of lunar eclipses (based on records obtained by Alexander in 331 BC from the Chaldeans), and marks 747 BC as the starting year of the collection, with the first eclipse in 721 BC. China starts a record of eclipses at about the same time.

The founding of Rome is dated to 747 BC. Probably long before 747 BC Rome had added two months (January and February) to their original ten-month lunar calendar and set all the months to 30 days, corresponding to the 30-day lunar month of the then-current era. (King Numa, who supposedly arranged this, is probably a fiction, and all the early records of Rome were destroyed by the Celts.) With the changes of 747 BC, the solution for the Romans was to end the year on February 28th (starting the year on March 1) The change to starting the year on January 1 happened 700 years later after Julius Caesar's calendar reform of 40 BC.

An interval of 4 years, called an "Olympiad" had become the standard of chronology among the Greeks. The Olympiads were counted from the first Olympic Games in 772 BC

Five days were added to the Mesoamerican calendar of 360 days, before the end of 747 BC, and were known as the "Sleep of the Year". The same addition to calendars happened in almost every nation around the world, from Peru to Rome, and also to the Egyptian "civil" calendar. The Peruvian calendar included a leap day every four years to account for the quarter day left over at the end of the year. The Egyptian and Mesoamerican calendars did not account for the extra 1/4 day.

The "Long Count" was initiated by the Olmecs on February 28, 747 BC, with the count of double-decades, years, months, and days all set to zero. The "years" are 360-day years (18 "months") where the "month" is 20 days long. The Long Count continued to be used by the Maya until AD 900.

The Maya considered that all pre-history happened in a Katun named "11-Ahau," which is named after the name of its last day. Significantly, a Katun 11-Ahau ended on February 28th, 747 BC (Gregorian), when the Long Count calendar was started. The contemporary Maya of Chiapas, Mexico, still retain the use of the Haab calendar of remote antiquity, and start the 5 intercalated days (the five extra days added to the 360-day year) on February 26 of our calendar. The year thus ends after February 26.

The Romans in effect did the same thing with the pre-Julian calendar, ending the year in mid-February, but used a 365-day year: "February was split into two parts, each with an odd number of days. The first part ended with the 'Terminalia' on the 23rd, which was considered the end of the religious year; the five remaining days formed the second part.

Among the Quiche Maya of Guatemala the arrival of a new solar year is celebrated on February 25th, two days early from the Chiapas calendar.

February 26th, was celebrated as the start of the year (New Year's day) among the Aztecs at the time of Cortez.

At about this time, China declares that there are now 365.25 "degrees" in a circle. We do not know for certain when this practice started, since all books were burned in 213 BC. But it was certainly in use by the first or second century BC. It did not turn out to be convenient in geometry, but worked fine for celestial navigation on the seas. It was still in use in the 15th century AD.


Vincent H. Malmstrom, Cycles of the Sun, Mysteries of the Moon (1997)
E. G. Richards, Mapping Time; the calendar and its history (1998)
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)

X-RAY
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:42 pm

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by X-RAY » Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:10 pm

JT, once again, I’m glad to hear from you.

The literature seems to indicate that the use of 360-day calendars goes back well over 5,000-years. The ancient record of the Maya was destroyed so their period is unclear. Here again, according to the literature, the 360-day calendars were discarded sometime in the eighth or ninth century BC. The exception would be in Mesoamerica—it seems that the Maya may have been using the 360-day along with 365-day (long-count calendar) when the Spaniards arrived.

I’m happy to offer another point of view as to the purpose of the ancient 360-day calendar and how it may relate to the 365-day calendar. But, first, let me say that I am a fan of both Dave Talbot and Wal Thornhill. I have read everything they have published, attended their conference, and support the concept of an Electric Universe. But, it appears to me that the evidence to support the belief that the demise of the 360-day calendar and the emergence of a 365-day calendar is evidence of an orbital shift of the planets is thin—to say the least.

It is clear something big happened. There were a number of sperate civilizations that were flourishing during the fifteenth to the thirteenth centuries BC and It is also clear that over a period of about 300-years many of their cities were destroyed and that those civilizations came to a bitter end. But, I believe that another type of solar-related event triggered the 300-year drought that eventually caused the collapse. And, we do have the Sahara Desert to support that conclusion.

Much of the rationale that eventually led to the concept of a solar-system-schematic evolved from the 360-day verses 365-day argument. I have described below the steps leading to my present point of view.

As previously posted, I believe that the ancient 360-day year was, and is, the composite of the 365-day solar year and the 355-day lunar year. Here’s how that would look in the schematic:

First and foremost, the basic unit of time is the second. Therefore, the number of days in each of the subject calendar periods are converted into seconds and then divided by the solar radius of 432,000 which defines the appropriate harmonic relationship between the orbital period and the Sun’s radius;

365 X 86,400 = 31,536,000 / 432,000 miles = 73 harmonic
360 X 86,400 = 31,104,000 / 432,000 miles = 72 harmonic
355 X 86,400 = 30,672,000 / 432,000 miles = 71 harmonic

The resonance is perfect right down to the second (73 + 71 = 144 / 2 = 72).

The resulting oscillations created by these harmonics, which are often referred to as Earth’s wobble, manifest synodically into 73, 72 and 71 years which then, synodically re-manifest into the 25,920-year precession cycle.

The second step is to convert the time periods (seconds) into velocities as spelled out in my hypothesis (https://solar-system-shematic.com). Note; 10^7 is simply 10,000,000.

31,536,000 / 10^7 = 3.1536
31,104,000 / 10^7 = 3.1104
30,672,000 / 10^7 = 3.0672

The above results are nature's way of defining the unique version of Pi() necessary to correlate time with distance through the application of kinetic energy to axle rotation.

The next step is to use those the Pi() values to calculate the rotational circumferences (R X 2 Pi);

432,000 X 2 = 864,000 X 3.1536 = 2,724,710.4
432,000 X 2 = 864,000 X 3.1104 = 2,687,385.6
432,000 X 2 = 864,000 X 3.0672 = 2,650,060.8

These results reflect the above-surface and sub-surface fields of the Sun. In other words, upper and lower layers with the middle being the mean vibratory field (energy).

The fourth step is to create the applicable orbits and then, derive the major axes;

2,724,710.400 X 216 = 588,537,446.4 / 3.1536 = 186,624,000
2,687,385.600 X 216 = 580,475,286.6 / 3.1104 = 186,624,000
2,650,060.800 X 216 = 572,413,132.8 / 3.0672 = 186,624,000

Click on the following link for an Earth-Moon system orbital perspective

https://wp.me/P6IbpI-SH



My hypothesis (https://solar-system-schematic.com), dictates that the orbital configurations are precisely 216 times the solar circumferences above. The orbital diameter or major axis is derived by simply dividing each orbital circumference by its unique version of Pi().

The result (186,624,000) makes the mean radius 93,312,000-miles. A google search of "93,312,000 miles" + "radius" produces 18 exact matches which make for interesting reading. At the top of that list is “The Dimensions of Paradise” by the late great “John Michell”, who without a doubt, was the most knowledgeable person in the field.

Dividing the orbital circumference by the number of seconds in the orbital period is velocity. Therefore 580,475,286.6 / (360 X 86,400) or 31,104,000 is 18.6624 miles per second.

I believe that orbit construction consists of two steps. Instead of simply multiplying the rotational circumference by 216, the rotational circumference (2,687,385.6) is first multiplied by 69.444… which results in 186,624,000 miles (electrical component), and then, the electrical component is multiplied by Pi(3.1104) which results in 580,475,286.6 miles (the magnetic component).

Finally, the lunar orbits mean distance is 90,016,000-miles (177.5-days) and the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun is 93,312,000-miles (182.5-days). Therefore, the line of apsides is 185,328,000-miles. So, the mean orbit is 177.5 + 182.5 = 360-days. The orbital precession of the orbit is 16-years.

The following link offers an interesting perspective of the ancient Mayans view of the Earth-Moon system:

https://wp.me/P6IbpI-SE


Ron

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:26 pm

Would it be fair to summarise the above as a rejection of the notion the actual skies have changed in the past? I mean, this was my original question which you have somewhat evaded answering directly:
How does the supposition, widely held by members of this forum especially, that the skies and/or orbits of the earth, moon and other planets may have changed significantly in recent history affect the mathematical model of systematic, calculable clockwork you are proposing?
Also, thanks to Younger Dryas for the extra information and citations.

The available evidence suggests the skies have changed in the past, especially the orbital periods of Earth and Moon (not to mention Mars, Venus and the other planets). You seem to be suggesting that they were always the same as they are now, in spite of your acceptance of EU/Saturnian theory, just that the ancients used some mean average between the earth and moon orbital years to arrive at their unreal 360 day calendar. I cannot perceive any obvious reason why they would do that. Pragmatism (aka Occam's Razor) is a key element of the human experience. People tend to use what works, is the simplest and is in accord with reality. Why would the ancient Mayans use a 360 day calendar when they had the maths and the astronomy to know that it was, actually, 365.2422 days? In fact, as Younger Dryas quoted above, the Mayan long calendar commenced on the very day the skies are said to have changed for the last time, 27th Feb 747 BCE. They kept the 360-day calendar, I suspect, for the same reason the Hindus and Ethiopians did. It was already ingrained, after a millenium or more of use, in their culture, agricultural cycles and religious rites and was not so easy to displace. So it was retained alongside the new 'Long count'. The Mayans were by far not the only culture that retained two calendars after the last extraterrestrial disturbance of Earth-Moon orbits.

If orbital periods actually changed in the past, it throws all your calculations into chaos, let alone the validity of the math which other members of this forum could have been both more respectful and thorough in their critiques. Math is definitely not my strong point so I will not comment further on that.

You might also like to check out Jim Weiniger's theory on earth precession, especially its relation to the non-precession of Sirius. There are better explanations of precession than the impossible "earth wobble" theory.

User avatar
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by nick c » Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:29 pm

X-Ray wrote:But, it appears to me that the evidence to support the belief that the demise of the 360-day calendar and the emergence of a 365-day calendar is evidence of an orbital shift of the planets is thin—to say the least.
Just a note, it is possible to have a change in the length of a year from 360 to 365 days without a change in orbit. A day is a complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. The change in the length of year as measured in Earth rotations (days) could be accounted for by a change in the rotation period (day) without any change in orbit. Or it could be a combination of both.
I am not advocating this or that scenario, only considering possibilities.

Younger Dryas
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: The Solar System's Simpler Underlying Reality

Unread post by Younger Dryas » Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:17 pm

The 360-day year is so well established from so many documents, that some researchers today just take it for granted, although students of antiquity have to apologetically add, "plus the five days," or make excuses for the people of this era with statements like, "they used an idealized year" or "they could not count." What an amazing statement! Counting would have been the highest science of the human intellect since the Paleolithic.

Calendars are very conservative, and they are not easily changed.Thus, although the number of months in the year during this era expand from 10 to 12, numerous people throughout the world steadfastly maintain a year of ten months into the 20th century AD (3500 years!), making adjustments to the solar year by, for example, expanding the last month to 90 days or repeating it twice.

The Babylonians elected, additionally, to start the year with the spring equinox of the Sun. I would suggest, in fact, that this coincided with a new Moon. (This was suggested by Velikovsky and seems correct for a number of reasons.) The new Moon might be a lot easier to spot than the rising of the Sun at the equinox.

The predecessors of the Romans, however, not only maintained the 10-month calendar, but probably rotated through the ten months twice. The month count was not rectified until sometime in the era after 747 BC. Roman historians relate that one of the first kings of Rome shortly after its founding (before 747 BC) added two months to the calendar of 10 months. This would only have been needed if the Romans, as I have proposed above, still rotated through sets of 10 months.

If the historians recall the addition of two months to the ten, it would confirm the fact that prior to that time the earlier ten-month calendar was still in use. The two added months, January and February, were added after the last month of the year, December ("Ten") and, like all the other months, were set at 30 days. This must have happened before the length of the year changed in 747 BC.

After 747 the Earth assumed today's orbit of 93.2 million miles (150 million km, 1.0 AU), and a year of 365.24 days. The Moon changed its period to 29-1/2 days. There were now slightly more than 12-1/3 lunar months in the year. This would cause no end of problems, for the lunar months no longer coincided comfortably with religious feast days in the solar year.


I have no idea what X-Ray is on about, but A for effort
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests