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.

Courtesy of

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? 


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.

Magnetic Fields Overlay Courtesy of

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


Your comments may be sent to

Ronald G. Messick