DMC - The Planetary System, Part 1

August 5, 2005

Since the discovery of the tenth planet, our planetary system is a renewed subject of interest. Despite the fact that more objects were 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 refered to as “the rule of Titius and Bode”.

Titius

Bode

When I was 14, my father gave me an astronomy book that briefly mentioned this rule. Although I could not really grasp 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 keep 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 that they pay no more attention to it. However, this is only partialy true, because they fail to mention or do not see that Pluto fits perfectly. So I’d rather talk of an anomaly of one planet (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 accidentally did the right thing to reveal the structure of the 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. At 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 signs 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 colors and musical notes and in the 7 year regeneration process of the physical body. At the same time 4 gives birth to number 12 (3x4), expressed through the 12 energy fields of the zodiac that produce that 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, for 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 eachothers 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. It is interesting to know that Eastern occultists claim that Neptune originally does 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 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 of Eris is approximately 10142 million kilometers, and if we consider the extreme elliptical orbit and its distance to the Sun, I’d say this is a very good approximation of the mathematical 11580.

Pluto’s orbit has an inclination of approximately 17°. The orbit of Eris has an inclination of 44°! The picture below shows that Eris is almost at its farest point from the Sun, approximately 14550 million kilometers. No wonder it has not been discovered earlier. Its shortest distance to the Sun is approximately 5700 million kilometers. Its revolution is approximately 560 years. But I’ll 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, and that is exactly what seems to have happened, all the more because all other planetary orbits appear to be nearly circular.

I 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.