## Planetary Distance FormulaA large-scale model explaining the formation of the
Solar System By Sollog
Immanuel Adonai-Adoni July 11 Edited
October 8 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 Uranus 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
it's 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 its 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
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 recent 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. |