3 views

Skip to first unread message

Jul 10, 2002, 5:53:48â€¯PM7/10/02

to

It explains everything

From http://www.sollog.com/pdf.txt

P.D.F.

Planetary Distance Formula

A large scale model explaining the formation of the Solar System

By Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni

July 11th 2002

This work is a large-scale theoretical model that explains the PDF - Planetary Distance Formula of our solar system. In time as new planets are discovered, the formulas within my model will be validated as the correct model to explain the simple astro-mechanics of our solar system.

This simple model is based upon something we have tried to observe for quite some time. That is the carbon 12 atom. Yes, my solar model resembles in great detail a carbon 12 atom.

Can it be that humans, a complex carbon life form, actually live on a planet within a solar system designed to resemble a carbon 12 atom?

My model explains such anomalies as the asteroid belt, the formation of huge gas giants and the abnormalities of Venus and Neptune to other planets in our known solar system at this time.

The most important PROOF to show that this model is correct; is there will in the very near future be several discoveries of new planets in our solar system.

The orbits of these unknown planets will align correctly to my theorized orbits. This is the only PROOF that can really validate a theoretical work such as this.

If the known qualities of the solar system fit the model and it predicts accurate future unknown variables but probabilities correctly, then such a model can be considered correct.

Some long held truths will be completely shattered in my work. New ideas about the solar system and the universe will be put forward that will become accepted facts in the future as my model is validated by the discovery of new planets that fit my model precisely and invalidate other models as incorrect.

A few theories such as Titius-Bodes (an old planetary distance law see footnotes) will be completely rebuilt to explain a doubling law that is built into most if not all life.

Titius-Bodes is slightly incorrect in the big model of the solar system that I am revealing here. However, it did serve its purpose in trying to explain a key to my model, which is a doubling law. A variation of Titius-Bodes aligns two of the three sets of numbers I use.

Titius-Bodes is to me is nothing more than a doubling law that I call

1 3 7 (the "fine-structure constant" of quantum electrodynamics - see footnotes). Physicists will immediately smile and say, okay an attempt to explain 137.

My theoretical doubling law that I call the Law of 1 3 7 is a universal constant that explains planetary distance formation. It also explains why Titius-Bodes works to some degree.

The reason Titius-Bodes cannot fully explain the solar system is that the solar system is actually built around three separate groups or sets of numbers that are simply aligned to each other. Such an ordered alignment for three types of particles/planets does exist within a carbon 12 atom, and it is a key part of my model of our solar system. The similarities are clear.

The reason no one has seen this alignment of orbital numbers before, is that many of the key planets needed to prove that this alignment of orbital numbers was real no longer exist. So my theoretical orbits must for now show the alignment of the three groups of numbers. However, the discovery of new orbital numbers from unknown planets in the future will correctly align to the sets I explain in this work, and that will validate that my theorized missing orbits must have existed in the distant past when the solar system was very young.

Our solar system is now very mature and the orbits are quite stable, however as simple observable models show, a newly established gravitational field is quite unstable in the beginning until a certain synchronization manifests aligning the various parts. I will explain this a littler more in just a bit.

Some of my earlier work such as the Creator Formula (Circumference Ratio Earth Aligned To Orbital Ratios - see foot notes) and my recent PROOF for the Creator Formula (a clear ratio relationship between Earth to Mercury/Mars/Jupiter/Saturn) are validated in this work.

A problem some found with my earlier work the PROOF for the Creator Formula is the Venus exception or anomaly. This exception rule is now easily explained. Venus should not align to Earths orbital ratios as the other inner planets do! The PROOF for the Creator Formula just explained that Venus is an exception to an observable ratio relationship between Earth and the majority of the inner planets.

The PROOF of the Creator Formula shows the same type of alignment ordering of numbers similar to what occurs within a carbon 12 atom to the Earth?s inner planets perfectly.

My solar model creates three sets of numbers that are all aligned to a simple doubling law that I call 1 3 7. It resembles Titius-Bodes, but only in the fact it uses doubling.

Titius-Bodes observed a possible doubling rule of order but it never theorized that three sets of numbers for this rule existed in our solar system.

Now that I have discovered that three separate sets of orbital alignments exist in our solar system, the concept of Titius-Bodes can be easily understood.

Pi is also a key in my model, and part of the reason is that our planets create in some instances near perfect circles in their orbits. So a bunch of circles should have some type of Pi ratio just by the geometrical properties inherent in circles.

I have divided this model into several parts, the first three parts deals with the clear alignment of numbers in the orbits of 18 planets. You might be saying how can I use 18 orbits when we only know about half that many.

My model theorizes orbits that don?t exist any longer and it also theorizes orbits of planets that we have yet to discover.

While I cannot empirically prove an orbit once existed in the asteroid belt, it will be accepted in the future that several most likely did as other orbits of unknown planets are found that validate my solar model.

A few other orbits that also no longer exist are in my solar model. They no longer exist due to the simple fact the planets that once held those orbits were absorbed into young gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn.

I have never read any major works on astro-physics, since I have my own understanding of the quantum mechanics of our universe. So what I know of other theories about the idea that planets may have collided is little more than some have theorized some planets may have formed by slow collisions and other planets may have collided to form the asteroid belt.

These ideas could have been taught to me in school as a child or I may have been exposed to these ideas via shows on PBS or whatever.

My interests in life were never astro-physics related. So I didn?t research the whole gamut of ideas out there. My interests in the past 7 years have been geared toward theology and occult knowledge. I use some of this esoteric knowledge to fully explain by certain numbers where chosen as starting points in my formulas!

I have always enjoyed playing with numbers, but I don?t really make it a hobby.

I am interested in the truth, and what is observable in our solar system has lead me to explore within my own database of knowledge a method to explore and explain all of these numbers.

This all being said, my model suggests not only an asteroid belt from the collision of two young planets, but also planets that had to have once orbited near the gas giants that no longer exist. Where did these missing planets go? They were merged or absorbed into the young gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn!

This may or may not be an earth shattering idea. However, the location of these missing planets is something I don?t believe anyone has ever put forth in a solid solar model to explain.

When outer planets are found that align to planets such as Neptune and Uranus, then my missing planet orbits have to be accepted as factual. So here are my three sets of orbits. The numbers I use for known planets are correct as of today since they are the numbers supplied to me by NASA. While you can look up the actual numbers for our known planets for yourself at sites like NASA, the numbers I use for the missing planets are figures for planets that are long gone. But, there will soon be several new planets found in our solar system that align to my model and thereby validating the whole work!

Three Numerically Sets of Orbits

The first set of orbits that are aligned to each other is the easiest to verify since four of the planets still exist.

These planets that are aligned to each other are

Mercury/Earth/Mars/Planet X - Niribu/Jupiter/El-Sollog

The orbit of Planet X is in the asteroid belt. Ancient Myths say this was Niribu. So I will call Planet X Niribu. The orbit of the theoretical planet El-Sollog is near the orbit of Saturn. This is a missing planet that merged with Saturn.

When I set out the relationship of these planets we will have a theoretically orbit for Niribu that is aligned to the other five planets in a simple doubling law similar to Titius-Bodes but not exactly Titius-Bodes. I have modified their so-called n set of numbers.

The rule of doubling and adding a variable might have been first theorized by Titius-Bodes. However, long before I had ever heard of Titius-Bodes I had heard a layman?s explanation of 1 3 7.

The best way for me to explain 1 3 7 is that it is the "fine-structure constant" of quantum electrodynamics. It is considered by some to be almost the glue that holds atoms together.

While I make no claims to be an expert on quantum electrodynamics, I will admit that I have written many computer programs over the years, since I spent most of my adult life running a computer programming company.

When I was quite young, someone bought up the concept of 1 3 7 to me as in an argument, ?Okay you?re so smart with numbers explain

1 3 7 to me.?

I probably had to ask in what manner were the numbers being used. I most likely would have noticed a relationship to my birth date of 7/14 or 14/7 in Euro dating. I knew from my father?s mother that 1 4 7 was her lucky numbers. She told me as child she started playing them after I was born in the so-called daily number and at the track. She said they always seemed to hit for her.

So as a child I was indoctrinated in how 1 4 7 were lucky numbers.

Anyway, at that point in the argument I was probably given a simple overview of 1 3 7.

I do remember what my reply was. ?It?s simple, it?s a law of double add one. You start with ONE, you double and then add one, then double then add one. This simple statement produced 1 3 7 and I thought nothing much of it again for many years other than whenever someone seemed to comment on the mysteries of 1 3 7 I would say, ?Haven?t you heard of the law of double and add one?? I would then explain what I theorized at around the age of 13 to whoever was discussing the great significance of 1 3 7 to me that first time.

When I was first exposed to Titius-Bodes, all of less than a week ago, I immediately saw my 1 3 7 Law in it. At first I tried to tweak what some considered some great secret of the solar system. At first I was impressed with how close Titius-Bodes was. I then realized it was totally wrong and would not correctly locate future orbits without more manipulation of my addition variation to Titius - Bodes (a simple variable I created to improve Titius-Bodes a few days ago - see foot notes).

I use the law of 1 3 7 in all two of the three sets of my orbital numbers in my model. It is not pure 1 3 7 as I knew it originally, but it is a simple double a number to start and then add a constant variable. Some will say it is Titius-Bodes. It is not. It is the natural law of doubling inherent in all living things.

It is 1 3 7 with perhaps a dash of Titius-Bodes.

This first set of six orbits is the only set that starts like Titius-Bodes with two numbers. The first number adds the variable to create the first orbit or Mercury. Then like Titius-Bodes the next number is not doubled. My other two sets of orbits start with a number and then keep doubling. One subtracts a fraction of Pi to create the numbers for orbits. So one may say Titius-Bodes is 1/3 relevant to my model.

Titius-Bodes starts with 0 and 3 as the first two numbers. Once three is in the picture Titius-Bodes starts doubling and adding .40 or 4/10.

My first set of numbers like Titius-Bodes contain a zero as a starting point, but my second number is not 3 or .3 (I use fractions so I don?t have to divide by 10 as Titius Bodes does) it is .60. As in 60 the year I was born. As in .60 or the base sixty math of the Babylonians.

My variable is in the first set of numbers is .40 like Titius-Bodes, so my variable and .60 make unity or one. ONE is all there is, is a favorite saying of mine. So what better place to start than a couple of numbers that make unity. Simple enough right? Oh, the first number becomes .40 due to adding the variable of .40 to zero. So the total sum of the first number and the variable of .40 by adding the second number to it is once again unity or one.

Titius Bodes originally looked like this.

= (n + 4)/10

where n = (0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192, 384)

My first set formula is very similar

= n +.4

where n = (0, .6, 1.2, 2.4, 4.8, 9.6)

Titius bodes does not try to explain why 0 and then 3. As I explained unity is the basis of my formula.

By deleting 3 from my first formula I am excluding the backwards planet Venus from my first aligned set of numbers. This validates my PROOF of the Creator Formula. Venus does not belong in any formulas that try to align earth to other inner planets. Venus is actually part of another set of numbers aligned to Neptune and a doubling of Pi.

With my numbers above I create near perfect orbits for the first six planets of my model. Earth and Jupiter are perfectly aligned with this formula based upon earth as 1 AU. These are the larger two of the four still existing planets created by the first formula. The reason Earth and Jupiter are still perfectly aligned could be due to how much bigger than the other planets they are. Also the moon of earth could be a reason the earth has stayed in the original orbit designed for it. It is theorized that with time most or all of the planets will gravitate closer if not into the sun.

.40 (Mercury)

1.00 (Earth)

1.60 (Mars)

2.80 (Planet X - Niribu - Asteroid Belt)

5.20 (Jupiter)

10.00 (El Sollog)

Titius-Bodes never tried to explain why certain orbits were slightly off in their theory. Titius-Bodes also tried to align Saturn to this formula. Saturn is aligned to a third set of numbers. If we did not use the Titius-Bodes variable of .4, then Saturn is perfectly aligned to 9.6 AU.

However, in Titius-Bodes you have Saturn lumped into a simple group of all the planets. Saturn merged with the original planet in my group. A planet that existed close to Saturn at 10 AU.

That planet is El-Sollog. El is the ancient name of GOD in Hebrew. El is the number 31 in Kabbalah. 31 is Pi^3 with a remainder of .00006.

I have chosen to append my own name to this planet named for GOD, since it is my belief GOD inspired me to create this correct model for our solar system. It is my belief the model demonstrates a clear intelligence designed it. I won?t debate that point in this work, but I will in a later work.

So I am giving GOD credit by naming the planet that was in a PERFECT 10 orbit EL-Sollog. I as a mere servant of GOD get a footnote.

The theoretical orbit of Planet X or Niribu is 2.8 AU.

That puts Niribu in the Asteroid Field between Mars and Jupiter.

So far so good, we have 6 orbits, two of missing planets, one of the missing planets left a trail called the asteroid belt. The only debatable point is if a planet in a 10 AU orbit had a slow collision with Saturn in a 9.6 Orbit. Like I said, I don?t plan on proving the missing planets existed in this work. I merely explain where they had to have been and supply a formula that will accurately predict the orbits of planets about to be discovered. When these planets are discovered and they align to my solar model, then the PROOF the missing planets at one time existed will have been given!

Another good reason to think Saturn somehow absorbed another planet, is to try to explain why Saturn and Jupiter are so much larger than the rest of the planets. Absorption due to a slow collision makes perfect sense. I am not the first to say this is a possible way some planets are formed.

Now I will explain the formula for my second set of numbers that located 6 additional orbits of planets. This set contains three known planets a theorized orbit for a planet yet to be discovered. It also contains two orbits of planets that no longer exist. One planet is most likely to have collided in the asteroid belt with Planet X or Niribu. I call this missing planet the Planet Y which is short for Yod. The other missing planet I have named Planet Z short for Zeda or Zeta to fans of the channeled work many or discussing. This planet merged or was absorbed into Jupiter.

In an interesting side note, the Zeta?s foretold their planet would be discovered in July 2002. Well it has. Only it no longer exists. The Zeta?s are an entity that is confused their world was destroyed

They are similar to a ghost on a television set. They are a sort of interference, that doesn?t belong in the picture.

Can I prove two planets existed near each other in orbits in the asteroid belt? No. But, when other planets are found that align to orbits I have given in this solar model, these planet will then be taken to have existed for fact!

Can I prove a planet existed near the orbit of Jupiter that was somehow absorbed or merged into Jupiter? No! But, once again as other planets are found that align correctly to my solar model these missing planets will be taken as fact!

This set of numbers is a blend of Titius-Bode, but there is no variable to insert. It is just start here at one number and double, double, double.

This is the only set with no variable in the doubling.

This set contains mostly numbers from Titius-Bodes.

The first number or starting point is 2.4. Why 2.4?

Well since this solar model is based upon AU or a relationship to earths distance to the sun, why not start with 10 percent of an earth day of 24 hours? One-one-thousandth of earths circumference in miles is also 2.4. The ratio of 2 to 4 is .50. A perfect half. Four divided by 2 is two. 2 is the first even number, it is the first number that can be squared. 2^2 is four. 2 is the only even number that is prime, while four is the first number that is not prime. So 2 and 4 belong together for many reasons.

2 to 4 is also a simple explanation of the law of double as well.

So a starting point containing 2 and 4 is a well-designed location to start in my opinion. Just like unity was our starting point in our first set of numbers, this number is our second starting point.

The formula is simple

Start at 2.4 and DOUBLE five times!

2.4 - 4.8 - 9.6 - 19.2 - 38.4 - 76.8

Three of our known planets are indeed aligned in AU to this sequence of numbers. Two of the three are perfectly aligned, the gas giants Saturn and Neptune. While the third planet tiny Pluto is very closely aligned. Perhaps this is proof Pluto is drifting slowly out of our solar system. Or perhaps this proof a very large planet beyond Pluto is causing this slight variance. It is also possible that Pluto has not circled the sun enough of times to synchronize more closely to an ideal orbit around the sun.

This formula predicts an orbit of a planet beyond Pluto. When one is located in the predicted orbit, then the theory of the other two orbits that are for missing planets will be considered fact. Those are the missing orbits for Planet Y and Z, good old Yod and Zeda.

Here are the numbers for my second set of planet orbits.

2.40 (Planet Y - Yod - Asteroid Belt )

4.80 (Planet Z - Zeda)

9.60 (Saturn)

19.20 (Uranus)

38.40 (Pluto)

76.80 (Planet U1)

Now it is time to give my third set of numbers for planetary orbits.

This set is nothing like the other two sets!

IT IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT!

It is my favorite set of numbers too, since it has two planetary orbit locations that have undiscovered planets that in no way are near anything Titius-Bodes predicts.

This set of numbers also aligns pesty Venus and Neptune. They are the big anomalies in our solar system. I explain why they are where they are in this formula!

Yes, you can say I saved the best part for last!

This set of orbits proves absolute design to this solar system. The factor of the doubling is Pi. The variable is 2/3 or .666. The variable is a negative or minus. The starting points is a classic esoteric number that is a major name in the bible in Gematria, that is ALPHA-OMEGA!

Do you really want to argue proof of DESIGN in my solar system model when the key UNKNOWN PLANETS that are discovered soon will be aligned perfectly to a formula that begins with ALPHA-OMEGA as the starting point?

= n - .666

where n = (1.332, Pi, Pi^2, Pi^3, 2Pi^3, 3Pi^3)

As you can see, THIS IS A COMPLEX AND INTELLIGENT SEQUENCE OF NUMBERS! There is no way someone can say to me this was a random event. Why start at 1.333? That is double .666 the variable. Why a variable of .666. Does not this whole model of a solar system revolve around three sets of six numbers or three sixes? Now some will say wow EVIL, is not EVIL backwards LIVE?

In gematria the Greek THEOLOGY of numerology based upon the Greek Alphabet, the number 666 was used for a bad person. Well in reality in ancient Greece 666 was a holy number, since it is used to square a circle!

666 and 888 square a circle. By the way, in Greek gematria Jesus is 888.

Now in GREEK the name ALPHA-OMEGA has a value of 1332. Was the designer of the solar system a GREEK?

The Alpha-Omega is unity or a circle. It is a symbol said to represent GOD, he who was the first and he who shall be the last. Actually a circle has no beginning or an end so 1332 or double the variable of 666 represents unity in gematria. I?m sure there aren?t too many astro-physicists walking around with such esoteric knowledge.

Now 666 is special to me also, since upside down 666 is 999. 999 is also NINES and my birth name was ENNIS or an anagram of NINES. I guess I was destined to reveal this solar model.

Venus and Neptune the two planets that destroy every typical solar model such as Titius-Bodes, etc. are perfectly aligned to this third formula.

Two planets orbits no longer exist, but two unknown planet orbits are theorized by this formula. These planets will validate this solar model in the future.

Another GODLY part of this formula is the fact Pi^3 appears. Pi^3 is 31.006. 31 in Hebrew Kabbalah the equivalent of gematria is Aleph Lamed. Translated as GOD or EL. So GOD?s main name in the Hebrew bible is encoded in the formula as Pi^3.

Is it coincidence or DIVINE DESIGN? I won?t argue the point in this work, but I will in a later analysis of PDF.

In the future when planets are found that align to the theoretical location of orbits I have given, well let?s just say this solar system model will do what Einstein searched his whole life for. It will unite the physical world to physics and theology. It will be PROOF of Solar design to scientists and theologists alike!

These are the orbital numbers produced by my third formula, I called it Pi^3.

666 (Venus)

2.475 (Juno)

9.2036 (Nikkee)

30.320 (Neptune)

62.012 (U2)

93.018 (U3)

The true Perihelion of Venus is .668 our .666 is actually .667, so this formula is aligned to within .001 or the closest orbit of Venus to the Sun. That is not in AU it is in 10^8 miles.

The AU of Venus is considered to be .720.

The Perihelion of Neptune is 30.220, so we are once again within 1 to the third digit for a Perihelion measurement of a planets orbit. No one has ever aligned both Venus and Neptune to a formula within 1 to the third decimal place!

This means this formula creates the Perihelion of orbits. The other two formula creates perfect AU?s. This formula creates Perihelion (10^8 miles). This is once again an argument for DESIGN rather than random chance.

As unknown planets (U2 and U3) are found that align perfectly to this formula, it will validate my solar model as being PROOF of Solar Design to our Solar System!

The second planetary orbit created in this formula is an orbit that once again places a planet in the orbit of the asteroid belt. I doubt all three collided at the same time. The iron asteroids in this orbit make it look like a very fast early collision occurred at the iron core level of two young planets. It is quite possible that one of the planets of this triplet orbit then spun out of control most likely into Jupiter. It could have been any of the three asteroid distance orbit planets in any of the three sets. Which one it was is irrelevant. However, I have decided to name the second planet in this set Juno. Juno is the wife of Jupiter in mythology so when the triple planet orbit was broken off, Jupiter got his wife!

The third planet I have named Nikkee the Goddess of Victory. For Nikkee is my earthly goddess companion/wife. So Nikkee of course merged with Saturn and El-Sollog.

So there we have it.

Three sets of six planets, the dreaded 666 that is also the basis of a carbon 12 atom, with all the orbits to known planets perfectly aligned.

We have the orbits of planets that collided and created the asteroid belt. We have an explanation as to why some gas planets are so large.

We have LOGICAL starting points in all the sets of numbers.

We have LOGICAL progression of the numbers creating perfect orbits to known planets.

In time the undiscovered planets will be found. They will align to my solar model, and in the future Physics, Theology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Astronomy and Science all begin with a lesson on PDF, the Planet Distance Formula.

The key to any type of PROOF for this solar model is watching to see at what orbits the next planets discovered in our solar system are found to have.

My formula predicts three unknown planets at

62.012 (10^8 Miles)

76.800 AU

93.018 (10^8 Miles)

Shalom,

Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni

July 11th 2002

http://www.sollog

You can download THE CREATOR FORMULA at http://www.1ebooks.com/creator

You can discuss this work at the Sollog Forums at http://www.sollog.com

Footnotes

Titius-Bodes Law - Simple Planetary Distance Rule know for a couple of inaccuracies. It is a simple doubling law with a starting point that creates orbital distances to AU by doubling and adding four to a number and then dividing by 10.

1 3 7 - Known in Physics as the "fine-structure constant" of quantum electrodynamics. In Kabbalah 137 is the number of Kabbalah and also the wheel of one.

CREATOR FORMULA - Theorized by me in 1995. It states the circumference ratios of earth or aligned to the orbital rations of planets in our solar system.

PROOF for CREATOR Formula - Theorized in July 2002 by me, it is a simple PROOF showing how the ratios of four inner planets are perfectly aligned to ratios of earth?s circumference.

Titius-Bodes Variance - A formula I created a few days ago to align Titius-Bodes to actual distances to the sun in 10^8 miles instead of AU.

Sig.

My favorite sites are below.

The New Nostradamus http://www.sollog.com

Nostradamus Writings http://www.nostradamus.org

HEADLINE NEWS http://www.247news.net

COOL EMAIL DOMAINS http://www.coolmail.bz

Jul 13, 2002, 1:12:32â€¯PM7/13/02

to

D wrote:

> It explains everything

>

> From http://www.sollog.com/pdf.txt

>

> P.D.F.

> Planetary Distance Formula

> A large scale model explaining the formation of the Solar System

> By Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni

> July 11th 2002

>

> This work is a large-scale theoretical model that explains the PDF - Planetary Distance Formula of our solar system. In time as new planets are discovered, the formulas within my model will be validated as the correct model to explain the simple astro-mechanics of our solar system.

>

> This simple model is based upon something we have tried to observe for quite some time. That is the carbon 12 atom. Yes, my solar model resembles in great detail a carbon 12 atom.

>

> Can it be that humans, a complex carbon life form, actually live on a planet within a solar system designed to resemble a carbon 12 atom?

Lets add four brown dwarfs each with a single satellite to the mix. Bung them in at 80 AU now we have methane. As this gas permeates Michele's post this is PROOF of my model.

Jul 15, 2002, 7:56:32â€¯PM7/15/02

to

"D" <d...@stro.com> wrote in message news:3d2cacec$1...@news.meganetnews.com...

frequently and should add that to your name of the formula, 1 3 5 7,

although possibly moving outward as the distance variance goes, 1- 3-- 5-

7 ---11- 13--- 17-19---23---- ect.,space pattern between numbers ect. call

it the prime number distance formula, mand since you are using the pi

formulation, you might lookinto the golden mean spiral which might shed some

light on your distance to weight ratios. remember you are moving outward in

a spiral that gets bigger within that spiral are pairs of numbers, which are

close, and you will have your planetesimal ratios..

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu