PDA

View Full Version : Bye Bye Pluto?


Minderwiz
16-08-2006, 20:02
Astronomers are holding a conference today which may well result in a definition of what a planet is (they haven't got one at the moment).

The main reason for this is the recent discovery of 'Xena' or to give it it's current designation, 2003 UB313. This has been discussed here before:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=45569&highlight=Xena

As Xena is some 70 miles longer in diameter than Pluto, then if Pluto is a planet Xena should be one. However despite initial claims when it was discovered, Pluto is actually much smaller than the other planerts - indeed it is smaller than the Moon. Astronomers have shied away from downgrading it in the past but are now faced with the dilemma of classifying Xena. If Xena is not a planet then Pluto must be downgraded. There are also known to be a number of Kuyper belt objects that need a clear classification and as Pluto is really one of these bodies, this gives the opportunity to have a clear classification of bodies orbiting the Sun.

There is an interesting article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1844051,00.html

Two Interesting comments in the article are that Astrologers are likely to be most upset if Pluto loses its status as a planet. I would guess that actually most of the world's Astrologers don't use it and never used it - the minority of users being Western proponents of a 'psychological approach' to Astrology.

The second comment is that Astronomers are more likely to keep Pluto as a planet and declare Xena the 10th planet. So much for their much vaunted claim that Astronomy is based on hard science rather than the 'sentimental anthropomorphic views of Astrologers.'

Sky News reports that the Astronomer's conference may also deal with the issue of Ceres, which also has some support for some form of planetary status.

Will it affect Astrological practice - my view would be that it will not, Vedic and Traditional Astrologers will continue to ignore the outer planets (however defined) and Asteroids, Asteroid users will continue to use Ceres and feel that their approach now has scientific backing, and Psycholigcal Astrologers will feel that this whole issue is clearly a Plutonian moment, a destruction of current othrodoxies - proving plutos value as a planet.

I'd be inetersted in the views of other members

star-lover
16-08-2006, 20:19
this is not my view but jonathan cainers

quote

For some while a debate has been raging among scientists about the new discovery, Xena. Is it a planet? Is it an asteroid? Some people have been seriously suggesting it is not a planet - and neither is Pluto, even though it has been treated as such for over 75 years. Top astronomers are now meeting to decide this thorny question. It looks as if they are about to confirm that Pluto is a planet and that they will also confer full planetary status on Xena. Surprisingly they also look set to give planetary status to Ceres, the large body discovered in 1801, plus Charon, Pluto's "moon". This is amazing. It implies many things including an imminent breakthrough in the technology of nuclear fusion. I will explain more tomorrow.

unquote

personally I will still continue to use pluto in astrology

Fire Cat
16-08-2006, 20:34
I for one cannot wait to hear news, either way. It will be an excellent opportunity for us to study scientific method in my classroom! This is what it's all about: constantly weighing options and discussing/reviewing evidence.

Not a classroom topic, I was wondering if this would affect astrology and astrologists, but then I remembered that you guys have been watching Chiron --not a planet-- and other non-planetary bodies for years, such as the Moon, Sun and Nodes.

Someone please post here whn the news is out!

K:spade:K

HOLMES
16-08-2006, 20:40
1. call xena the famous planet x theory ..

2. or simply give all plutos meanings to xena.
i alwasy wonder how they know pluto exact size for it is so far away it must bigger then that to count for its presence..

or was all that magnetic pull given to pluto which lead to its discovery all xena..

Fire Cat
16-08-2006, 20:47
I think that the atronomers will use "staris decisii" (sp?) and use Pluto's qualities to define planetary objects. Pluto has an atmosphere and three moons. IMHO, if that's not a planet, then I don't know what is! But then again, I am not an astronomer (a.k.a. "space-body-namer").

KK

Sophie
16-08-2006, 21:38
Here's the article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/us/16pluto.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Minderwiz
16-08-2006, 21:47
The Guardain is now reporting that Pluto will still be called a planet, as the result of the Astronomer's Conference.

Pluto, it's companion Charon and Xena will be called 'planets' but of a special type called 'plutons' - more bodies may well be added to this category, including bodies such as Sedna, which have also featured in this forum.

The asteroid Ceres also looks likely to be given planetary status if these proposals go through.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1851323,00.html

Ceres and Pluto (including Charon) are well covered by ephemerides and computer software but watch for a rush of Xena ephemerides and Xena add-ons to computer programs.

Edited to add:

The BBC have a slightly fuller report at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4795755.stm

It seems that candidate planets are now forming an orderly queue to achieve recognition. Asteroid watchers may well be interested that this queue features Vesta, Pallas and Hygiea,

There will soon be more planets than you can shake a telescope at. Luckily there will ba a main classification of 'classical planets' and I think I'll stick to these (even though they do include Uranus and Neptune) :)

Watch for the vote at next week's conference of the IAU when these proposals are presented.

Incidentally if Charon is to be a fully fledged planet - could we now identify Pluto/Charon with schizonphrenia? or Kuyper belt objects with multiple personalities? })

stardancer
17-08-2006, 01:32
THE MEANING OF PLANET: What is a planet? For years, astronomers have been debating that question, with the status of tiny Pluto hanging in the balance. Finally, an answer is in the offing. The International Astronomical Union's Planet Definition Committee has proposed a new, official definition:

"A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." [full text]

In plain language, if it's round and it orbits the Sun, then it's a planet.

On August 24th, astronomers gathered at the IAU General Assembly in Prague will vote on the proposal, yea or nay. If it passes, the Solar System will have twelve planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Charon (a double planet) and 2003 UB313.

More links and info here:
http://spaceweather.com/

stardancer
17-08-2006, 01:41
Hi. I didn't see this before I posted info in another thread.

I already use a few asteroids anyway (Ceres not among them) and don't use Chiron at all (not to be confused with Charon). I'd have to wait for further study. What I use now works quite well.

Nightbird
17-08-2006, 03:42
I'm not an astrologer, but I hope they don't demote Pluto. it's my favorite planet!

tabi
17-08-2006, 04:06
This seems to be more scienific then anything but my question is:

What would happen if they did class them as planets?

It would not only redefine our heavens above and give all the space community new goals to shoot for but it will also redefine our knowledge of what planets show influence over our lives. We could have a "planet" for each of the zodiac defining them better to each individual sign and influence better especially for those signs that share a planet.

Not only is this a huge step in for the science field but as well as astrologist. I have to say that I am extremely interested in how this will come out.


....also how can we have planets since Galileo and no one has been able to give them a proper definition?

tabbycat
17-08-2006, 05:49
They can't take away Pluto's status as a planet! I mean, they haven't even found Mickey and Goofy yet!*

*with apologies - this is an Illuminatus joke! ;)

Minderwiz
17-08-2006, 05:54
Well there is a system for sign rulership in traditional Astrology and it works well. The problem I foresee is that when you have perhaps 20 or 30 'planets' (including plutons and former asteroids) somebody is bound to try to create multiple rulerships without any systematic or sensible basis - though the admission of further Kuiper belt objects may reunite Goofy, Mickey and even Donald. :)

Astrology has two bases for rulership. The first is sign rulershiip based on the Sun and Moon at the centre (Leo/Cancer) and then pairs of signs (starting with Gemini and Virgo) that are further and further from Leo/Cancer ruled by planets in order (Mercury through to Saturn - which rules Aquarius and Capricorn)

The other basis is affininty with Saturn ruling such things as lead and death. This system has developed over a long period of time and it is generally accepted - if the new planets. These two types of rulership seem to be confused by some Astrologers.

I take the sign rulership system as a given (because it is systematic, has a clear logical base an works) Adding co-rulers to signs doesn't. I don't see any reason in principle why affinity rulerships can't be used for the new planets but settling these into a generally acceptable system seems an impossible task.

I'm not sure ignoring size is a sensible approach to defining 'a planet' but it's worth making one comment about the definition. Astrologers based much of their ideas and theories on 'light'. The Sun and Moon are referred to as 'the lights', planets were taken as light reflectors and the ideas of tranlation and collection of light are very important to Horary Astrology. The word 'aspect' comes from the Latin 'aspectus' meaning a glance. At the heart of Astrology is the idea that if you can't see it then it isn't a planet. Points such as the Ascendant or Descendant don't reflect light. They can receive it by aspect but they cannot transmit it by aspect. Whether you agree with this or think it old fashioned it does have system and logic.

If we have two or three dozen 'planets' we're not going to get system we're going to get a mess.

For the traditional Astrologer or the vedic Astrologer I don't think elevating Xena to being a planet will make any difference at all. They won't be used because they don't fit the system. Elsewhere though I can see lots and lots of learned articles in journals. :)

Fulgour
17-08-2006, 12:17
"Joy is not in Pluto, it is in us."

~Richard ( sort of ) Wagner

tabi
17-08-2006, 12:23
Personally I feel that it was bound to happen somewhere a long the line just given the advances in mordern technolgy. We always known that we couldn't fully define our solar system simply due to the fact we couldn't see it all.

As to what defines as a planet and what doesn't. I think they could be there for a very long time trying to decide just that basic concept.

Is or isn't Pluto a planet I think is going to become their major problem. Once they have answer to that one everything else should be easier to define.

Ya know it is nice to see the eggheads confused :confused: every now and then by the way. :D

Grigori
17-08-2006, 19:22
A news snippet was just on TV saying that Pluto and Xena have both been confirmed as a planet. And if I heard right, one of Pluto's moons status was upgraded also. :confused:

Minderwiz
17-08-2006, 19:52
That's right. The committee making the recommendations to the IAU conference has suggested a definition (mentioned earlier in the thread) that a planet:

- orbits a star
- is not a star itself
- and gravity has led to it being spherical in shape.

The problem is that (in theory) this could apply to a snowball :)

There's a little slight of hand in all this - Pluto is no longer a 'classical' planet it's not the first of a new kind of planet - a pluto. They haven't got the nerve to say it's not a planet, end of story. Rather they have had to create a new class of planet, so that they can still refer to it as a 'planet'.

Skysteel
17-08-2006, 19:59
God I hate snowballs.
- ;)

There's a little slight of hand in all this - Pluto is no longer a 'classical' planet it's not the first of a new kind of planet - a pluto. They haven't got the nerve to say it's not a planet, end of story. Rather they have had to create a new class of planet, so that they can still refer to it as a 'planet'.

A new class of plutons (which has some interesting mythological links). Also, planets have always been divided into sub-groups (terrestials, jovians, superiors, gas-giants, etc.).

rainwolf
17-08-2006, 20:29
:confused:

I dont really think "demoting" the planet is by classification. I think it is just how we are going to categorize it. If something small like this falsifies a lot of information, I don't think we had a good system in the first place.

Whether it is called a planet or a "pluton" *holds back laughter*, does not affect my interpretation of it.

What are they smoking when they name these things, and where can I get some? ;)

Minderwiz
18-08-2006, 00:17
:confused:

Whether it is called a planet or a "pluton" *holds back laughter*, does not affect my interpretation of it.

What are they smoking when they name these things, and where can I get some? ;)

And they have the gall to say that Astrology is wishy washy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It might be best if Astrologers (who know what a planet is and gave them a perfectly servicable definition) left Astronomers to contemplate their collective navels and just ignored them :)

Skysteel
18-08-2006, 00:24
It might be best if Astrologers (who know what a planet is and gave them a perfectly servicable definition)...

Yeah, there's real consensus among astrologers...

I already use a few asteroids anyway (Ceres not among them) and don't use Chiron at all (not to be confused with Charon).

:D

Minderwiz
18-08-2006, 01:52
On a serious note please be careful when you are quoting. I did not make the second comment quoted above - it was Stardancer - I never use Asteroids!

On a more light hearted level - my in the first quote was somewhat tongue in cheek (to say the least) and I ought to have made that plainer. However there are times when Astronomers need a little patronising, given what they say about Astrology :)

Sadly the reality is a little different, as any reader of an Astrology magazine will realise.

Skysteel
18-08-2006, 02:11
Sadly the reality is a little different, as any reader of an Astrology magazine will realise.

...You said it!
- :P

stardancer
18-08-2006, 02:19
Uranus in the tenth with a strong Mars here. I do as I please with my astrology and it works well for me. ;)

That said, I don't like the name Xena at all. I keep thinking of Warrior Princess and cartoons. And while I think of myself as a warrior queen, the connnection to comics is too much.

I need an ephemeris. Does anyone know of one being out there yet? I don't mind experimenting at all.

fall_guy
18-08-2006, 02:26
That said, I don't like the name Xena at all. I keep thinking of Warrior Princess and cartoons. And while I think of myself as a warrior queen, the connnection to comics is too much.
Then you probably wouldn't like to know that it has a moon called Gabrielle :D

Both names are only temporary (named by the astronomer who found them). They will be given official names soon enough.

stardancer
18-08-2006, 02:34
Then you probably wouldn't like to know that it has a moon called Gabrielle :D

Both names are only temporary (named by the astronomer who found them). They will be given official names soon enough.


So I just found out, thank the Goddess. :D

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) names new planets and there is apparently a rule that the name has to be of Greek or Roman myth. I think we should start a drive for a good name based on what we, as astrologers ,need.

So... what do we need? lol

Minderwiz
18-08-2006, 03:01
Purely as a Xena fan, I think it should be called Xena - according to the show she's Greek and being TV drama, she's mythical!!

The Moon has to be Gabrielle,

Mind you the Uhuru and Seven of Nine suggestions are good and what about Troi? -now there's a Greek Legend, :)

stardancer
18-08-2006, 03:08
I kind of thought the Fates would be good. Spinning way out there, messin' with humans, cutting lives and whatnot. :)

krysia322
18-08-2006, 07:11
I'm not an astrologer, but I hope they don't demote Pluto. it's my favorite planet!
Gee, wonder why, Nightbird. ;)

I wonder then, will Xena become the ruler of Libra? Scorpio and Aries used to share Mars (and, IMO, will always be a team because of it). Gemini and Virgo share Mercury (although it boggles my mind how Mercury could possibly be affiliated with Virgo. Gemini, now that's easy to understand. But Virgo?) Venus I can affiliate with Taurus ---or Virgo, for that matter--- better than I can with Libra. Any rumblings to that effect?

krysia322
18-08-2006, 07:15
The problem is that (in theory) this could apply to a snowball :)
LMAO!

That is all. :D

Skysteel
18-08-2006, 07:40
Gemini and Virgo share Mercury (although it boggles my mind how Mercury could possibly be affiliated with Virgo. Gemini, now that's easy to understand. But Virgo?)

Gemini should get Pluto/Charon - binary, or 'twin' planets. Virgo gets Ceres (grain goddess). I think Xena is a nice name.

krysia322
18-08-2006, 07:49
Gemini should get Pluto/Charon - binary, or 'twin' planets. Virgo gets Ceres (grain goddess). I think Xena is a nice name.
Pluto belongs to Scorpio, from what I can see. I would have a difficult time accepting Pluto for any other sign, especially considering the Greek/Roman myths. Scorpio = Pluto/Hades, God of the Underworld. Gemini = Hermes/Mercury = Messenger of the Gods; considering the Geminis I've known in life, Messenger works for me. LOL. So does Mercury, aka, "Quicksilver".

Ceres would make sense.

And IA, and one of my nicknames is Xina (Christina, shortened), I also think Xena is a good name. :D

Minderwiz
18-08-2006, 07:56
Gee, wonder why, Nightbird. ;)

I. Gemini and Virgo share Mercury (although it boggles my mind how Mercury could possibly be affiliated with Virgo. Gemini, now that's easy to understand. But Virgo?)

Firstly, as I noted above, sign rulerships are NOT based on affinity. They are based on planetary position, Mercury rules the two signs either side of the Sun and Moon rulerships.

There is some affinity but it is not the reason for rulership of the sign. Mercury is a herrmaphrodite, neither male or female, which makes it barren, and Virgo is a barren sign. Mercury's nature is traditionally cold and dry, which is melancholic (earth). Virgo is an earth sign. Mercury, when dignified, can represent an intelletual - Virgo is associated with studies and well spoken people.

Mercury is the planetary symbol of the self taught - the person who can learn from books (Virgo and studies) without a teacher.

There are of course differences, Mercury also rules Gemini and rules the Air triplicity by night.

The message is, don't confuse sign rulerships and affinity. Indeed it is one of the sadnesses of modern Astrologer that it has forgotten affinity rulerships. By affinity Mercury rules many things, books, teachers.counterfeits, Ambassadors, dark and swarthy complexions and dry coughs to name but a few of the several of the 10 double column pages listed by Lee Lehman.

My point is that we should spend more time looking for affinities to assign rulerships to than trying to play with sign rulerships to no good. Pluto may be associated with deep mineshafts (as god of the underworld) or Atomic weapons, or extremely rich people (plutocrats) but these are not Scorpionic. Using Pluto as an affinity ruler may prove far more profitable than trying to make Scorpio share two rulers, with the consequent confusion over which to use and when.

This has also led signs to be distorted from their original meanings and associations in an attempt to make the new co-rulers fit. Read a text before the twentieth century and Scorpio rules stagnant water, pools of still water, beetles and creeping beasts, poisonous insects, quagmires, sinks and kitchens and larders. it really has no connection with the underworld. Death is ruled by Saturn (the grim reaper) and Saturn is not Scorpionic. The linkage of Scorpio with the underworld and death is an attempt to make Scorpio conform in some way to Pluto.

Using Xena and co as affinity rulers could actually enrich Astrology rather than confuse it by trying to distort signs even more to fit whatever characteristics we think the new planet have.

I've no problem in considering the possibility that Xena rules female athletes, especially discus throwers, fencers, wrestlers or even women in skimpy leather clothing. })

Any other suggestions for things Xena could rule?

krysia322
18-08-2006, 08:03
Mercury is a herrmaphrodite, neither male or female, which makes it barren, and Virgo is a barren sign. Mercury's nature is traditionally cold and dry, which is melancholic (earth). Virgo is an earth sign. Mercury, when dignified, can represent an intelletual - Virgo is associated with studies and well spoken people.

See, I guess this is where I find conflict, because I don't see earth as being cold and dry, nor do I find Virgo to be a barren sign.
<shrug>

dadsnook2000
18-08-2006, 08:21
"See, I guess this is where I find conflict, because I don't see earth as being cold and dry, nor do I find Virgo to be a barren sign." -- krysia322

Astrology is a symbolic language that incorporates a lot of mythology, history, philosophy and other ancient and modern systems into its mix. It really requires a lot of study to understand what all of the terms, including "barren" means. It doesn't mean that Virgos don't bear children or give rise to new concepts and inventions -- quite the opposite as the "fruitful earth" will attest to.

Take your time, study, and all becomes clear after awhile -- sort of. Dave

Minderwiz
18-08-2006, 08:52
I agree that you need to learn the language of Astrology but in the case of Virgo being barren, the symbolism is literally so. Virgo is 'virginal' and virgins don't bare fruit! (unless you are a Christian) They only bear fruit when the cease to be 'Virgo'. If you are virginal all your life there are no seed (children) to grow and prosper.

Virgo therefore is a symbol of barreness and where appropriate can be interpreted as such. If I were to do a horary on the question 'Am I pregnant and the querent's significator were in Virgo, I'd take this as a testimony that the querent was not pregnant. If someone asks will the value of my stocks and shares grow? Then the significator of the stocks and shares in Virgo would suggest that the answer is no. This is symbolism at work.

However because someone has their Sun or Ascendant (or any other planet) in Virgo in their natal chart does not mean that they will never have children.

All Earth signs are symbolically barren, all Water signs are symbolically fruitful - if you don't water your garden (Earth) nothing will grow in it, or at least nothing will easily grow in it.

You will find Virgo as a Cold and Dry sign goes back thousands of years. as does the tradition of Mercury as a hermaphrodite. You may not like it but it is there.

It is important to understand how the methods and nature of Astrology developed. If I decide that Conjunctions of Saturn in Leo with the Ascendant really mean that the native must live an expansive life with easy gain of money this may chear me up (as I have that configuration) but it won't come to pass. Declaring that Saturn in Leo is benefic won't make it so. It contradicts the symbology of Astrology - as Dave says.

That is not to freeze the development of Astrology but to ensure that development is within the broad parameters of the science (and Astrology is a science within the original meaning of the word).

Minderwiz
18-08-2006, 19:09
In the above post I got disturbed in the middle of a complex edit and ended up saying that All Earth signs are symbolically barren, when I meant to say that All Water signs are symbolically fruitful.

I would like to apologise to Venus (obviously not barren) and Saturn (malevolent if offended) for any offence caused by impling that their houses are barren

I should have said that the other two barren signs are Gemini (ruled by hermaphrodite Mercury) and Leo (too much Sun destroys any potential growth).

Ross G Caldwell
19-08-2006, 02:51
That's right. The committee making the recommendations to the IAU conference has suggested a definition (mentioned earlier in the thread) that a planet:

- orbits a star
- is not a star itself
- and gravity has led to it being spherical in shape.

I think the last part is really that the object is massive enough that its own gravity makes into a spherical shape.

Another part of that definition is that the body is not the *satellite* of another planet. This distinguishes our Moon from Charon, for instance. While Earth and Moon orbit a common center of gravity, that center of gravity (or barycenter) lies below the Earth's surface. But Charon and Pluto have a barycenter in the space between them. So Earth "possesses" Moon, while neither Charon nor Pluto "possess" the other - i.e., Pluto and Charon are a dual-planet system, not a planet-satellite system.


The problem is that (in theory) this could apply to a snowball :)


How so? A snowball is made by pressure applied on the outside, not by innate gravity. A snowball doesn't have enough mass to become spherical on its own. I believe an object has to be around 800km in diameter to begin to have the mass enough to become spherical.

Fulgour
19-08-2006, 02:57
While Earth and Moon orbit a common center of gravity, that center of gravity (or barycenter) lies below the Earth's surface.In scientific terms, the Sun's gravitational "pull" ;)
is stronger on both the Earth & Moon than either's
is on the other. They are a "binary" planet system.

stardancer
19-08-2006, 02:58
I've no problem in considering the possibility that Xena rules female athletes, especially discus throwers, fencers, wrestlers or even women in skimpy leather clothing. })

Any other suggestions for things Xena could rule?

Sounds like Libra to me. Libra female that is. :D I'm all for that.

Anyway, I was thinking about the affinity/rulership thing. Whether you equate patterns and similarities to planets and signs, I have a further note to add.

Uranus is a finer tuned expression of Mercury
Neptune of Venus
and Pluto of Mars.

Where does that leave Xena a finer tuned form of?

And astronomy says the asteroid belt might be an unformed planet. If so, Xena would be a higher expression of it.

Ross G Caldwell
19-08-2006, 03:03
I hope they don't go with the names "Xena" and "Gabrielle" for this dual planet (UB313 IIRC?). We don't have to stick with Greco-Roman mythology, but a contemporary TV show!!! (is it even still running? I don't mean reruns.)

I'm not saying TV doesn't have some truck with and perhaps origins in mythology, but it is not tried and true over the long haul. Ancient mythology is - we should stick with that.

My own astrology is plain and basic. I don't go into too much depth, but stay pretty classical.

I think the visible planets are the main ones; I hesitate to even include Uranus and Neptune, and Pluto can hardly mean anything to an individual.

If anything, they are dark and hidden forces (although Uranus is apparently visible to perfect eyesight under perfect conditions), and usually beyond apprehension.

krysia322
19-08-2006, 03:04
Well, I guess ---with regard to Virgo--- I have a difficult time picturing the sign to be barren, because barren to me = devoid of all life. And in the gestational sense, barren = unable to bear children. Virgos aren't unable, they're simply virginal.

But I hear what you're saying, Minderwiz. :) And it makes sense. :D

krysia322
19-08-2006, 03:06
I hope they don't go with the names "Xena" and "Gabrielle" for this dual planet (UB313 IIRC?). We don't have to stick with Greco-Roman mythology, but a contemporary TV show!!! (is it even still running? I don't mean reruns.)
This, I can answer. :D

No.

Xena, Warrior Princess is not on the current lineup, and hasn't been for a few years.

Skysteel
19-08-2006, 03:22
I hope they don't go with the names "Xena" and "Gabrielle" for this dual planet (UB313 IIRC?).

'Dual planet'? Gabrielle is a satellite of Xena.

stardancer
19-08-2006, 04:14
I think the visible planets are the main ones; I hesitate to even include Uranus and Neptune, and Pluto can hardly mean anything to an individual.

If anything, they are dark and hidden forces (although Uranus is apparently visible to perfect eyesight under perfect conditions), and usually beyond apprehension.


I have seen individuals that are very personal in expressing the outer planets. Usually they have Uranus, Neptune or Pluto on the ascendant, or their sun or moon conjunct, opposite or square. These people are different and more difficult to understand because they hear a higher form of expression in a world of simple doings with Jupiter and Saturn social rules all over the place.

I know of several Pluto conjunct Ascendant men who are very difficult to get along with because they have power issues. :)

Keanu Reeves, who has the Sun conjunct Uranus and Pluto, is seen as a bearded rogue about Hollywood, either very brainy or alternatly stupid, and very difficult in an interview. He doesn't give an answer to much.

I think people with these aspects can relate, it's other people who tend to criticize.

We won't get into my Sun Neptune conjunction. ;)

Minderwiz
19-08-2006, 08:15
If you take a psychological approach to Astrology (and many do). Stardancer makes a very good point. Indeed from a psychological point of view, the sheer invisibility (with the naked eye) is an excellent symbol of the hidden and the subconscious mind. Indeed, using the affinity approach, Pluto should be seen as ruling the hidden depths below the consicous mind.

The view of the three outers as higher order versions of Mercury, Venus and Mars is similar to views put forward by June Wakefield in her book Cosmic Astrology, except that she had Uranus ruling the plane or Matter Aquarius, Capricorn, Cancer and Leo) Neptune the plane of the mind (Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces) and Pluto the plane of Life (Scorpio, Aries, Libra and Taurus) - each outer planet in effect expressing itself through two of the traditional planets. I've toyed with this idea and whilst I don't currently use it, I certainly would not rule it out. Incidentally Wakefield did not go along with modern rulerships here, she was suggesting an overarching role for the outers.

Ross C Caldwell is more in line with my current position - I find it easy to lay Pluto to one side (or use it in exceptional circumstances - ie aspects of less than one degree) but Uranus arguably is visible (though this is disputed) but more symbolically its orbit is virtually a lifespan. It is possible for people to have Uranus returns, and everyone over about 84 has had one. It's not possible to have a Neptune or a Pluto return (or even a Xena or Charon return). Asteroid users will point out that you can have a few Ceres' returns, even though you can't see it.

As a Libran with Pluto on my Ascendant I don't think I want Xena ruling me :) All that excitement and running about and throwing things and fighting. She's very nice to look at but a devil to serve! })

Minderwiz
19-08-2006, 08:39
I think the last part is really that the object is massive enough that its own gravity makes into a spherical shape.

A snowball is made by pressure applied on the outside, not by innate gravity. A snowball doesn't have enough mass to become spherical on its own. I believe an object has to be around 800km in diameter to begin to have the mass enough to become spherical.


I didn't say that the snowball had to be small })

Ross G Caldwell
19-08-2006, 08:52
I didn't say that the snowball had to be small })

LOL - I suppose an 800km diameter snowball might then be considered a planet.

But I don't really know the dynamics - how would a globule of water (H2O) alone in space act? It would freeze, evidently... so it would be a chunk of ice. How big would it have to be, given the density of water, to collapse over time into a sphere?

stardancer
19-08-2006, 14:55
As a Libran with Pluto on my Ascendant I don't think I want Xena ruling me :) All that excitement and running about and throwing things and fighting. She's very nice to look at but a devil to serve! })

Come on! You are protesting too much.

(Just Kidding) :)

You must barely be a Libra. Ain't it funny? That's what I am, too. Barely a Libra, lol. You know, Shakespeare had a Venus/Pluto square, too. ;)

Minderwiz
20-08-2006, 07:29
29 degrees 45 minutes of Libra! Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and South Node in Scorpio (and Chiron if you use it). But theres no Pluto in me - I'm definitely Mars

Talking of which, Mars, Pluto and Saturn in Leo together with Ascendant. Whilst I said Pluto was conjunct the Ascendant (which it is on computer programs) it's just over 6 degrees away and to be honest I wouldn't treat that as a conjunction for Pluto. It's too slow - I'd wait till it got within a degree, treating it (if at all) like an aspect to a star.

ravenest
21-08-2006, 13:40
Will it affect Astrological practice - my view would be that it will not, Vedic and Traditional Astrologers will continue to ignore the outer planets (however defined) and Asteroids, Asteroid users will continue to use Ceres and feel that their approach now has scientific backing, and Psycholigcal Astrologers will feel that this whole issue is clearly a Plutonian moment, a destruction of current othrodoxies - proving plutos value as a planet.

I'd be inetersted in the views of other members

As should be obvious by now, I am all for incorporating all types of scientific and astonomical observations into new systems of astology.

Lets have 13 planets, then we can relate them to 13 constellations and those to 13 ..... no, I wont go there.

As crazy as it may seem to some here, I am even interested in hearing an interpretation of a natal astonology chart that shows a re-entry of the space shuttle in Cetus at the moment of birth.

Minderwiz
21-08-2006, 19:59
This would certainly have some significance if the Space Shuttle were name 'Jonah' })

Makamu
25-08-2006, 01:40
I have just heard on another forum, that Pluto has lost its planetary status.

Given that we now have the fact what do you think might be the consequences in those systems that work with the three outer planets?

Maka

Ross G Caldwell
25-08-2006, 01:51
I personally don't think it's important. I've always ignored Pluto and asteroids in my intuitive style of astrology anyway. They are too small and too far away to really influence anybody in a significant way.

When you think about what allows a gaseous giant like Neptune to exist at just the place where it is, and then the next things out there are icy balls, then you can feel that that says something about the solar system and the force of the Sun - the "life force" you might say. There is a boundary beyond Neptune, where the Sun has less presence and power and predictability begins to break down (Pluto's orbit is highly elliptical).

So I am comfortable, and I think a lot more of Neptune now.

Minderwiz
25-08-2006, 07:06
Icy balls????? are these the Snowballs I mentioned earlier on ? :)

I agree with you Ross, though for different reasons. As I think you posted in your other thread, Pluto's status as a planet was always contentious and Astrologers should have treated it's discovery with great circumspection.

I don't think we'll persuade the Pluto dependent psychologists to drop it's use. They've invested to many books and too much prestige to back down.

Most of the world's Astrologers don't use it anyway - they are in India and use the Jyotishi or Vedic system (increasingly common in the West), which keeps to the seven visible planets. There are a number of us who are experimenting with Greek or Medieaval systems as well, which also keep to the visibles. I do however see your point about using Uranus and Neptune as becoming more comfortable because these two bodies are definitely planets, astronomically and might have a function Astrologically through affinty rulerships.

I'm rather sad though that Xena didn't make it, Lucy Lawless is far more worthy of observation than Pluto and no way can she be described as 'dwarf' })

Poor Ceres and Charon also failed to become planets.

Ross G Caldwell
25-08-2006, 07:40
Icy balls????? are these the Snowballs I mentioned earlier on ? :)

LOL


I agree with you Ross, though for different reasons.

Which different reasons... we seem to agree in principle as well as practice.


As I think you posted in your other thread, Pluto's status as a planet was always contentious and Astrologers should have treated it's discovery with great circumspection.

Absolutely. Everybody jumped on the bandwagon, but even though a planet beyond Pluto had been predicted (because of perturbations in Neptune's orbit), it turns out that Pluto wasn't "the one". Things like the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud hadn't even been thought of yet in 1930 (IIRC); even the idea that there were other galaxies was relatively new. Pluto was eagerly accepted because of the mood of the times - progress, science, newness. It has taken 76 years to put some perspective in this science. Pluto is different from the big ones, and the ones in stable orbits around the Sun. It represents a class of astronomical bodies that I don't think astrologers need to deal with, any more than saying "there's a less than one per cent chance that you'll be hit by a car between the ages of 15 and 35". That's probably an exaggeration of Pluto's predictive power and utility in a chart.


I don't think we'll persuade the Pluto dependent psychologists to drop it's use. They've invested to many books and too much prestige to back down.


I think that's what I meant by Jungians and synchronicity. I don't know why Gauquelin's method isn't followed more. And accept the concepts of physical causality. The forces of gravitation and electromagnetism are very real, and do affect us. Forget the anti-astrologic bias of scientists for now - focus on the general truths and work towards a really useful technique for predictions of probability based on celestial causality.


Most of the world's Astrologers don't use it anyway - they are in India and use the Jyotishi or Vedic system (increasingly common in the West), which keeps to the seven visible planets. There are a number of us who are experimenting with Greek or Medieaval systems as well, which also keep to the visibles. I do however see your point about using Uranus and Neptune as becoming more comfortable because these two bodies are definitely planets, astronomically and might have a function Astrologically through affinty rulerships.


Well, Uranus is apparently visible if you know where to look; Neptune's hiddenness does not recommend it, but its size does. I don't use either Indian system, but I respect them. I think great astrology can be done with the Moon and Sun alone. It might be wise to start with those two.

I admit, I lean to the conservative in astrology. It takes time to see these influences. How can somebody just plop a newly discovered object on a chart and know what it "means"? It's fun to free-associate, I know, but I can't take it seriously. It is no more than free-associating to an abstract painting. It means whatever you want it to mean.

Minderwiz
25-08-2006, 08:15
LOL

Well, Uranus is apparently visible if you know where to look; Neptune's hiddenness does not recommend it, but its size does. I don't use either Indian system, but I respect them. I think great astrology can be done with the Moon and Sun alone. It might be wise to start with those two.

I admit, I lean to the conservative in astrology. It takes time to see these influences. How can somebody just plop a newly discovered object on a chart and know what it "means"? It's fun to free-associate, I know, but I can't take it seriously. It is no more than free-associating to an abstract painting. It means whatever you want it to mean.

Way back in the sixties, I remember that someone asked the then Chinese Foriegn Minister, Chou En Lai, what effects he thought the French Revolution had had. Chou thought for a minute or two and then answered:

'It's too soon to know'


I think this sums up the problem of newly discovered planets, and I'm tempted to add Uranus and Neptune to the list of 'newly' discovered. Uranus is particularly interesting as it's cycle is very near to the human life cycle.

These two (following Pluto''s reduction to dwarf) are the only two planets that human Astrologers have had to debate the meaning of. The other five together with Sun and Moon have meanings that originated in the mists of time and we have inherited. I just can't imagine a situation eons ago where a group of Astrologer/Astronomers said something along the lines of

'Look at that planet like thing next to the Moon, what shoud we call it?' -

'Well Saturn sounds a good name.' :)

Yes I like that. Now what do you suppose it does, Astrologically speaking?' :confused:

'Don't like the look of it - It's a full Moon, so it must also oppose the Sun - let's call it a malefic' :(

'Yes - that's it - sorted!' :) :)

Rather it's nature must have been observed for several hundred years or more before it crystalised into some sort of meaning.

rainwolf
25-08-2006, 08:26
Haha I think I like dialogue and the idea that it was decided in 10 seconds :laugh:

paradoxx
25-08-2006, 13:54
Using Xena and co as affinity rulers could actually enrich Astrology rather than confuse it by trying to distort signs even more to fit whatever characteristics we think the new planet have.

I've no problem in considering the possibility that Xena rules female athletes, especially discus throwers, fencers, wrestlers or even women in skimpy leather clothing. })

Any other suggestions for things Xena could rule?

Xena could be the ruler ofophedicus (http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=54777).

I always saw the Xena character more as an incarnation of Pallas-Athena and Gabrielle as the incarnatin of Vesta with traces of Ceres. Xena may as well represent Scorpio, Xena always wore black.