A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 24th 04, 09:53 PM
hermesnines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt

Everything explained with one theory

Asteroid and Kuiper Belt locations
Pluto
Quaoar
DW 2004
Gas Giants


From

http://www.sollog.com/pdf2/


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
Edited October 8th 2002
Edited February 22nd 2004

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 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 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 this theory.

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 validate the whole work!

Three Numerical 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 theorized the law or rule of doubling for 1 3 7.

The best way for me to explain what 1 3 7 means to physicists 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 at that time. I'd had maybe a few dozen
discussions before I theorized my PDF formula in my lifetime, where I
explained the law of doubling or 137 to someone.

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 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 first number is not doubled. My
other two formulas that create sets of orbits are slightly different.
One starts with a number and then keeps doubling. While another one
subtracts a fraction of 2/3 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, the base math of the Babylonians.

My variable 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. Seems 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
above unity is the basis of my first 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 first
set of planets, a planet that once 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 my model demonstrates clearly that
an intelligence designed the solar system. 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
locates 6 additional orbits of planets. This set contains three known
planets and 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

The first location in this sequence is part of the asteroid belt. The
fifth number in the sequence is the Kuiper Belt.

Two of our known planets are perfectly aligned in AU to this sequence
of numbers, the gas giants Saturn and Neptune are where the third and
fourth numbers in this sequence suggest. The fifth number in this
sequence is exactly where the Kuiper Belt is located, it is where both
Pluto and Quaoar now orbit. In the future Pluto will be considered
nothing but a moon of a planet that no longer exists. I call this
missing planet Theth, in Hebrew it means Ninth, and since this orbit
is now associated with Pluto or the so-called ninth planet, I thought
Theth was a most appropriate name. Theth exploded and formed the
Kuiper Belt. The recently discovered object temporarily named Quaoar
is a Pluto like object only Quaoar has a near perfect circular orbit
around the sun around 42.00 AU. The original planet Theth, that no
longer exists, was located near 38.40 AU or the heart of the Kuiper
Belt beyond Neptune. Pluto's erratic orbit can now be easily explained
by considering that it once orbited planet Theth along with its moon
Charon and Quaoar. A collision or a core meltdown of the parent planet
to Pluto (Theth) hurled Pluto into its current erratic orbit. Gravity
has averaged out the orbit of Pluto to around 36.00 AU, though at
times it's orbit can be within Neptune and beyond the newly discovered
Quaoar. Quaoar most likely had a slight change of orbit from near
38.40 AU to around 42.00 AU since it was not directly impacted by a
direct blast when the parent planet of Pluto and Quaoar (Theth) was
destroyed. So the blast of Theth's destruction bumped the orbit of
Quaoar a little further from the Sun, and it dramatically altered the
orbit of Pluto to what we now see. If we average the orbits of Pluto
and Quaoar we have the perfect orbit that my theory suggests for
Theth, that being 38.40 AU.

This is the first theory that explains properly Pluto's small size
similar to a moon and it's erratic orbit. It was a moon of Theth and
is not a planet. The same thing can be said of Quaoar, it was a moon
of the same planet that Pluto was a moon to! The Kuiper Belt is also
explained with this theory. It is exactly where it should be if we
consider planet Theth once existed at 38.40 AU.

While many small objects have been found in the Kuiper Belt, very few
will be spherical planet/moon like objects such as Pluto and Quaoar.
The only question is what destroyed the original planet that Pluto and
Quaoar once orbited that being planet Theth? Was it a collision? Or
was it a core meltdown from a defective core? The idea that the Kuiper
Belt is left over debris from early planetary formation is wrong. The
Kupier Belt is exactly where a planet should be! The Kupier Belt is
estimated to be only one tenth the mass of earth. That is hardly
enough material to prove that some celestial quary to make planets was
the reason for the Kuiper Belt. A planet was at 38.40 AU as my theory
suggests, it was Theth and it exploded and formed the Kuiper Belt. Its
moons were left behind, those being Pluto and Quaoar and any other
spherical objects found in the Kuiper Belt if any.

This formula predicts an orbit of a planet beyond Theth or the Kupier
Belt, Pluto and Quaoar. 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 (Planet Theth - Kuiper Belt - Pluto - Quaoar)

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?

This is my third planetary orbit formula in my solar model.

= 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 1.332? 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 planet 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 in 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 by a collision of two planets, 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
Edited October 8th 2002

February 22nd 2004 Addendum

With the discovery of DW 2004 on February 17th 2004 (ONE DAY before
the 74th Anniversary of the Discovery of Pluto - 1 74 or 147), it is
now clear that the Kupier Belt is similar to the Asteroid Belt in that
it was formed by the collision of at least two planets.

Two of these planets resided at approximately 38.4 and 62.0 (10^8
Miles). The orbits were very elliptical and the orbits crossed each
other, which eventually caused a collision and formed the Kupier Belt.

Pluto and Quaoar are moons of the planet at 38.4 (10^8 Miles) that I
called Theth above.

DW 2004 is a left over moon from the planet that was originally at
62.0 (10^8 Miles). I called this planet U2 above.

The Kupier Belt confirms that two planets collided, the fact that
Pluto and Quaoar remain in orbit near where Theth should have been
according to my theory and that a new moon type object similar to both
Pluto and Quaoar has been found near where I theorized U2 would be is
validation that DW 2004 is the moon of U2 and Pluto and Quaoar are the
moons of Theth.

Planets U1 and U3 are still beyond Pluto. The theoretical orbit of U1
is 76 AU and the theoretical orbit of U3 is 93.0 (10^8 Miles)

If the Kupier Belt is found to extend out as far as 93.0 (10^8 Miles)
which some have already theorized, then both U1 and U3 have suffered
the same fate as U2 and Theth, that being they were destroyed by
collision.

The current estimates of the width of the Kupier Belt fit well with
the theory that the Kupier Belt may contain the material from 4
destroyed planets.

However, a gas giant similar to Neptune may be found where U1 and U2
are theorized to be located. That would mean U1 and U3 collided and
formed a gas giant.

It may still be seen that both U1 and U3 exist as planets if the
Kupier Belt does not extend much farther than 62.0 (10^8 Miles)

So in the future the discovery of additional objects similar to
Pluto/Quaoar/DW 2004 may be found in the Kupier Belt.

Objects closer to 38.4 (10^8 Miles) are moons of Theth. Objects closer
to 62.0 (10^8 Miles) are moons of U2.

If any such Planetoid objects are found where U1 and U3 are theorized
to be located, then they are moons of the planets that once resided
there.

Only time will tell what remains in the areas at 76.8 AU and 93.0
(10^8 Miles). It will be either moons of planets that were destroyed,
a Gas Giant or perhaps two new worlds.

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.

Discovery of Quaoar - The discovery of this object has led me to
believe that Pluto and it are nothing but moons of a planet that once
orbited at 38.40 AU. In time Pluto will no longer be considered a
planet. Pluto and Quaoar are left behind moons of Theth. My Theth
Theory fully explains Pluto, Quaoar and the Kuiper Belt.

Discovery of DW 2004 - This discovery confirms my theory that Pluto
and Quaoar are moons as is DW 2004 of two planets that collided to
form the Kupier Belt.
Ads
  #2  
Old February 25th 04, 12:42 AM
John Griffin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt


Nonprophet Organism Ennis ("Sollog") babbled:

yap yap yap


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.


I can believe that you think electrons orbit the nucleus in
precisely known paths constrained to a plane, and you think the
sun is composed of 12 particles, and that you're qualified to
talk about the structure of the atom. The latter is the most
amusing of those three errors.

Hey, that reminds me...if your fantasy solar system fits carbon
12, why doesn't it fit carbon 14? (It doesn't fit either, of
course.)

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?


Of course not, moron. You're just another raving lunatic with
just another dumb idea.

By the way, it's really funny that you claim that Pluto is a
moon (of the sun?). You're dumber than a brick, Ennis.



  #3  
Old February 25th 04, 08:58 PM
hermesnines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt

John Griffin wrote in message .1.4...
Nonprophet Organism Ennis ("Sollog") babbled:

yap yap yap


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.


I can believe that you think electrons orbit the nucleus in
precisely known paths constrained to a plane, and you think the
sun is composed of 12 particles, and that you're qualified to
talk about the structure of the atom. The latter is the most
amusing of those three errors.

Hey, that reminds me...if your fantasy solar system fits carbon
12, why doesn't it fit carbon 14? (It doesn't fit either, of
course.)



Why don't you take Chemistry 101 moron, Sollog is absolutely right,
his 18 planet THEORY resembles the structure of a Carbon 12 atom

Why moron?

Carbon 12 atoms have

6 Protons
6 Neutrons
6 Electrons

18 Particles in total

PROOF ASSHOLE

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../chem00639.htm

Now shut the **** up

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?


Of course not, moron. You're just another raving lunatic with
just another dumb idea.

By the way, it's really funny that you claim that Pluto is a
moon (of the sun?). You're dumber than a brick, Ennis.


You're an ignorant asshole, you still call Sollog Ennis by his
birthname. I'm sure you still call Mohammed Ali cassius clay don't
you?

You're a ****ed up faggot

Sollog says PLUTO is a leftover MOON of a planet that collided and
formed the Kuiper Belt, not the sun you moron.

NOW SHUT THE **** UP
  #5  
Old February 25th 04, 10:50 PM
Mr. 4X
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Pathetic Deluded Fraud) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt

(hermesnines) wrote in message
om:

Everything explained with one theory


Which is crap.

Asteroid and Kuiper Belt locations
Pluto
Quaoar
DW 2004
Gas Giants


From

http://www.sollog.com/pdf2/


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
Edited October 8th 2002
Edited February 22nd 2004

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?


It's because the chemical behaviour of carbon, you fool.

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 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 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 this theory.

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 validate the whole work!

Three Numerical 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 theorized the law or rule of doubling for 1 3 7.

The best way for me to explain what 1 3 7 means to physicists 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 at that time. I'd had maybe a few dozen
discussions before I theorized my PDF formula in my lifetime, where I
explained the law of doubling or 137 to someone.

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 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 first number is not doubled. My
other two formulas that create sets of orbits are slightly different.
One starts with a number and then keeps doubling. While another one
subtracts a fraction of 2/3 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, the base math of the Babylonians.

My variable 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. Seems 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
above unity is the basis of my first 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 first
set of planets, a planet that once 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 my model demonstrates clearly that
an intelligence designed the solar system. 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
locates 6 additional orbits of planets. This set contains three known
planets and 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

The first location in this sequence is part of the asteroid belt. The
fifth number in the sequence is the Kuiper Belt.

Two of our known planets are perfectly aligned in AU to this sequence
of numbers, the gas giants Saturn and Neptune are where the third and
fourth numbers in this sequence suggest. The fifth number in this
sequence is exactly where the Kuiper Belt is located, it is where both
Pluto and Quaoar now orbit. In the future Pluto will be considered
nothing but a moon of a planet that no longer exists. I call this
missing planet Theth, in Hebrew it means Ninth, and since this orbit
is now associated with Pluto or the so-called ninth planet, I thought
Theth was a most appropriate name. Theth exploded and formed the
Kuiper Belt. The recently discovered object temporarily named Quaoar
is a Pluto like object only Quaoar has a near perfect circular orbit
around the sun around 42.00 AU. The original planet Theth, that no
longer exists, was located near 38.40 AU or the heart of the Kuiper
Belt beyond Neptune. Pluto's erratic orbit can now be easily explained
by considering that it once orbited planet Theth along with its moon
Charon and Quaoar. A collision or a core meltdown of the parent planet
to Pluto (Theth) hurled Pluto into its current erratic orbit. Gravity
has averaged out the orbit of Pluto to around 36.00 AU, though at
times it's orbit can be within Neptune and beyond the newly discovered
Quaoar. Quaoar most likely had a slight change of orbit from near
38.40 AU to around 42.00 AU since it was not directly impacted by a
direct blast when the parent planet of Pluto and Quaoar (Theth) was
destroyed. So the blast of Theth's destruction bumped the orbit of
Quaoar a little further from the Sun, and it dramatically altered the
orbit of Pluto to what we now see. If we average the orbits of Pluto
and Quaoar we have the perfect orbit that my theory suggests for
Theth, that being 38.40 AU.

This is the first theory that explains properly Pluto's small size
similar to a moon and it's erratic orbit. It was a moon of Theth and
is not a planet. The same thing can be said of Quaoar, it was a moon
of the same planet that Pluto was a moon to! The Kuiper Belt is also
explained with this theory. It is exactly where it should be if we
consider planet Theth once existed at 38.40 AU.

While many small objects have been found in the Kuiper Belt, very few
will be spherical planet/moon like objects such as Pluto and Quaoar.
The only question is what destroyed the original planet that Pluto and
Quaoar once orbited that being planet Theth? Was it a collision? Or
was it a core meltdown from a defective core? The idea that the Kuiper
Belt is left over debris from early planetary formation is wrong. The
Kupier Belt is exactly where a planet should be! The Kupier Belt is
estimated to be only one tenth the mass of earth. That is hardly
enough material to prove that some celestial quary to make planets was
the reason for the Kuiper Belt. A planet was at 38.40 AU as my theory
suggests, it was Theth and it exploded and formed the Kuiper Belt. Its
moons were left behind, those being Pluto and Quaoar and any other
spherical objects found in the Kuiper Belt if any.

This formula predicts an orbit of a planet beyond Theth or the Kupier
Belt, Pluto and Quaoar. 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 (Planet Theth - Kuiper Belt - Pluto - Quaoar)

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?

This is my third planetary orbit formula in my solar model.

= 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 1.332? 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 planet 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 in 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 by a collision of two planets, 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
Edited October 8th 2002

February 22nd 2004 Addendum

With the discovery of DW 2004 on February 17th 2004 (ONE DAY before
the 74th Anniversary of the Discovery of Pluto - 1 74 or 147), it is
now clear that the Kupier Belt is similar to the Asteroid Belt in that
it was formed by the collision of at least two planets.

Two of these planets resided at approximately 38.4 and 62.0 (10^8
Miles). The orbits were very elliptical and the orbits crossed each
other, which eventually caused a collision and formed the Kupier Belt.

Pluto and Quaoar are moons of the planet at 38.4 (10^8 Miles) that I
called Theth above.

DW 2004 is a left over moon from the planet that was originally at
62.0 (10^8 Miles). I called this planet U2 above.

The Kupier Belt confirms that two planets collided, the fact that
Pluto and Quaoar remain in orbit near where Theth should have been
according to my theory and that a new moon type object similar to both
Pluto and Quaoar has been found near where I theorized U2 would be is
validation that DW 2004 is the moon of U2 and Pluto and Quaoar are the
moons of Theth.

Planets U1 and U3 are still beyond Pluto. The theoretical orbit of U1
is 76 AU and the theoretical orbit of U3 is 93.0 (10^8 Miles)

If the Kupier Belt is found to extend out as far as 93.0 (10^8 Miles)
which some have already theorized, then both U1 and U3 have suffered
the same fate as U2 and Theth, that being they were destroyed by
collision.

The current estimates of the width of the Kupier Belt fit well with
the theory that the Kupier Belt may contain the material from 4
destroyed planets.

However, a gas giant similar to Neptune may be found where U1 and U2
are theorized to be located. That would mean U1 and U3 collided and
formed a gas giant.

It may still be seen that both U1 and U3 exist as planets if the
Kupier Belt does not extend much farther than 62.0 (10^8 Miles)

So in the future the discovery of additional objects similar to
Pluto/Quaoar/DW 2004 may be found in the Kupier Belt.

Objects closer to 38.4 (10^8 Miles) are moons of Theth. Objects closer
to 62.0 (10^8 Miles) are moons of U2.

If any such Planetoid objects are found where U1 and U3 are theorized
to be located, then they are moons of the planets that once resided
there.

Only time will tell what remains in the areas at 76.8 AU and 93.0
(10^8 Miles). It will be either moons of planets that were destroyed,
a Gas Giant or perhaps two new worlds.

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.

Discovery of Quaoar - The discovery of this object has led me to
believe that Pluto and it are nothing but moons of a planet that once
orbited at 38.40 AU. In time Pluto will no longer be considered a
planet. Pluto and Quaoar are left behind moons of Theth. My Theth
Theory fully explains Pluto, Quaoar and the Kuiper Belt.

Discovery of DW 2004 - This discovery confirms my theory that Pluto
and Quaoar are moons as is DW 2004 of two planets that collided to
form the Kupier Belt.



  #6  
Old February 25th 04, 11:27 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Pathetic Deluded Fraud) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt

In message , Mr. 4X
writes
(hermesnines) wrote in message
. com:

Everything explained with one theory


Which is crap.

Can't you trim your posts?
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #7  
Old February 26th 04, 02:33 AM
John Griffin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt

Stupid nonprophet organism Ennis ("Sollog"), pretending to be
some ****ing idiot named (hermesnines) wrote:

John Griffin wrote
Nonprophet Organism Ennis ("Sollog") babbled:

yap yap yap


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.


I can believe that you think electrons orbit the nucleus
in precisely known paths constrained to a plane, and you
think the sun is composed of 12 particles, and that you're
qualified to talk about the structure of the atom. The
latter is the most amusing of those three errors.

Hey, that reminds me...if your fantasy solar system fits
carbon 12, why doesn't it fit carbon 14? (It doesn't fit
either, of course.)



Why don't you take Chemistry 101 moron, Sollog is
absolutely right, his 18 planet THEORY resembles the
structure of a Carbon 12 atom


There is no way you can make the sun resemble a carbon 12
nucleus, fool. You're full of ****. Your "theory" is absolute
nonsense. Your attempt to dabble in science is even funnier
than your 100% failed attempt to be a prophet, Ennis. Try to
get a job.

I'm glad my question ****ed you off so much, but reposting the
same goofy bull**** wasn't an answer.

Why do you think electrons move in precise orbits around the
nucleus, anyway, dimwit? High school kids know better than
that!

Why moron?

Carbon 12 atoms have

6 Protons
6 Neutrons
6 Electrons

18 Particles in total

PROOF ASSHOLE

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../chem00639.htm

Now shut the **** up

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?


Of course not, moron. You're just another raving lunatic
with just another dumb idea.

By the way, it's really funny that you claim that Pluto is
a moon (of the sun?). You're dumber than a brick, Ennis.


You're an ignorant asshole, you still call Sollog Ennis by
his birthname. I'm sure you still call Mohammed Ali cassius
clay don't you?


Why are you sure of that? Who cares?

You're a ****ed up faggot


snicker You wish.

Sollog says PLUTO is a leftover MOON of a planet that
collided and formed the Kuiper Belt, not the sun you moron.


It doesn't matter what you say, imbecile. You're just babbling
about something you know nothing about.

Just for the hell of it, describe how the debris from your
putative collision (WITH WHAT?!) ended up in large chunks with
wildly differing orbits. Your hypothetical planet was just
tripping around the sun all alone out there, and suddenly,
without warning it collided! snicker

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/lists/OuterPlot.html

NOW SHUT THE **** UP


Yeeeeee haaaaaaa! Beg all you can, failure, but I don't intend
to stop laughing at you.

You didn't need to prove that you couldn't answer my questions,
but you did a fine job of it. (That's the only thing you've ever
done well.)

It's amazing that you found a way to make yourself look even
more laughable and stupid than your idiotic, 100% failed
"prophecies" have done, loser.

Get a job.


  #9  
Old February 26th 04, 09:18 PM
hermesnines
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt

John Griffin

Shut the **** up hillbilly go **** your ugly sister
  #10  
Old February 26th 04, 09:27 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt

In message ,
hermesnines writes
John Griffin

Shut the **** up hillbilly go **** your ugly sister


Abuse report filed.
Plonk.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? TKalbfus Policy 265 July 13th 04 12:00 AM
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 7 January 29th 04 10:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.