August 5,
2005
Since the discovery
of the tenth planet, our planetary system has been
a renewed subject of interest. Despite the fact that
more objects have been found behind Pluto in recent
years, there seems to be more interest in the latest
discovery. This is probably because this planet, Eris
(formerly designated 2003-UB313), is bigger than
Pluto. But there is a phenomenon regarding the planetary
system that seems to have been forgotten or is still
being ignored because scientists still can’t
explain it. It involves a mathematical rule discovered
by astronomer Johann Daniel Titius and published by
his coleage Johann Elert Bode in 1772. Since then
the rule is referred to as “the
rule of Titius and Bode”.
Titius |
Bode |
When I was 14,
my father gave me an astronomy book which briefly
mentioned this rule. Although I could not completely
understand it at the time, I had a strong feeling
that it meant something and I always seemed to be getting
drawn back to it. Later when I had Physics at school,
I started a thorough study on the subject.
The rule as it
is mentioned in astronomy books is but a weak extract
of the structure of our planetary system. I find it
a gross negligence that scientists pay no attention
to it, and I believe they are keeping humanity
from getting a deeper insight and possibly the truth
of our existence. For those not yet familiar with
this rule of Titius and Bode, this is how the scientific
community describes it:
- Consider
the following number sequence:
0 – 3 – 6 – 12 – 24 – 48 – 96 – 192 – 384
- Add 4 to
each number:
4 – 7 – 10 – 16 – 28 – 52 – 100 – 196 – 388
- Divide each
number by 10:
0,4 – 0,7 – 1,0 – 1,6 – 5,2 – 10,0 – 19,6 – 38,8
These numbers
are approximations of the distances of the planets
to the Sun in astronomical units (AU). But astronomers
say that the rule doesn’t apply for planets beyond Uranus.
This is probably the reason why they pay no more attention
to it. However, this is only partially true, because
they fail to mention or do not (wish to) see that
Pluto fits perfectly. So I’d
rather talk of one anomaly (Neptune)
in the sequence.
Another explanation for the incompleteness of this rule is that astronomers
always use the Earth as an anchor point for measurements. An astronomical
unit is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun, which
is approximately 149,6 million kilometers, and astronomers use this
unit to express all distances in our planetary system. That is why
the number sequence mentioned above is divided by 10. It is a way
and you can use it, but by studying the planetary system this way,
the actual structure remains hidden.
I intuitively
did the right thing to reveal the structure of our
planetary system. Since my study on number theory,
I always associated number 3 with the Trinity, which
is formed by the 3 elements positive, negative and
neutral. One day, when I looked at the number sequence,
it occurred to me that something was missing – the negative
pole! So instead of starting the sequence with 0 – 3, I started
it with -3 0 3+ as an expression of the 3 aspects of
the Trinity: negative – neutral – positive. This seemed
much more logical to me and I had the feeling that the
sequence was now “complete”. My next thought was that,
just like the 12 months in a year and the 12 energy fields
of the zodiac, there could also be 12 planets. In that case
the sequence would be:
-3 – 0 – 3 – 6 – 12 – 24 – 48 – 96 – 192 – 384 – 768 – 1536
The fact that this sequence is based on number 3 is obvious considering
that in essence everything in nature is based on the Trinity.
The next step,
adding 4 to each number, is the “birth” of
the 4 cardinal points or “anchor points” in the Universe – North,
East, South and West. It is the “birth” of creation,
the projection, crystallization and realization of Thought.
4 is the first “key number” because it gives birth to
number 7 (3+4), the number that rules the material world,
which finds its expression in the 7 primary colours and
musical notes, and in the 7 year regeneration process
of the physical body. But 4 also gives birth to number
12 (3x4), expressed through the 12 energy fields of the
zodiac, which constitues the variety of forms
we find in the physical world. By adding 4 to each number,
the sequence looks like this:
1 – 4 – 7 – 10 – 16 – 28 – 52 – 100 – 196 – 388 – 772 – 1540
Note that this
separation or birth process is an endless cycle, which becomes
obvious if we would continue to multiply, dividing each 1 triangle
into 4 triangles: 4x16=64, 4x64=256, 4x256=1024 … This
is the rhythm of 7, as each number of triangles expresses
1 then 4 then 7, like 1-4-7 1-4-7 1-4-7… To show you what
I mean by this:
Triangles |
Reduction |
Expression |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
16 |
1+6 |
7 |
64 |
6+4 (10) 1+0 |
1 |
256 |
2+5+6 (13) 1+3 |
4 |
1024 |
1+0+2+4 |
7 |
Those not familiar
with this blueprint of Creation may familiarize themselves here
with the “reduction” of numbers above
9 as shown above. It is not just a game of adding up digits. It shows
the underlying or base “energy” of a number. Also note
that the number sequence above starts with 1-4-7, the same pattern
expressed by the 3 triangle figures. Another meaningful feature is
that both numbers 4 and 7 are in essence an expression of the same “base
energy”: 1+2+3+4 (10) 1+0=1 and 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 (28) 2+8 (10)
1+0=1. In fact the numbers 1, 4 and 7 are just another
expression of the Trinity 1-1-1.
undivided:
1 |
First "Division":
4 |
Second
"Division": 7 |
Back to the number
sequence, we are only one step away from its final
form. We know that the distance Earth-Sun is approximately 150
million kilometers. So it seems that we have to multiply each
number by 15. It turns out that this number 15 is crucial for
the entire blueprint of our planetary system. 15 is the sum of
6 and 9, which symbolically are each others opposites – the
Universal polarity or Yin-Yang! So let’s multiply each number
by 15:
15 – 60 – 105 – 150 – 240 – 420 – 780 – 1500 – 2940 – 5820 – 11580
- 23100
Indeed, these
numbers appear to be the approximate distances of
the planets to the Sun in millions kilometers. The only exception
is Neptune, which is the reason why astronomers don’t pay
further attention to this obvious structure of our
planetary system.
However, if we take a closer look at Neptune, it turns out to fit
nicely in our number sequence. If we take the average distance of
Uranus and Pluto we get:
(2940
+ 5820) / 2 = 4380
Indeed, this number
4380 appears to be the approximate distance of Neptune
to the Sun.
Interestingly,
Eastern occultists claim that Neptune
originally did not belong to our planetary system
and that the connection between Neptune and the Sun
is “mayavic” – imaginative.
This could explain the anomalous distance of Neptune
and also the anomalous orbits of the outer (Trans-Neptune)
planets.
 |
After the discovery
of Neptune in 1846 and Pluto in 1930, astronomers
concluded that the pertubations of Uranus could not
be solely attributed to these two outer planets. Thus
they started searching for a planet beyond Pluto.
Only recently, 75 years after the discovery of Pluto,
they found it: Eris. Many scientists
wonder if Pluto and the recently discovered objects
in the Kuiper-belt should be regarded as planets.
Except for the many small objects that do not at all
fit in the above number sequence, I believe that Pluto
and Eris should be regarded as planets because
they match perfectly. The average distance (semi-major
axis) of Eris is approximately 10123,43 million kilometers,
and if we consider its extreme elliptical orbit, I’d
say this is a fair approximation of the mathematical
11580.
Pluto’s
orbit has an inclination of approximately 17°, whereas the
inclination of Eris'
orbit is 44°! The image below
shows that Eris is almost at its farest point from the
Sun, approximately 14550 million kilometers. No wonder
it had not been detected earlier. Its shortest distance
to the Sun is approximately 5700 million kilometers.
Its revolution is approximately 557 years. But I will
talk about that later.
The orbit of Eris (UB313),
is the most elliptical one we know of so far.. |
If Neptune is
indeed an “intruder”, it could explain
the anomalous orbits of Pluto and Eris, because a planet
that is caught by the Sun’s gravitational force and pulled
to a certain position, is likely to disrupt the planetary
orbits it passes, which is exactly what seems to
have happened, all the more because all other planetary
orbits appear to be nearly circular.
I will end this
first part with a table that compares the mathematical
distances with the distances calculated by astronomers
through observation. The question marks will be discussed
in the next part.