The recent announcement of the possible existence of another solar system, with planetary bodies (b, c, d) orbiting a star, similar to our own solar system, has been theoretically postulated for the Upsilon Andromedae system. The U Andromedae system lies at a distance of around ~43.93 light years from our solar system. Analyses in astrophysics have purported the existence of three planetary bodies rotating around a central star. The central star has been visually observed, whereas the existence of the three planetary bodies has been deduced from theoretical math. The theoretically based information about the three planetary bodies for the U Andromedae system involves different aspects of the planetary bodies. We shall concern ourselves with only a few types of information offered by the theorists.

The initial news reports stated that the planetary body d was orbiting around four times the orbital time of Earth. Consider, then, the sidereal day-count for Earth's orbit, 365.256 days times four equals 1461.024 days. The Sothic cycle concerns a 1460/1461 year-count figure for the 365.25c and 365c respectively. The 1460/1461 count falls within the range of the orbital periodicity of planetary body d, and immediately creates an intriguing scenario. The orbital periodicity of planetary bodies, b and c, do not seem to offer any apparent key to a relationship to the ancient reckoning system. Nonetheless, as we shall observe below, the numbers of the ancient reckoning system would appear to account for the orbital timing of the Upsilon Andromedae system.

The observed movement of the system's central star suggests to the theorists the possible existence of a three-planetary body system. Speculation was also developed about the possibility of a two-body system. But, let us consider the information regarding the three postulated planetary bodies, even though they may not even exist. The exercise in reckoning the numbers may even suggest a confirmation of their existence. The statistical information offered by the theorists appears to confirm just such a possibility. Obviously, we shall limit our observations to the most superficial aspects of the theoretical reasoning behind the postulation of these planetary bodies, given the fact that astrophysics lies beyond our analytical capabilities. It is important to note that all of the data offered by those theorists who postulate the existence of these three planetary bodies revolves around the idea that they are similar to Jupiter, and therefore, are called Jupiter-like bodies.

The reader may ask why bother about analyzing information and numbers that are based almost totally on theoretical postulates and supposition. And, the answer is to show how the perceived measurements might fit into the ancient system of reckoning. If the measurements and numbers offered today by the theorists are totally off-the-wall, then there should be no relationship with the ancient reckoning system. Everything is simply a matter of chance and coincidence. However, if the numbers make sense in the ancient reckoning system, then we may suspect that there may be a basis to the measurements and perceived theory, as well as, a basis to the ancient reckoning system. The numbers of the postulated planetary bodies were not arbitrarily chosen, but rather were arrived at analytically. It is this same scientific feature of analysis that we believe existed in the selection of the numbers of the ancient reckoning system.

The combined data (of Lick/AFOE) offered by the theorists immediately suggests a relationship to the ancient reckoning system. As we add three of the options offered for the orbital periodicity of the three planetary bodies, a total obtains of 1512.417 (b, 4.6170; c, 241.2; d, 1266.6). And, if we divide the 1512.417 figure, we obtain: 756.2085, which coincides with the baseline measurement of the Great Pyramid. The reader should remember that all of the measurements offered by the theorists are suppositions and generally are accompanied by a margin of error. So, we are not attempting to be precise (although numbers and decimal points offer that impression), but simply to suggest possible relationships.

There are many candidates for extrasolar planets, as they are named by the theorists: 47 Ursae Majoris; 51 Pegasi; 55 Cancri; Tau Bootis; 70 Virginis; Gleise 876; 16 Cygni B; Rho Corona Borealis; and Gleise 614. However, in the case of Upsilon Andromedae the novel fact is the idea that various planets exist, and not simply a singular planet revolving around a star. The numbers offer the possibility of comparisons. If the planetary body d actually entails an orbital periodicity of around 1460/1461 days, such comparisons would be easy to make and would have direct resemblance to data within the ancient reckoning system. However, it appears as though the theorists have concentrated their analyses on the orbital time of 1269 days for the planetary body d of the system. Now, that number does not offer any apparent relationship to numbers of the ancient reckoning system. The possibility that the orbital periodicity of d may actually be 1296, which is within the cited range, would itself entail many similarities with the ancient reckoning system. For in ancient Egypt, an historically significant number existed in the fractal 1296000 days. The possibility exists that planetary body d may have the orbital time of 1296 days, which would then become comparative to the ancient 360c system, given the fact that 1296 is the square of thirty-six.

There is no need to review all of the possible relationships within the ancient reckoning system of the historically significant fractal numbers of 1460/1461 and 1296, which we have discussed extensively in many other essays of this series. We shall concern ourselves with the less suggestive numbers of the newly discovered solar system.

The theorists have concentrated on the choice of 242 days for the planetary body c within the U Andromedae system. There is the possibility that its orbital timing may be actually 243 days, which is itself an historically significant number of the ancient reckoning system concerning the planet Venus. Consider the intriguing relationship of this number to one of the Sothic cycle numbers:

[One cannot help but recognize a fractal-like number for Avogadro's constant 6.02 x 10²³.]
In other words, this may represent a possible relationship between the planetary bodies c and d of the new solar system. In fact, one could imagine a 2 relationship were other numerical options to be chosen. Consider even other historically significant numbers, such as the maya alautun fractal (2304) as of this particular number:

In other words, here are a Sothic number and a Venus related number producing another number that mediates two maya ancient reckoning numbers/fractals. Now, consider a Nineveh number (1959552) in relation to the maya alautun:

At times it would appear as though the odds were more against there existing a coincidence, than a healthy human choice. Consider the apparently irrelevant number of 1269 days for d, as we double this value and arrive at 1299456 (= 1024 x 1269), we see that 1299456 - 1296000 = 3456, another historically significant number. It would appear that not only the ancient fell into coincidences, but nature itself abounds with such coincidences of number. Now, if we triple the 1269 orbital time of planetary body d, we reach the figure of 1949184 days (= 1536 orbits at 1269 days). Now, let us subtract this number from the Nineveh number previously cited:

Even if we take three other options of orbital times given for the three newly found planetary bodies, one may observe all kinds of relationships:

Even nature herself would appear to be playing tricks on us. Let us take the more extreme number for planetary body d, the orbital time of 1481.2 days. By doubling this particular number, we finally reach in scientific annotation of the electronic calculators the number 1.366165866²², which resembles another maya companion number much discussed in previous essays; that of 1366560 days. Now, in reverse order, the number 1366560000²² would halve down to 1481.627321, within the postulated range. In fact, when we divide the 1481.2 figure by the baseline of the Great Pyramid, 756, we see a number/fractal appear that reminds us of the Nineveh number:

Therefore, if we divide the orbital time of planetary body d by that of b, the following obtains:

For all the remainder math and the dislike of decimal places by the ancients, nothing can compare to such coincidences as the following:

I.E.S. Edwards (The Pyramids of Egypt) offers this particular number as that of the measurement in feet of the east baseline of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Two astronomically determined numbers, in two different points of time and two distinct reckoning systems are relational to suspected astronomically determined measurements of one of the most monumental structures of the ancient world.

In previous essays and extracts we have written about the possibility of viewing the ancient reckoning numbers in various manners. One way to do so, is to view the number 151840 (contained nine times within the maya companion number 1366560) as representing either 151840 or, 51840 (2 x 25920). Such a mathematical representation is very easy to accept when we consider numbers related to the reciprocal of seven, 1.142857 and/or 142857, which are relational in a similar manner. Therefore, let us suppose that 1481.2 also may be expressing 481.2 (the possible height of the Great Pyramid), and doubled to the 962.4 figure.

755.8870599 x 4 (sides)

=

3023.54824 / 962.4

equals

3.141675228

(a -related number off from today's number by .000082574)

The number seven is also an historically significant number in ancient reckoning. Consider the following regarding the platonic-multiple 10368 (= 4 x 2592):

Now, if we add up other proposed options for the orbital periodicity of the three planetary bodies, we see arise another historically significant number, the maya number 1728 (= 3 x 576), which belongs to the number series of the maya period number 1872000 days.

Were we to choose other numbers/decimal places within the given ranges, we could arrive precisely at the 1728 number. The arrangement of numbers, however, is astonishing, when we consider these numbers in relation to the different day-counts of the ancient reckoning system:

And, consider further:

[Remember the importance of visualizing 1.75 and .75 as we mentioned earlier regarding the reciprocal of seven and the 151840 and 51840 numbers.]

The numbers seem to reflect that if one computes the precession based on the 25920 Platonic year, then one would measure 1481.2 for d's orbital periodicity; and, if one employed the precession number 25956, then that number would be a 1483.2 measurement, still within the range given.

Now, let us observe the 4.6 orbital periodicity of the planetary body b in relation to the Platonic year.

As we mentioned earlier, if the periodicity of d's orbit is 1296 days, which is well within the given range, then the comparison to the Platonic year becomes equally obvious, given that is half the fractal value of the Great Cycle of 25920 years.

Here we have two historically significant numbers/fractals of the ancient reckoning system come together in relation to seconds of time. It seems difficult to believe that by mere coincidence they chose two distinct numbers/fractals that are mediated by the number of seconds in a year.

Now, let us see how the calendar round 52 (maya, 104c) years and a related number 52.5 (kemi 105c) behaves in relation to the orbital periodicity numbers of U Andromedae.

Consider, then,

The orbital periodicity of c is around 52.5 times greater than b; and, likewise, the orbital periodicity of d is 5.25 times greater than the planetary body c of Upsilon Andromedae. Even nature appears to have its coincidences. And, as we have argued throughout our research writings, many of the coincidences in numbers of the ancient reckoning systems, we believe, are due to the coincidences of numbers in reality. Briefly, that is scientific endeavor.

And, further, even if we take the 52c number/fractal, other relationships appear:

The 13689 Baseline Relationship

In previous essays, we have drawn attention to the 13689, 1689, 1368936, etc., baseline measurements which are suggestive of the ancient reckoning system. The relationship of the maya companion number, 1366560, is directly related by remainder math to the 13689 fractal number.

However, there are distinct aspects of these numbers to be considered. We have shown that the 1368 fractal/number may reflect the baseline of the Great Pyramid in the following manner.

One may also consider the fact that 1368000 minus 1366560 equals 1440, another maya fractal/number.

Now, consider the following:

1² + 3² + 6² = 46 (planetary body b)

1³ + 3³ + 6³ = 244 (planetary body c)

1³ + 3³ + 6³ + 8³ + 9³ = 1485 (planetary body d)

Again, it would appear as though nature itself were creating the near coincidence of the progressive scale of numbers.

Now, one may ponder why the ancients may have chosen the 13689 number/fractal for their computations. One may surmise that coincidentally the numbers are in nature. But, even further, if the 13689 and related combinations are designed within the pyramids of Giza and Teotihuacan, as we have demonstrated in earlier essays, there must be another significance of these numbers. It may be found in its reciprocal relationship to the number one.

The figure given today for the sidereal orbital time of the planet Earth is 365.256 days. Therefore, let us consider:

Observations

As we may observe from the previous analysis, the numbers of the Upsilon Andromedae system are quite relational to the historically significant numbers/fractals of the ancient reckoning systems, as well as to nature which is after all logical. Many of the numbers found in the historical record, related to the ancient reckoning systems, appear to be isolated incidents. No one really knows how the ancients may have computed such numbers. Hence, the ease with which many writers will dismiss those numbers as having any mathematical or scientific meaning. At best, an element of empiricism is conceded in stating that the ancients were able to predict eclipses and other astronomical events, but always with a show of surprise. For, if the ancients had no real science as we like stating such events today, then it is surprising how they were able to actually foretell of any events in the sky.

Today, scientists may observe the apparently erratic movements of the star Upsilon and theoretically conclude the existence of a three-planet system around Upsilon, after having discarded the idea of the possible existence of a two-planet system. But, we must remember that the numbers shown above for those three planetary bodies are theoretically posited numbers. They result from the theoretical measurement of the movement of Upsilon in relation to theoretically perceived planetary bodies tugging on that star. Upsilon may be observed today, but as yet we have not actually observed the three planetary bodies (b, c, d) as postulated by the theory. Now, obviously, there is no conceivable way in which the ancients may have physically observed even the star Upsilon, much less the planetary bodies supposedly revolving around it. There is no way in which they could have known the numbers related to those planetary bodies; at least as far as our knowledge of the ancients is concerned.

One would then have to ask why the numbers are themselves, as postulated by today's astrophysicists, relational to the numbers of the ancient reckoning systems. The first reason to be offered would certainly invoke the simple idea of coincidence. At best, one might concede that nature itself imposes related numbers, because the reality of the cosmos is related and governed by the same laws. But, this idea would require conceding the point that the ancients had devised reckoning systems of time and space that were exact sciences. In other words, the ancients arrived at numbers that are relational to the numbers derived today because both sets of reckoning systems are theoretically correct in that they reflect the behavior of reality. Far too few scholars are willing to concede such a point at this time. It becomes frightening for some to consider the idea that our scientists of today, with apparently much more sophisticated technological instruments are only able to arrive at numbers similar to those arrived in the past.

The ancient Mesoamerican calendar round of 18980 days or 52 years, which apparently derives from the coincidence of two distinct ancient calendrical systems (the 260c and the 365c day-counts), is considered by many scholars to be the product of superstition. The apparently strange maya numbers, 1366560 and 1385540, whose difference between them 18980, also would appear to represent simply superstitious ideas. Nonetheless, time and again, throughout our analyses, we see how these numbers relate to the measurement of events in the sky. We may observe other strange numbers (1368000, 1368900, 1368936, etc.), pertaining to the pyramids of Giza and Teotihuacan, become relational to other strange numbers in the ancient reckoning systems. These numbers are comparable to the events in the sky in our own solar system as well as in a theoretically, perceived solar system light years away from us.

As the new science of comparative solar systems commences, it is only fitting to approach the subject with the idea that the numbers and measurements coming out of different systems may be relational. The laws that govern one system must surely be the same laws that govern any other solar system we may encounter. Hence, we should not show surprise as to a relationship in the numbers. The surprise regarding the numbers of the ancient reckoning system will continue to arise given the fact that those numbers are not yet accepted as representing an exact reflection of reality. But, subsequent analyses should illustrate the strict comparative nature of the ancient numbers and the numbers that we shall continue to find throughout the universe. Now, how did the ancients arrive at such numbers, how did they achieve this; that is another question that requires a distinct line of inquiry from that followed in this essay.