The Solar System’s Underlying Reality

By Ronald G. Messick (Part 1)

The solar system is so complex that it requires specialists in the fields of cosmology, astronomy, and orbital mechanics to make some semblance of sense out of it all. But a recent discovery has revealed a simpler underlying reality–a scheme so grand that only “Mother Nature” could have conceived it.

solar-system-planets-moons-animated
Courtesy of bestanimations.com

Instead of total randomness as one might expect, a truly remarkable relationship was found to exists between the Sun’s photosphere and the orbits of the planet’s. We call this new discovery:

Breakthrough #1

The substance of this breakthrough is straight forward and will only take three paragraphs to describe.

To put things in context, the Sun is essentially a big ball of hydrogen and helium. It contains a whopping 99.9% of all the mass in the solar system and remains a complex ball of mystery. However, recent research shows that its influence is, literally, that of a god and reveals how that influence is reflected in planetary orbits.

Planetary orbits are a precise multiple of the Sun’s photosphere

The photospheric circumference is described as 2,714,530.909 imperial miles. And, when that value is multiplied by the planet’s normalized distance from the Sun; i.e., astronomical units (AUs) and then, multiplied again by “216” the calculated result is, invariably, the precise length of the planet’s orbit (expressed in imperial miles).

Check it out…

Solar rotation at the root of planetary orbits

Solar circumference X AU X 216–that’s it–all orbits–no exceptions. 

The bottom line–the photosphere, itself, is a “Constant”. Simply reversing the order of the values in the table should make that point very clear (below),

Photospheric Constant1

How accurate are these calculations? 

Time-Distance-Reconciliation

As illustrated above, both time and distance reconcile with the Gregorian calendar’s schematic of days, hours, minutes and seconds “perfectly”. The miles per second represents the planet’s orbital frequency (or hertz). Here’s an example,

Earth: 18.59267746 X 86,400 X 365 = 586,338,676.38 miles.

What does it mean?

The significance of this discovery has to do with two areas of scientific research;

1. The mechanism that links planetary orbits to the 11-year solar cycle. The majority of scientists work on the principle that the Sun is self-modulating and each solar cycle is a product of a random number generator. However, there are dozens of scientific papers showing correlations between planetary orbits and the 11-year solar cycle. But, because of the extreme distances involved and the fact that gravity declines at the square of the distance, those papers are basically ignored. However, this uniform 216:1 relationship between the photospheric circumference and planetary orbits suggests that something else is at play here.

2. The mechanism that controls planetary spacing; Those involved in planetary science have long known that Newton’s law of gravity applied to the solar system displays chaos and yet, what is observed is clockwork stability. But clockwork stability requires a feedback mechanism to control orbital spacing and, presently, that mechanism does not exist. This uniform 216:1 relationship between the photospheric circumference and planetary orbits may be an important clue.

Planetary orbits, themselves, are comprised of uniform centrifugal radiative emanations from the Sun–the very same pressures responsible for the Hydrostatic Equilibrium that prevents the Sun from collapsing in on itself.

Hydrostatic-Equilibriom

Kepler’s laws of planetary motion says “that the force of the central gravity (the Sun) must be balanced by the centrifugal force of the orbiting planet.” But, what Kepler didn’t say is that the centrifugal force is methodically applied to the orbit’s axis of rotation–which consequently, manifests the orbit–not momentum (planetary-mass X velocity).

The implication is that major-axes, themselves, are equilibrium points.

Its-Complicated

Breakthrough #2

The theoretical speed with which the planets orbit the Sun is said to be a fine balance between the escape velocity that applies for their distance from the Sun and the speed below which an orbit would decay and the planets crash into the Sun. What we learned is that planetary mass and escape velocity are not even part of the equation. Go figure…Energy2

The energy budgets of all planetary orbits are the same

The so-called relative energy necessary to sustain an orbit is listed in the right-hand column of the above table–they are all the same. We’ll get back to that in a minute, but first, the analytical values; the first column lists the planetary distances calculated in breakthrough #1. Orbit time (in the next column) is simply the orbital period broken down into seconds. Then, the distance figures are divided by the time figures to calculate orbital velocities and listed in the middle column. Relative distances (in terms of AUs) are in the next column with their square roots listed next door. Finally, the column on the far right lists the energy budgets which are derived by multiplying the square root of the distance by velocity. The square root of distance is used because the effect of gravity diminishes with the square of the distance.

What does it mean?

The so-called energy budgets have been described to me as the quantity or volume of relative energy-units (mass) contained within the orbit’s perimeter. The term relative is used because mass density dissipates with distance (AU). The farther the distance from the Sun the lesser the density and lower density means that a larger volume of mass is required to amass the required amount of energy.

Here’s what I think is the bottom line; You’ll notice that Mercury and Neptune both have, relatively, the same energy budget—solely based on the square roots of their AUs X their velocities. The fact that Neptune is 30-times more massive is not even a consideration.

The implication is that expanding forces spiraling out from the Sun have an inverse relationship with gravitational (or compressive) forces spiraling in towards the Sun–meaning that both forces are impacted equally by the square of the distance. The result is an equilibrium vortex center (or homogeneous state) which negates planetary-mass altogether—implying there is no resistance to acceleration so the body is weightless, and therefore, its mass is zero.

Breakthrough #3

The next breakthrough begins to tie things together. The concepts involved in this breakthrough were derived from the “Time Period” portion of the formula used to calculate the “Rotational Kinetic Energy of Earth”.

365-timeThe first part shows time as a period (T = 365-days X 86,400 seconds per-day = 31,536,000 seconds) and the second part shows time as a velocity (T = 3.1536 X 10^7 = 31,536,000 seconds). Clearly, we have a diameter (consisting of 10,000,000 seconds) being accelerated by an apparent Pi multiple of 3.1536.
Time as a period (31,536,000 seconds) multiplied by Earth’s velocity (18.59267746 MPS) equals the Earth’s orbital circumference (586,338,676.4-miles). Dividing the circumference by the newly discovered value of Pi(3.1536) results in the precise length of Earth’s major axis (185,926,774.6-miles).

The implication of the above is that (10^7 X AU X 18.59267746) should calculate the major axis of all planets and, here’s the proof…

Spacing of Planetary Orbits2

The real takeaway here is that 1-AU appears to have the equivalence of 10^7; i.e., (10,000,000) because when 10^7 is multiplied by AU and then, multiplied by the energy factor (18.59267746) it results in the length of the planet’s major-axis. It is with some reservations, 10^7 is referred to herein as relative-energy-unit which, I am told, reflects energy density (or the amount of energy stored in a given region of space per unit volume). Whether that is the true definition, however, must be left to the Physicist among you to decide.

Theoretical mechanism for mass re-distribution

Apparently, an expansion or contraction in the Sun’s photospheric diameter would increase or decrease the size of an energy-unit (10,000,000) and, because of its linkage with the AU, uniform adjustments would be triggered throughout the system.

Theoretically, these adjustments materialize at the sphere of influence boundary between the Sun and the planet. Increases in solar diameter, for example, would increase the Sun’s sphere of influence while reducing the planet’s influence and, because influence translates to mass, adjustments are triggered to orbits and spin rates.

Hillspheres1

On planet Earth, those adjustments manifest as incremental increases or decreases in leap-seconds (or slight changes in kinetic energy). The cumulative effects of which eventually become leap-days and reconciled with our Gregorian calendar.

I can’t help but wonder if the adjustments in mass (between the Sun and planets) are the stuff that space weather is made of?

Breakthrough #4

At this point, Nature’s methods of controlling orbital spacing appeared to be at hand. But, how the time element is factored into the equation was still a mystery.

Kepler had started with what was observable (orbital periods). Then, he discovered a way to correlate time with distance (3rd law). Velocity was a derivative.

Breakthrough #4 proves that the elements of time and distance emerge from the very same place and calculate the same result as with Kepler’s 3rd. law. But, with a much clearer picture of the underlying analytical values.

Check it out…Manifestation of Time

In the case of time, the so-called, density is normalized by multiplying by AU and then, given kinetic energy by multiplying by Pi(). Kinetic energy multiplied by the square root of distance is the element of time; i.e.,(orbital period measured in seconds).

When we think of time and distance we see them as two completely different elements linked only by velocity. But, at their root, is mass (see below).

Common source

As illustrated above, both equations start as a unit of mass (10^7) with distance manifesting as a volume and time manifesting as kinetic energy.

 Breakthrough #5

Should the Pi Constant be reclassified as a Variable? 

Pi(3.14159…) is, literally, hardwired into our society. It permeates all of physics, astronomy and virtually all other sciences, engineering software, astronomical software, geographical coordinate, navigation systems and on and on. Not to mention an incalculable number of textbooks.

But, when one considers that there are no perfectly round spheres or orbits in our solar system or, perhaps, the universe, it should give pause. I simply question the wisdom of using a Pi Constant that assumes that all orbits are perfectly round when the measure of an ellipse is needed.  The implication is that you will end up with either a fractionally wrong perimeter or a fractionally wrong diameter.

Does it matter? You be the judge.

As was suggested in breakthrough #4, Pi is Nature’s mechanism for applying just the right amount of kinetic energy to match time with distance. It exists at every level from the atom to the Milky-way. If the Pi (value) is off, the time-distance cycle is a mismatch.

The question is; what determines the correct value? The following examples may shine some light on the issue;

1: The ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Mayans both used 360-day and 365-day calendars. I propose that the analytical values associated with the formulation of Pi are as follows:

Establishing the value of Pi()Example1a

Example2a

2: The table below shows the orbital configuration of the 365-day orbit in comparison with the 360-day orbital configuration.

Reconciling-distances2

The major axis associated with the 360-day orbit is less than 1-AU and has less relative mass. The shorter major axis is offset by the Pi differential–reducing the orbital circumference. The velocity is now 18.33798325 MPS instead of 18.59267746.   

The underlying reality

Here’s the kicker; 10^7 X Pi(3.14159) = 31,415,900 seconds / 86,400 = 363.6099537-days. From Nature’s perspective, 363.6099537 is the exact number of days associated with a “perfectly round” orbit. I think all will agree that 1.39-days per orbit is not just a slight discrepancy. It repeats itself over and over and over.

The official length of an astronomic unit

The most troubling thing about this whole exercise is the fact that everything presented here evolves from “the astronomic unit of measure”. If the definition of 1-AU is wrong, then everything else is wrong.

An astronomical unit (au), as defined by the IAU, is exactly 149,597,870,700 meters or 92,955,807 imperial miles. The grand schematic, on the other hand, says that the length of an AU is 92,963,387.30 miles. That’s extremely close (0.99992%) and, in astronomic circles, it would be classified as a match. But, it is not a perfect match and, in the overall scheme of things, a small variance is important because it is leveraged time and again by Pi.

The question is; which figure is right? 

There is only one right figure and that figure must be in balance with the Gregorian 365-day calendar from which Earth’s orbital structure manifests. 

365 X 86,400 X 18.59267746 / 3.1536 /2 = 1-au

Metaphorically speaking, the Sun’s photosphere is a rotating drive shaft containing (9) planetary gears. The gears are sized and spaced according to their relative distance from the Sun (AU) and all are turning 18.59267746 revolutions per cycle (orbit). The gears associated with planetary orbits are synchronized with the gears associated with solar rotation. The result is clockwork stability.

giphy

The above is the figure that reconciles with the solar system’s clockwork motion. Using the official AU and Pi(3.14159) would only extend the orbital period by about 25-minutes. Both are simply mathematical estimates. The Sun always does what the Sun’s gonna do.

Conclusion

This article featured five key breakthroughs–the first of which occurred more than 16-years ago. I’ve struggled night and day ever since to understand its full implications. Taken together this series of breakthroughs form the bases of a new hypothesis about the inner workings of the solar system.

Mainstream science will, no doubt, label these ideas as fringe– and for a very good reason–they are. Generally speaking, the more disruptive an idea is, the greater the resistance will be.

I’m reminded of another “fringe” thinker; Aristarchus of Samos (310 BCE – c. 230 BCE). He was the first to suggest the heliocentric model in which the Sun is at the center of the solar system and the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun. But, for the next 1800-years, astronomers continued to insist that the sun revolved around the earth. Thankfully, the heliocentric model was revived by Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543) and the rest is history.

As I reflect on how rapidly science advanced–once the cat was out of the bag–so to speak, I can’t help but wonder where mankind would be today if only Aristarchus’s idea had been given due consideration. Who knows, perhaps, the Romans would have put the first man on the moon.

Maybe a little “fringe” is a good thing. Only time will tell.


If the premise of this article–a simpler underlying reality–is true, perhaps, even Citizen Scientist will be able to share in the natural beauty of Nature’s grand experiment. I pray that is so.

Finally, I submit that Part-1 is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Part #2 will explore the ramifications of having a Sun that is slightly elliptic in shape rather than being the perfectly round ball that we had imagined.

The two slightly different diameters cause the Sun to oscillate as it rotates. And, having 99.9% of the solar system’s mass, the oscillating Sun causes everything else in the solar system to oscillate with it. The reason that we can’t see these oscillations is that our frame of reference is from inside the oscillating bubble. Supporting evidence for this supposition is provided by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in the illustration below.

NASA_The Shape of the Sun

This will allow us to take an inside look at the analytical values associated with the solar cycle itself. You won’t want to miss it.

PolarfieldsA-B_Solar-Cycle1
Magnetic Fields Overlay Courtesy of Stanford.edu

Part-2 will only be available to registered guests of solar-cycle-schematic.com. To register, simply enter your name and email address at the bottom of this page. An email will be sent when published.

acknowledgments

Your comments may be sent to info@solar-cycle-schematic.com

Ronald G. Messick


Copyright

Registration

 

 

 

Solving the mystery of the ancient 360-day calendar

Copyright2

It appears that ancient 360-day calendars may have been used globally until about the eighth century BCE.  360dayyear.com, a leading internet source, has cataloged evidence of eleven different cultures that may have used 360-day calendars at one time or another.

This article is an investigation into the possible source and purpose of such a calendar.

The question that first pops in one’s mind is; how is it possible that eleven widely separated cultures came up with identical calendar systems?  The physical barriers such as mountains, deserts, and oceans separating Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica and China would seem to preclude the merging of proprietary technologies. So, what happened?

It also seems unlikely that the 360-day calendar has anything to do with tracking seasons as it would have become out of sync by a full month in just 5-years. As a result, it would have been discarded. But the calendars were not discarded. In fact, they were widely used for a period of at least two-thousand years. That would suggest that the 360-day calendar was crafted to serve another purpose.

At least in some cases, such as with the Mayans and Egyptians, the 360-day calendars were an integral part of 365-day calendar systems. Intercalary periods were used for synchronization of the calendars over longer periods of time.

According to the Ancient History Encyclopedia the ancient Sumerians emerged as a culture around 5,000 BCE and lasted until about 1,750 BCE. Historically, what we call civilization, likely began in the ancient city of Eridu. As the oldest known civilization, it seemed reasonable to assume they were the first culture to embrace a 360-day calendar and so, they became the initial focus of this investigation.

The literature explained how their history and accomplishments had been lost in time–even their name. Their secrets remained buried in the deserts of Iraq until the 19th century AD when French and British archaeologists finally stumbled upon Sumerian artifacts while hunting for evidence of the ancient Assyrians. Since then, archaeologists have recovered some 500,000 clay tablets, the majority of which are yet to be translated.

Sumerians1

By 3,100 BC the Sumerians had already become a highly advanced and sophisticated civilization. They had a writing system (cuneiform script) and a library containing hundreds of thousands of historical documents. They also had a highly functional governmental structure and legal system and were building bridges, dams, aqueducts and irrigation systems. Mathematically, it appears that their skills were well beyond what historians had imagined. The evidence suggests that they could perform advanced arithmetic calculations and may have been the initiators of the science that would later become known as astronomy. They brought us the Sexagesimal structure for measuring time–using seconds, minutes and hours as well as our system of measure–based on miles, feet and inches. They had mastered geometry and were able to calculate areas of rectangles, triangles, and trapezoids and said to have used sophisticated geometrical calculations for tracking the movement of planets.

Unraveling the mystery

After working on the puzzle off and on for several years an original concept slowly began to evolve.

I learned that the Sumerians divided the 360-day year into 30-day months, the day into twelve 2-hour periods, and the 2-hour periods into thirty 4-minute intervals. With 1440-minutes in a day, 4-minutes is equivalent to 1/360th of a day. That piece of information told me that the Sumerians not only divided the Earth’s orbit into intervals of 360, they also divided Earth’s rotation into intervals of 360.

That lead to the discovery of what I now refer to as the “Sacred Cube”.

4-minutes X 360 = 1440-minutes (the measure of a day)
1440-minutes X 360 = 518,400 (the measure of a year)
518,400-minutes X 360 = 186,624,000 miles (the measure of distance)

 When 4-minutes is multiplied by 360 it results in 1440-minutes or 1-day. When those 1440-minutes are multiplied by 360-days it results in 518,400-minutes or one 360-day year. When 518,400-minutes are multiplied by 360 the result is 186,624,000 miles. Curiously, that number matches a value listed in the Cannon of ancient numbers which are defined as the Earth’s orbital diameter (93,312,000 X 2 = 186,624,000). More precisely, this figure is the line of apsides.

Being a bit uneasy about the implications of this, I decided to let the matter set.

A couple of years later I was trying to make sense out of the Sexagesimal system and came up with an idea. I decided to deconstruct the 186,624,000 number that I had previously came up with using the Sexagesimal time structure of a day. First, I divided 186,624,000-miles by 360-days which resulted in 518,400-miles per-day. That figure was then divided by 24-hours which resulted in 21,600-miles-per-hour. Next, 21,600-miles was divided by 60-minutes which resulted in 360-miles per-minute. Finally, the 360-miles per-minute was divided by 60-seconds which resulted in 6-miles per-second or 6-hertz–the very same frequency insisted on by the great Nicola Tesla.

Tabel-of-Measures

To summarize what I’d learned up to that point;

  1. The cube of 360 X 4 equals 186,624,000-miles (theoretical diameter of Earth’s orbit).
  2. 186,624,000-miles is the product of a Sexagesimal year.

At this point and time, I was convinced that the Sumerians were the legitimate source of the 360-day calendar. But I was troubled by the size of the discrepancy between 186,624,000-miles, the proposed diameter of Earth’s orbit, and the currently accepted value. So, once again I decided to let the matter set.

Several years later I came across a paper written by researcher Arnold D. Enge. He had discovered that the ancient Mayan used 365.625 days when calculating the Earth’s orbit instead of our 365.242-day tropical year. The Mayan name for the 365.625-day period is “uinalhaab” which means one-year. The “uinalhaab” turned out to be the missing piece of my puzzle.

Here are the numbers in table format:

Sol-Lunar Year

A lunar-year of 354.375-days is consistent with the present-day Islamic calendar which has been in use since ancient times. The 365.625-day “uinalhaab” has now been verified by other qualified authorities. The average of those two periods is precisely 360-days.

At that point, I supposed that ancient astronomers had, somehow, developed a calendar to track the apsidal motion of an Earth-Moon binary system.

Verification

To verify that supposition I decided to utilize the time-distance formula that I had learned earlier (4-minutes X 360 X 360 = 518,400). But, instead of multiplying 518,400 by 360 as I had done earlier, I multiplied that figure instead by the number of days in the lunar year and the number of days in the uinalhaab (see below).

The table shows that the orbit’s closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) is 91,854,000 miles and that the farthest approach (aphelion) is 94,770,000-miles. The sum of those two (186,624,000-miles) forms the line of apsides. The preciseness of the calculation was enough to convince me that the 360-day calendar was defined by an Earth-Moon binary system (see below).

The above illustration depicts the orbit of the Earth-Moon system as an ellipse instead of a circle. The important difference between circular orbits and elliptic orbits is the construction of their orbital diameters. When circular orbits are divided by Pi the result is the length of their orbital diameter (which is precisely two times its radius). With an ellipse, however, the orbital diameter is replaced with the “line of apsides”.

The line of apsides is composed of two axes of differing lengths. One axis is the distance from the center of rotation to the orbit’s aphelion and the other axes are the distance from the center of rotation to the orbit’s parhelion. According to Newton, those two components cause two opposing fields or waves to be created (see below).

Apsidal Motion

 

The variance in length of the two axes is what defines the synodic period (the number of rotations necessary to evenly distribute the variance and return to the point of equilibrium). Newton’s theorem of revolving orbits describes this phenomenon as apsidal or orbital precession.

The formula for calculating the apsidal precession period is as follows:

The number of days shown in red in the formula below is taken from the table above identified as the “Apsidal Precession Component Profile”.

[-360 / ((360/182.8125 days) – (360/177.1875 days)) = 5758.59375 days]

What the formula tells us is that it takes 5758.59375 days for the Earth-Moon system to evenly distribute the variance in length of the perihelion and aphelion axes and return to a point of orbital equilibrium–a period of almost exactly 16 solunar years.

Further Synodic implications

Interestingly, the synodic components from which the 360-day period is formed are periods that the ancients defined as months.

[-360 / ((360/30-days) – (360/27.69230769-days)) = 360-days]

The formula tells us that 360-days is comprised of twelve 30-day periods and thirteen 27.69230769-day periods. The mean is 28.8-days (see table).

Earth-Synodic

The following diagram shows an outer orbital perimeter in red resulting from 365.625 X 518,400 and an inner orbital perimeter in blue resulting from 354.375 X 518,400. The mean solunar orbit of 360-days is white in color. The white dotted line illustrates the lunar motion that produces the 27.69230769-day oscillations.

Solunar-Cycle

Solunar-360-year

The implication of all of this is considerable 

For example, 27.6923076923 X 260 = 7,200-days or 20 solunar years (Mayan Katun) and 30 X 360 = 10,800-days or 30-solunar years (Saturn orbital period).

The Katun (consisting of 7,200-days) is based on the synodic relationship between the mean orbit period of Saturn (10,800-days) and the theoretical mean rotation period of the solar system’s center of mass (4,320-days) which is very closely associated with the orbit of planet Jupiter (see below).

Synodic [-360 / ((360/10,800 days) – (360/4320 days)) = 7200 days]

The Katun is also closely linked to Jupiter’s relationship with the Earth-Moon system. The Earth-Moon system’s synodic period with Jupiter is about 400-days. When those 400-days are inserted into the formula below the Katun pops up.

Synodic [-360 / ((360/400 days) – (360/360 days)) = 3600 days X 2 = 7,200-days]

Another extremely important implication is the synodic relationship between the 354.375-day period and 365.625-day period:

Synodic [-360 / ((360/365.625 days) – (360/354.375 days)) = 3,986.71875 days]

Why this calculation is so important is because 3,986.71875 divided by 360-days turns out to be 11.07421875-years (the mean length of the sunspot cycle).

Further implications

When the synodic period between 365.625-days and 360-days is calculated, the result is as follows:

 Synodic [-360 / ((360/365.625 days) – (360/360 days)) = 23,400 days]

Now, by dividing 23,400 by 360-days we come up with 65-solunar years

EMS

Why is 23,400-days or 65 solunar years important?

Simply put, it is the grand synodic period of the inner solar system:

  • Earth-Mars synodic period is 780-days X 30 = 23,400
  • Earth-Venus synodic period is 585-days X 40 = 23,400
  • Uinalhaab orbital: 365.625-days X 364 = 23,400
  • Solunar orbital: 360 X 65-days = 23,400
  • Lunar orbital: 354.5454: 66 X 360 = 23,400
  • Venus orbital: 225 X 104 = 23,400
  • Mercury orbital: 87.96992481 X 266 = 23,400

All the above orbitals divide evenly into the grand synodic period (no remainders). This implies that all inner planets are in perfect harmonic resonance with a cycle of 23,400-days.

Harmonic resonance is simply natures method of propagating energy

This concludes this post. Thank you for taking the time to read it.

Sincerely,

Ron Messick

More to follow…