Hypothetical astrological planets
Paul Schlyter
For fun, I've gathered the information below about "hypothetical planets" in
various astrological schools. I've only included non-existent planets, and
have tried to obtain orbital elements whenever possible, thus anyone who
wants to can compute ephemerides for them (Walter? Are you reading this?).
Most of the planets I've only been able to gather very little information
about, mostly from "The Arkana dictionary of astrology" (which is quite
amusing reading - astrology seems to be much freakier than I imagined... :-)
If anyone has any additional information about one or several of these
hypothetical planets, or of other hypothetical planets, then please forward
it.
=============================================================================
Uranians (Witte, "Hamburg school")
----------------------------------
Cupido period 262y (community, marriage, art)
Hades period 360y (lowness, dirt, antiquity, secrets)
Zeus period 456y (physical leadership, cerativity, Uranus upper octave)
Kronos period 522y (authority)
Apollon period 576y (expansion, science, commerce, peace)
Admetos period 617y (raw material, circulation, death)
Vulkanus period 663y (power, strungth, upper octave of Mars)
Poseidon period 740y (mind, spirit and ideas)
According to Witte:
P a Mean longitude dlon e Perihel i Ascnode
sidereal 1900.0 1950.0 /100y lon lon
Cupido 262.50 40.99 105.026 174.294 138.535 0.0045 300 1.08 130
Hades 360.63 50.67 337.180 27.790 101.219 0.0024 305 1.05 342
Zeus 455.64 59.21 104.172 144.375 80.406 0.0011 295 0 -
Kronos 521.75 64.81 17.298 52.495 70.394 0.0028 205 0 -
Apollon 589.4 70.3 138.060 169.297 62.474 0 - 0 -
Admetos 631.8 73.6 351.334 20.521 58.374 0 - 0 -
Vulkanus 679.1 77.3 55.900 83.104 54.407 0 - 0 -
Poseidon 765.3 83.7 165.521 189.739 48.435 0 - 0 -
According to Matrix:
Lon 1900.0 n/100y a
Cupido 104.5959 138.5369 40.998370
Hades 337.4517 101.2176 50.667443
Zeus 104.0904 80.4057 59.214362
Kronos 17.7346 70.3863 64.816896
Apollon 138.0354 62.5000 70.361652
Admetos 351.3220 58.3468 73.736476
Vulkanus 55.9826 54.2986 77.445895
Poseidon 165.3595 48.6486 83.493733
Ram (Dutch astrologer)
----------------------
Demeter (spiritual aptitudes, art, music)
Hermes (rules Gemini, spiritual/ideal/occult)
Persephone (ruler of Taurus)
Maurice Wemyss
--------------
Dido period 365y (ruler of Virgo)
Hercules period 654y (ruler of Leo)
Jason (ruler of Sagittarius)
Wemyss-Pluto period 1366y (ruler of Cancer)
Thierens
--------
Bacchus/Horus (future ruler of Cancer)
Pluto/Osiris (future ruler of Aries)
Vesta/Isis (future ruler of Taurus)
Hermes/Mercurius (future ruler of Gemini)
Vulcan/Vulcanus (intramercurial)
Sutcliffe
---------
Isis period 360y
Osiris (ruler of Aries)
Vulcan (intramercurial, 'explosive')
Jayne, 1962
-----------
Isis (transplutonian)
Lion (transplutonian)
Midas (transplutonian)
Minos (1962 in Aqr, sighted in 1850)
Moraya (transplutonian)
Pan (transplutonian)
Charubel, discovered by clairvoyance 1897
-----------------------------------------
La Croix period 340y (higher properties of Mars)
Ov period 297y (longevity, magnetic power, probably same as Melodia)
Goldstein-Jacobson
------------------
Lilith period 126d (temptations,betrayal,abortion,stillbirth)
"Dark Moon", "Esoteric Moon"
Geocentric longitude of Lilith can be computed like this:
Entry data: JD, the Julian Day Number of the moment, including fractional part
MJD = JD - 2415021.0
lon = 262.294 + MJD * 3.019554294 degrees
If MJD is greater than (about) 23800.0 subtract 3.00 degrees from lon !!!
Strange? I agree, but this discontinuity more or less mimics the figures
in Delphine Jay's "The Lilith Ephemeris", where the longitude actually
DOES jump by this amount during a few months in 1965! Note that 3.00 very
nearly corresponds to the daily motion of Lilith -- the most likely cause
of this is therefore an error of one day in the calculation of this
ephemeris -- perhaps a leap year error somewhere. nevertheless, if you
want to mimic this error in "The Lilith Ephemeris", include this
discontinuity.
Add the periodic term below to lon (degrees):
-1.55 * sin( ((MJD - 272.0) / 354.00 ) * (360_degrees) )
* sin( ((MJD - 333.5) / 11444.0) * (360_degrees) )
Yes, this is a product of two sinusoidial oscillations, one with a period
of 354 days, the other with a period of 11444 days.
Harris
------
Melodia period 297y (diam 50000 miles, probably same as Ov, see above)
Polyhymnia (in orbit beyond Melodia)
Vulcan (NOT intramercurial)
Pagan, 1911
-----------
Pagan-Pluto (ruler of Scorpio)
Landscheidt
-----------
Transpluto (transplutonian)
Kitzinger
---------
Transpluto/Persephone (transplutonian)
M w N i e dlon a P RA Dec mag
deg deg/yr a.e. 1960
83.1 358.3 205.7 38.0 4.2 0.5238 77.0 675.7 21h30m +19 10
Weston, 1920
------------
Vulcan (fiery, explosive, etheral, tends to nullify the
effect of all planets except Sun/Merc in conjunction,
rules the atmosphere, produces storms. Strange freaks
are produced in human nature, mentally/physically,
usually in malevolent form)
Sid. period 18.58415 days
Syn. period 19.5804 days
Semi-major axis 0.13744 a.e.
Daily motion 19.3714 deg/day
Desc node 102.92 degrees 1907-06-25
Node motion -16.7058 deg/day
Inclination 7.50 degrees
Mean longitude 318.3869 degrees 1911-01-00
Eccentricity 0.019
Perih. lon 10 degrees 1907
Zecharia Sitchin, 1976
----------------------
Nibiru period 3600y Perihelion in 0 AD, in the asteroidal belt.
Inside the solar system 100 BC - 100 AD
Semi-major axis 235 a.e.
(rules balance, possible ruler of Libra)
Hawkins, 1978
-------------
Transpluto/Bacchus (transplutonian)
Period a e i T Perih lon
julian a.e. 1947.0
years
685.65 77.755 0.300 0.0 1772.76 0.7 deg
Blavatsky, Bailey, Bessant
--------------------------
A complicated system of "esoteric planets", "sacred planets", "non-sacred
planets", "seven rays" etc.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, SAAF (Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society)
Nybrogatan 75 A, S-114 40 Stockholm, Sweden
InterNet: pau...@saaf.se p...@ausys.se
Astrolog
Paul Schlyter <pau...@electra.saaf.se> wrote:
>For fun, I've gathered the information below about "hypothetical planets" in
>various astrological schools. I've only included non-existent planets, and
>have tried to obtain orbital elements whenever possible, thus anyone who
>wants to can compute ephemerides for them (Walter? Are you reading this?).
>hypothetical planets, or of other hypothetical planets, then please forward
>it.
Yep, I'm reading this! Wow, there were a few invisible planets in
there I had never heard of before. Still, I do know of a few others
that you didn't mention, and have been meaning to get around to
posting about them sometime, most of which are from the "four B's" of
Theosophical lore: Besant, Bishop, Blavatsky, and leadBeater. I'll
hopefully have more time for that stuff when Astrolog 4.10 is done. :)
#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#
+ Walter D. "Cruiser1" Pullen | crui...@stein.u.washington.edu +
#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#
Andreas Bunkahle
>For fun, I've gathered the information below about "hypothetical planets" in
>various astrological schools. I've only included non-existent planets, and
>have tried to obtain orbital elements whenever possible, thus anyone who
>wants to can compute ephemerides for them (Walter? Are you reading this?).
>Most of the planets I've only been able to gather very little information
>about, mostly from "The Arkana dictionary of astrology" (which is quite
>amusing reading - astrology seems to be much freakier than I imagined... :-)
>If anyone has any additional information about one or several of these
>hypothetical planets, or of other hypothetical planets, then please forward
>it.
Paul, you are really a great gift to this newsgroup. Though you are a skeptic
one must admit that you really have often better knowledge of astrology than
some of the people who are interested in astrology and who are no skeptics.
Your article about the hypothetical planets is excellent. I also studied
the various publications about the hypoth. planets and you did give a
very good summary of them.
But: Could you please give your sources in order to check the data ?
BTW have you ever tried to interpret a horoscope and do you know about the
qualities ascribed to the houses and planets ?
Concerning an overview of the hypothetical planets there is a very good
article in Geoffrey Dean/Arthur Mather: Recent advances in natal astrology
(prepared under the aegis of The Astrological Association), Bromley Kent,
1977. This is an excellent and also a very critical book about the advances
of natal astrology from 1900-1976. It is written by astrologers and
gives an almost scientific summary about most fields of astrology. Paul,
I think you would like it very much cause a lot of scepticism is also included
but it is not intended to refute astrology, it is really more an open but
critical overview.
Where did you get e and Perihelion lon ?
Which ephemeride have you used for the longitudes 1900.0 and 1950.0 ?
The ephemerides I know are:
- Transneptun-Ephemeride 1890-1990 von Alfred Witte, neu bearbeitet von
Ruth Brummund, Hamburg, 1972
(this is supposed to be the original ephemeride for the Uranians published
by Ludwig Rudolph (WITTE-VERLAG))
- Uranian Transneptune Ephemeris 1850-2050 by Neil F. Michelsen, Franksville,
1989
These ephemerides differ up to 3 minutes of arc for the 1900.0 positions.
My data differs slightly for dlon/100y and for the mean longitudes 1900.0
and 1950.0. (But actually it is the same considering the fact that we are
talking about something obviously non-existing or at least very hard to
detect.)
According to James Neely was Zeus considered to be in his node-position in
1911 though it remains unclear if it was the as- oder descending node.
Furtheron I have different times for the period:
Apollon 576y
Admetos 617y
Vulkanus 663y
Poseidon 740y
This correlates with the periods you first gave above. How come the dif-
ference to the second row (P sidereal)?
>Ram (Dutch astrologer)
>----------------------
>Demeter (spiritual aptitudes, art, music)
rules Cancer pos. 1925 10 SG lon +4.30 lat 17.32 decl. 249.03 RA
yearly motion: 0 deg 24 min
>Hermes (rules Gemini, spiritual/ideal/occult)
pos. 1925 27.30 LE long
yearly motion: 0 deg 30 min
>Persephone (ruler of Taurus)
pos. 1925 10 AQ
yearly motion 0 deg 36 min
1929 position:
Demeter: 12 SG upper octave of SA
Hermes: 00 VI " " of JU
Persephone:13 AQ " " of MA (spiritual performance, creativity)
>Maurice Wemyss
>--------------
>Dido period 365y (ruler of Virgo)
existence doubtful, even admitted by Wemyss himself
>Hercules period 654y (ruler of Leo)
1900.0: 18 CA (heliocentric pos.)
1850.0: 20.5 GE (heliocentric pos.)
>Jason (ruler of Sagittarius)
period 45y
1900.0: 23.7 VI (heliocentric pos.)
1850.0: 13.2 LE ( " " )
>Wemyss-Pluto period 1366y (ruler of Cancer)
1900.0: 27.13 LE (heliocentric pos.)
1850.0: 13.96 LE (heliocentric pos.)
>Thierens
>--------
>Bacchus/Horus (future ruler of Cancer)
>Pluto/Osiris (future ruler of Aries)
>Vesta/Isis (future ruler of Taurus)
>Hermes/Mercurius (future ruler of Gemini)
>Vulcan/Vulcanus (intramercurial)
Please could you give the sources for Thierens ?
>Sutcliffe
>---------
>Isis period 360y
>Osiris (ruler of Aries)
>Vulcan (intramercurial, 'explosive')
I know about Horus (No.3) and and anonymous No.4.
These are described in Sutcliffe's book: The New Astronomy and Cosmic
Physiology, London, 1930.
Data about these two is highly differing depending on the
source you use.
>Jayne, 1962
>-----------
>Isis (transplutonian)
>Lion (transplutonian)
>Midas (transplutonian)
>Minos (1962 in Aqr, sighted in 1850)
>Moraya (transplutonian)
>Pan (transplutonian)
Sources, please ?
>Charubel, discovered by clairvoyance 1897
>-----------------------------------------
>La Croix period 340y (higher properties of Mars)
Nov. 1905 5 deg 33 min AR
yearly motion 1 deg 3 min
>Ov period 297y (longevity, magnetic power, probably same as Melodia)
Nov 1905 17 deg 45 min AQ
yearly motion 1 deg 12 min
at the same time Melodia which could be identical with Ov is supposed to
be at 6 deg 42 min GE
>Goldstein-Jacobson
>------------------
>Lilith period 126d (temptations,betrayal,abortion,stillbirth)
>"Dark Moon", "Esoteric Moon"
>Geocentric longitude of Lilith can be computed like this:
>Entry data: JD, the Julian Day Number of the moment, including fractional
part
> MJD = JD - 2415021.0
> lon = 262.294 + MJD * 3.019554294 degrees
> If MJD is greater than (about) 23800.0 subtract 3.00 degrees from lon !!!
> Strange? I agree, but this discontinuity more or less mimics the figures
> in Delphine Jay's "The Lilith Ephemeris", where the longitude actually
> DOES jump by this amount during a few months in 1965! Note that 3.00 very
> nearly corresponds to the daily motion of Lilith -- the most likely cause
> of this is therefore an error of one day in the calculation of this
> ephemeris -- perhaps a leap year error somewhere. nevertheless, if you
> want to mimic this error in "The Lilith Ephemeris", include this
> discontinuity.
> Add the periodic term below to lon (degrees):
> -1.55 * sin( ((MJD - 272.0) / 354.00 ) * (360_degrees) )
> * sin( ((MJD - 333.5) / 11444.0) * (360_degrees) )
> Yes, this is a product of two sinusoidial oscillations, one with a period
> of 354 days, the other with a period of 11444 days.
Paul, don't intermingle Lilith and Lilith.
Lilith or the black moon are names used for two totally different subjects.
The first is the one you wrote about above, the second is not a hypothetical
moon but are the apsides of the moon. Joelle de Gravelaine writes about
the second one in her book: Le retour de Lilith (German translation: Lilith,
der schwarze Mond, Wettswil, 1990). In the appendix of her book Gravelaine
gives tables to compute the apsides of the moon
01/01/1900: 4.28 VI
01/01/1950: 28.53 AR
01/01/2000: 23.20 SG.
So far I can see the interpretation of both Liliths is quite similiar though.
The Lilith you mentioned is more the American Lilith while in Europe
Gravelaine's Lilith seems to be more popular.
>Harris
>------
>Melodia period 297y (diam 50000 miles, probably same as Ov, see above)
>Polyhymnia (in orbit beyond Melodia)
>Vulcan (NOT intramercurial)
Sources, please ?
>Pagan, 1911
>-----------
>Pagan-Pluto (ruler of Scorpio)
Sources, please ?
>Landscheidt
>-----------
>Transpluto (transplutonian)
period 686 y
computed by M.E.Sevin
AU 77.75
excentricity: 0.3
>Kitzinger
>---------
>Transpluto/Persephone (transplutonian)
> M w N i e dlon a P RA Dec mag
> deg deg/yr a.e. 1960
> 83.1 358.3 205.7 38.0 4.2 0.5238 77.0 675.7 21h30m +19 10
Sources, please ?
>Weston, 1920
>------------
>Vulcan (fiery, explosive, etheral, tends to nullify the
> effect of all planets except Sun/Merc in conjunction,
> rules the atmosphere, produces storms. Strange freaks
> are produced in human nature, mentally/physically,
> usually in malevolent form)
>Sid. period 18.58415 days
>Syn. period 19.5804 days
>Semi-major axis 0.13744 a.e.
>Daily motion 19.3714 deg/day
>Desc node 102.92 degrees 1907-06-25
>Node motion -16.7058 deg/day
>Inclination 7.50 degrees
>Mean longitude 318.3869 degrees 1911-01-00
>Eccentricity 0.019
>Perih. lon 10 degrees 1907
In a recent posting you wrote that there are two different tables of data
in the book of Weston ? Could you be more specific ?
>Zecharia Sitchin, 1976
>----------------------
>Nibiru period 3600y Perihelion in 0 AD, in the asteroidal belt.
> Inside the solar system 100 BC - 100 AD
> Semi-major axis 235 a.e.
> (rules balance, possible ruler of Libra)
Sources, please ?
>Hawkins, 1978
>-------------
>Transpluto/Bacchus (transplutonian)
> Period a e i T Perih lon
> julian a.e. 1947.0
> years
> 685.65 77.755 0.300 0.0 1772.76 0.7 deg
Sources, please ?
>Blavatsky, Bailey, Bessant
>--------------------------
>A complicated system of "esoteric planets", "sacred planets", "non-sacred
>planets", "seven rays" etc.
If you are interested in the sources I used I will give an detailed overview.
**************************************************************************
* Andreas Bunkahle * bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de **********************
* Cetero censeo televisionem videonemque esse delandam *******************
**************************************************************************
Diarmuid Pigott
a very interst article on the discovery and behaviour of Pluto and
Charon. Required reading for anyone interested in the orbits and
positions of planets.
One thing of great interest to me is that the search for the missing
planet X (that was necessitated because Pluto was too small to account
for the known masses and orbits of the other planets) may be called off,
since more accurate figures derived from Voyager have shown the
calculations fall into place without X existing.
Paul Schlyter
Andreas Bunkahle <bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> Paul, you are really a great gift to this newsgroup. Though you are a
> skeptic one must admit that you really have often better knowledge of
> astrology than some of the people who are interested in astrology and
> who are no skeptics.
still enjoy reading about it....
One of the reasons for my presence as a skeptic here probably is this: most
astrology critics indeed know very little about astrology - therefore the
astrologers easily dismiss their critiscism. Perhaps I'm trying to
compensate for this - since I do consider it essential to have a good
knowledge of something you want to critisize, and apparently know more
about the subject than several astrology believers, my critiscism is not so
easily dismissed.... (instead I encounter another pretty interesting
reaction from several people here: they email me, asking me to leave the
newsgroup, and others put me in their killfile -- I suppose I should
interpret that as my critiscism being relevant, perhaps TOO relevant for
them... :-)
> Your article about the hypothetical planets is excellent. I also studied
> the various publications about the hypoth. planets and you did give a
> very good summary of them.
> But: Could you please give your sources in order to check the data ?
Dictionary of Astrology" - particularly regarding the "personalities" of
those hypothetical planets.
Other references:
[1] The Uranians: "Immerwahrende Ephemeride fur Mondknoten, Uranus, Neptun,
Cupido, Hades, Zeus, Kronos", Alfred Witte, Witte-Verlag Ludwig Rudolph,
Hamburg. Year of print not given but probably in the earlier parts of
our century. That booklet, which I found in an occult bookshop in London
back in 1973, also had an appendix giving ephemerides for Apollon, Admetos,
Vulkanus (note the spelling!) and Poseidon. Positions are given for the
four inner uranians from 1350 to 1960, and for the four outer from 1600
to 2000. And, yes, there are ephemerides for Uranus and Neptune there too,
but NOT Pluto! This booklet was obviously published before Pluto was
discovered....
[2] Weston's Vulcan: "The planet Vulcan - History, Nature, Tables",
L.H. Weston, American Federation of Astrologers. A reprint of Weston's
publications in 1908 and 1920 - contains the orbital elements as given
by Weston in 1908 and 1920. Also speculates about the "personality" of
Vulcan. The orbital elements I gave here are the 1920 Weston elements.
This book too was purchased in London 1973.
[3] Transpluto: "Transpluto or Should we call him Bacchus, the Ruler of
Taurus?", John Roberk Hawkings 1976/1978, ISBN 0-86690-386-0. Hawkings
tries to give "scientific" evidence (he e.g writes: "This (transpluto)
is no Uranian") by pointing out earlier small residuals in the orbit of
Uranus, and then over-interpreting those very insecure data (Hawkings
need to attend an elementary course in error analysis!!!). Whatever
little evidence there was for such a transplutonian planet has now
completely vanished, since new orbital integrations by JPL, using updated
masses of Uranus and Neptune from Voyager, causes those residuals to
essentially disappear. In addition, despite many seraches, no such
planets has been found -- instead ASTEROIDS outside Pluto's orbit have
been found! However, since astrologers are unaware of or is ignoring
this, Transpluto must be counted among the hypothetical astrological
planets...
[4] Lilith: "The Lilith Ephemeris 1900-2000", Dolphine Jay, 1983,
ISBN 0-86690-255-4. Contains mostly an ephemeris, and a short text which,
among other things, gives dates of claimed observations of Lilith, the last
one listed was in 1898 (...why haven't anyone seen Lilith since then ??? :-)
The book also gives some physical data about Lilith: mass = 1/80 Earth mass
or almost the same as the Moon, diameter 700 km or 40% of the Moon's diameter,
distance about three times the Moon's distance. These data would imply that
the density of Lilith would be more than 50 times the density of water, or
about 4 times the density of lead or mercury! Yet, Lilith is described as
being "cloudy" and mostly invisible.... (a pretty dense cloud! :-), visible
only close to opposition, or when passing in front of the Sun (but nobody
seems to have seen Lilith, in front of the Sun or otherwise, during our
century...). The book also vaguely mentions a third Earth satellite,
claimed to have been seen by someone at one or two occasions, but give no
further information about it.
> BTW have you ever tried to interpret a horoscope
what others have said, it requires a lot of training to be proficient at
that - I'm not really willing to devote that much time to it, since my
interests are in other areas.
> and do you know about the qualities ascribed to the houses and planets?
rest whenever I want to. One interesting point here is how the astrologer's
ideas of those qualities have changed over time. Take for instance the
classical music symphony "The Planets" by Gustaf Holtz (composed before the
discovery of Pluto) - there Uranus is described as "The Magician" and
Neptune as "The Mystic" (and the music was composed accordingly). Today's
astrologers assign somewhat different "qualities" to those planets....
> Concerning an overview of the hypothetical planets there is a very good
> article in Geoffrey Dean/Arthur Mather: Recent advances in natal astrology
> (prepared under the aegis of The Astrological Association), Bromley Kent,
> 1977. This is an excellent and also a very critical book about the advances
> of natal astrology from 1900-1976. It is written by astrologers and
> gives an almost scientific summary about most fields of astrology. Paul,
> I think you would like it very much cause a lot of scepticism is also
> included but it is not intended to refute astrology, it is really more
> an open but critical overview.
planets that have been included in that book, in case I don't find it?
> >Uranians (Witte, "Hamburg school")
> >----------------------------------
> >Cupido period 262y (community, marriage, art)
> >Hades period 360y (lowness, dirt, antiquity, secrets)
> >Kronos period 522y (authority)
> >Apollon period 576y (expansion, science, commerce, peace)
> >Admetos period 617y (raw material, circulation, death)
> >Vulkanus period 663y (power, strungth, upper octave of Mars)
> >Poseidon period 740y (mind, spirit and ideas)
> >According to Witte:
> > P a Mean longitude dlon e Perihel i Ascnod
> >Cupido 262.50 40.99 105.026 174.294 138.535 0.0045 300 1.08 130
> >Hades 360.63 50.67 337.180 27.790 101.219 0.0024 305 1.05 342
> >Kronos 521.75 64.81 17.298 52.495 70.394 0.0028 205 0 -
> >Apollon 589.4 70.3 138.060 169.297 62.474 0 - 0 -
> >Admetos 631.8 73.6 351.334 20.521 58.374 0 - 0 -
> >Vulkanus 679.1 77.3 55.900 83.104 54.407 0 - 0 -
> >Poseidon 765.3 83.7 165.521 189.739 48.435 0 - 0 -
> >According to Matrix:
> > Lon 1900.0 n/100y a
> >Cupido 104.5959 138.5369 40.998370
> >Hades 337.4517 101.2176 50.667443
> >Zeus 104.0904 80.4057 59.214362
> >Kronos 17.7346 70.3863 64.816896
> >Apollon 138.0354 62.5000 70.361652
> >Admetos 351.3220 58.3468 73.736476
> >Vulkanus 55.9826 54.2986 77.445895
> >Poseidon 165.3595 48.6486 83.493733
>
> Where did you get e and Perihelion lon ?
> Which ephemeride have you used for the longitudes 1900.0 and 1950.0 ?
and node for the two innermost uranians, but otherwise only contained
ephemerides for all eight of them. I wanted to reverse engineer the
orbital elements. My first approach was to fit a straight line to the
listed longitudes -- that worked very well for the four outermost Uranians.
However, the inner uranians didn't fit as well to a straight line. Next,
I plotted the deviations of Witte's ephemeris positions from a straight
line, and got a very nice sine-like oscillation with a period equal to
the orbital period. This fits pretty well to an elliptic orbit with
a fairly small eccentricity: the amplitude of the oscillation gives the
eccentricity and the phase gives the longitude of perihelion. Finally
I did fit a straight line plus a sine wave to the four inner uranians,
and then plotted the difference - the largest difference was a few arc
minutes only, and when plotted it looked pretty much like "noise", so
I stayed with that. From the sine wave I obtained the eccentricity and
the longitude of the perihelion. The two first terms in the "equation
of center" equation looks like this (M = mean anomaly = mean longitude
minus longitude of perihelion, e = eccentricity):
2
2 * e * sin(M) + 4/3 * e * sin(2*M)
I neglected the second term, and from the first term I then readily
obtained e and M. From M and L (mena longitude) I obtained the longitude
of perihelion.
> The ephemerides I know are:
>
> - Transneptun-Ephemeride 1890-1990 von Alfred Witte, neu bearbeitet von
> Ruth Brummund, Hamburg, 1972
> (this is supposed to be the original ephemeride for the Uranians published
> by Ludwig Rudolph (WITTE-VERLAG))
>
> - Uranian Transneptune Ephemeris 1850-2050 by Neil F. Michelsen,
> Franksville, 1989
One position every 10 years, for each of the uranians from both ephemerides,
over their entire time span, would probably be enough.
> These ephemerides differ up to 3 minutes of arc for the 1900.0 positions.
to the ephemeris data in [1]) .....
> My data differs slightly for dlon/100y and for the mean longitudes 1900.0
> and 1950.0. (But actually it is the same considering the fact that we are
> talking about something obviously non-existing or at least very hard to
> detect.)
> According to James Neely was Zeus considered to be in his node-position in
> 1911 though it remains unclear if it was the as- oder descending node.
> Furtheron I have different times for the period:
> Apollon 576y
> Admetos 617y
> Vulkanus 663y
> Poseidon 740y
> This correlates with the periods you first gave above. How come the dif-
> ference to the second row (P sidereal)?
period is derived from his ephemerides in [1]: from the mean motion it's
easy to obtain the tropical period, right ? (I assume Witte's ephemerides
are tropical). Assuming a precessional period of 25800 years, one can
easily convert the tropical periods to sidereal periods. Yes, there is a
clear difference -- and I conclude that whoever calculated Witte's
ephemerides was pretty sloppy in his calculations....
> >Thierens
> >--------
> >Bacchus/Horus (future ruler of Cancer)
> >Pluto/Osiris (future ruler of Aries)
> >Vesta/Isis (future ruler of Taurus)
> >Hermes/Mercurius (future ruler of Gemini)
> >Vulcan/Vulcanus (intramercurial)
> Please could you give the sources for Thierens ?
> >Sutcliffe
> >---------
> >Isis period 360y
> >Osiris (ruler of Aries)
> >Vulcan (intramercurial, 'explosive')
> I know about Horus (No.3) and and anonymous No.4.
> These are described in Sutcliffe's book: The New Astronomy and Cosmic
> Physiology, London, 1930.
> Data about these two is highly differing depending on the
> source you use.
> >Jayne, 1962
> >-----------
> >Isis (transplutonian)
> >Lion (transplutonian)
> >Midas (transplutonian)
> >Minos (1962 in Aqr, sighted in 1850)
> >Moraya (transplutonian)
> >Pan (transplutonian)
> Sources, please ?
direct rotation, once about every 8 years. The "Lilith" above is the
hypothetical "black moon". There are three periods invloved there: the
main orbital period of 126 days, the main sine oscillation with a period
of 354 days (this happens to be almost precisely the same as the length
of the "lunar year", i.e. 12 synodic month or 12*29.5=354 days. Several
calendars in the world, most notably the Moslem calendar, use 354 day
years), and the modulation of the sine oscillation has a period of about
31 years.
> The Lilith you mentioned is more the American Lilith
> while in Europe Gravelaine's Lilith seems to be more popular.
of the lunar orbit is very real....
> >Harris
> >------
> >Melodia period 297y (diam 50000 miles, probably same as Ov, see above)
> >Polyhymnia (in orbit beyond Melodia)
> >Vulcan (NOT intramercurial)
>
> Sources, please ?
> >Pagan, 1911
> >-----------
> >Pagan-Pluto (ruler of Scorpio)
>
> Sources, please ?
> >Kitzinger
> >---------
> >Transpluto/Persephone (transplutonian)
> > M w N i e dlon a P RA Dec mag
> > deg deg/yr a.e. 1960
> > 83.1 358.3 205.7 38.0 4.2 0.5238 77.0 675.7 21h30m +19 10
>
> Sources, please ?
> >Weston, 1920
> >------------
> >Vulcan
> >Sid. period 18.58415 days
> >Syn. period 19.5804 days
> >Semi-major axis 0.13744 a.e.
> >Daily motion 19.3714 deg/day
> >Desc node 102.92 degrees 1907-06-25
> >Node motion -16.7058 deg/day
> >Inclination 7.50 degrees
> >Mean longitude 318.3869 degrees 1911-01-00
> >Eccentricity 0.019
> >Perih. lon 10 degrees 1907
>
> In a recent posting you wrote that there are two different tables of data
> in the book of Weston ? Could you be more specific ?
first originally published in 1908, the other in 1920.
>
> >Zecharia Sitchin, 1976
> >----------------------
> >Nibiru period 3600y Perihelion in 0 AD, in the asteroidal belt.
> > Inside the solar system 100 BC - 100 AD
> > Semi-major axis 235 a.e.
> > (rules balance, possible ruler of Libra)
>
> Sources, please ?
etc. is said to be unknown....
> >Hawkins, 1978
> >-------------
> >Transpluto/Bacchus (transplutonian)
> > Period a e i T Perih lon
> > julian a.e. 1947.0
> > years
> > 685.65 77.755 0.300 0.0 1772.76 0.7 deg
>
> Sources, please ?
> If you are interested in the sources I used I will give an detailed overview
Paul Schlyter
"ghost planets". Instead, a much more interesting search will continue:
the search for asteroids outside the outermost planets....
Andreas Bunkahle
[Recent advances in natal astrology 1900-1976]
>I'll look for it. Perhaps you could just briefly list which hypothetical
>planets that have been included in that book, in case I don't find it?
You already have mentioned all hypothetical planets. There are not
more included in that book.
>Would you like to post or email me the longitudes from these ephemerides?
>One position every 10 years, for each of the uranians from both ephemerides,
>over their entire time span, would probably be enough.
Ok, here is the list (data for 01/01 in deg.min of arc)
Transneptun-Ephemeride (Brummund)
=================================
CU HA ZE KR AP AD VU PO
1890 01.13CN 26.18AQ 06.06CN 10.05AR 12.14LE 14.46PI 19.52TA 11.18VI
1900 15.15CN 06.21PI 14.14CN 17.06AR 18.32LE 20.35PI 25.21TA 16.10VI
1910 29.20CN 16.25PI 22.20CN 24.06AR 24.54LE 26.24PI 00.50GE 21.02VI
1920 13.22LE 26.31PI 00.34LE 01.08TA 01.12VI 02.13AR 06.20GE 25.54VI
1930 27.23LE 06.38AR 08.45LE 08.10TA 07.29VI 08.03AR 11.52GE 00.45LI
1940 11.20VI 16.46AR 16.51LE 15.13TA 13.47VI 13.54AR 17.21GE 05.36LI
1950 25.13VI 26.56AR 24.59LE 22.17TA 20.03VI 19.44AR 22.51GE 10.27LI
1960 09.04LI 07.11TA 03.05VI 29.22TA 26.21VI 25.35AR 28.23GE 15.17LI
1970 22.49LI 17.23TA 11.10VI 06.26GE 02.37LI 01.26TA 03.53CN 20.08LI
1980 06.28SC 27.42TA 19.17VI 13.34GE 08.52LI 07.20TA 09.25CN 24.59LI
1990 20.05SC 07.58GE 27.19VI 20.39GE 15.07LI 13.09TA 14.55CN 29.46LI
It is not mentioned if this ephemeris is a midday oder midnight ephemeris
though actually this should be of no great difference since the movement
of the Uranians is quite slow.
Transneptune Ephemeris (Michelsen)
==================================
(data is given not always for 01/01, sometimes it's 01/01, sometimes 01/03
sometimes 01/05, so the first number behind the year indicates the day)
CU HA ZE KR AP AD VU PO
1850/3 05.00TA 16.22CP 03.29GE 12.12PI 16.53CN 21.39AQ 28.00AR 21.44LE
1860/1 19.02TA 26.18CP 11.40GE 19.09PI 23.16CN 27.25AQ 03.28TA 26.38LE
1870/3 03.02GE 06.20AQ 19.46GE 26.08PI 29.33CN 03.14PI 08.55TA 01.30VI
1880/1 17.09GE 16.18AQ 27.58GE 03.07AR 05.55LE 09.00PI 14.25TA 06.24VI
1890/3 01.10CN 26.21AQ 06.05CN 10.06AR 12.12LE 14.49PI 19.53TA 11.15VI
1900/1 15.17CN 06.22PI 14.17CN 17.07AR 18.34LE 20.37PI 25.24TA 16.08VI
1910/4 29.17CN 16.27PI 22.23CN 24.07AR 24.51LE 26.26PI 00.51GE 20.59VI
1920/2 13.22LE 26.32PI 00.35LE 01.09TA 01.11VI 02.15AR 06.23GE 25.52VI
1930/4 27.19LE 06.39AR 08.41LE 08.11TA 07.27VI 08.05AR 11.51GE 00.42LI
1940/2 11.17VI 16.48AR 16.52LE 15.15TA 13.46VI 13.56AR 17.23GE 05.34LI
1950/4 25.10VI 26.58AR 24.57LE 22.17TA 20.02VI 19.46AR 22.52GE 10.25LI
1960/2 09.01LI 07.11TA 03.06VI 29.23TA 26.19VI 25.37AR 28.24GE 15.15LI
1970/4 22.49LI 17.23TA 11.11VI 06.27GE 02.35LI 01.29TA 03.53CN 20.06LI
1980/2 06.32SC 27.39TA 19.16VI 13.34GE 08.50LI 07.21TA 09.25CN 24.55LI
1990/4 20.18SC 07.52GE 27.20VI 20.39GE 15.05LI 13.13TA 14.54CN 29.46LI
2000/2 03.55SG 18.10GE 05.23LI 27.48GE 21.19LI 19.07TA 20.26CN 04.34SC
2010/4 17.38SG 28.25GE 13.26LI 04.53CN 27.33LI 24.59TA 25.55CN 09.24SC
2020/2 01.12CP 08.44CN 21.27LI 12.03CN 03.45SC 00.54GE 01.27LE 14.12SC
2030/4 14.55CP 18.58CN 29.29LI 19.09CN 10.00SC 06.47GE 06.56LE 19.02SC
2040/2 28.30CP 29.16CN 07.26SC 26.19CN 16.10SC 12.42GE 12.27LE 23.49SC
2050/4 12.15AQ 09.30LE 15.27SC 03.26LE 22.24SC 18.35GE 17.56LE 28.39SC
> > According to James Neely was Zeus considered to be in his node-position in
> > 1911 though it remains unclear if it was the as- oder descending node.
>Perhaps the size of the inclination is also unclear?
In (7) it is said that the inclination of Zeus is also unclear so it is
set to 0.
> > >Sutcliffe
> > >---------
> > >Isis period 360y
> > >Osiris (ruler of Aries)
> > >Vulcan (intramercurial, 'explosive')
> > I know about Horus (No.3) and and anonymous No.4.
> > These are described in Sutcliffe's book: The New Astronomy and Cosmic
> > Physiology, London, 1930.
> > Data about these two is highly differing depending on the
> > source you use.
>How different? Over 100 degrees or so?
(Sources in parentheses given at the end of the article)
Isis: period 360 y (13), 350 y (The New Astronomy and Cosmic Physiology)
distance: 50 AU (T.N.A.a.C.P.), 50,6 AU (13)
07/05/1929: 228-230 deg (heliocentric, (T.N.A.a.C.P.))
01/01/1906: 00 deg 42 min AR (9)
01/01/1930: 24 deg 46 min AR (A.E.Thierens:"Elementen der esoterische
Astrologie" - Dutch book)
supposed to rule news and the fashion, also grammophones, typewriters
(don't laugh, Paul :-)
Osiris: period 990 y (13) and 600 y (T.N.A.a.C.P.)
distance: 90,3 (13) 70 AU (T.N.A.a.C.P.) 99,43 AU (9)
09/09/1929: supposed in conj. with the sun (heliocentric 165 deg)
01/01/1906: 3 deg 01 min 49 sec LI (9)
yearly motion: 0 deg 21 min 08 sec (13)
0 deg 21 min 49 sec (9)
Horus: (T.N.A.a.C.P.):
period 5 y
between Ma and Ju, supposed to be in its infancy and gaseous
distance: 2.91 AU
BUT: according to other sources this planet is behind Osiris.
yearly motion: 00 deg 09 min 49 sec (13, 9)
0 deg 10 min (Thierens)
01/01/1930: 2 deg 11 min AR (Thierens)
period 2200 y (Thierens)
01/01/1906: 28 deg 09 min 49 sec PI (9,13)
distance: 169,2 AU (9)
supposed to be super-physical in ultra-violet area
No.4 : beyond the orbit of No.3 (Horus)
period: 5658 y (13)
yearly motion: 0 deg 3 min 49 sec (9,13)
01/01/1906: 22 deg 05 min 49 sec VI (9,13)
01/01/1930: 23 deg 41 min VI (Thierens)
Sources which I possess and from which I can quote:
1 Wemyss, Maurice: "The wheel of life" Vol.3, London, 1930
2 Esser, E.I.K.: "Dutch Astrology" in _The Astrological Journal_ (UK),
Vol 15 No 1 p.26-32 Winter 1973
3 Ram Th J J, "Dutch Astrology" in _The Astrological Journal_ (UK),
Vol 15 No 2 p.41 Spring 1973
4 ten Hove, J H:"Bode's Law and the Mystery Planets" in _Astrological
Journal: (UK), Vol 4 No 3 pp25-28 (1962)
5 Weston, L H:"The planet Vulcan", Oregon, 1909 and a reprint by the AFA,
Tempe, AZ no year
6 Wiesel, Max:"Vier bisher unbekannte Planeten entdeckt" in _Kosmobiologie_,
Feb. 57, No 5, 23. Jahrgang
7 Neely, James:"Die Orbital-Elemente der Transneptun-Planeten" in _Hamburger
Hefte_ II/81
(Quite an interesting article. Neely examines if the suggested hypothetical
bodies by Witte obtain the rules of Kepler. He concludes that they do so.
The suggested hypothetical bodies by Sieggruen also do but is quite amazing
that these move completely regularly (no inclination, circle-orbits instead
of ellipses)
8 "Ephemeriden 1850-2050 Ceres - Pallas - Juno - Vesta - Cheiron - Isis, Text
deutsch und englisch", ASTRON-Ephemeride, Hamburg, 1985
(gives positions of Transpluto/Isis (Landscheidt)
9 _Les Cahiers astrologiques_: "No special sur les Planetes inconnues"
(Ce numero donne tous les elements pour le calcul des 17 planetes
hypothetiques), Mai-Juin 1958, 11. Annee, No 74 (Nouvelle Serie)
(includes in French a bunch of quite interesting articles:
"Le probleme des planetes inconnues" (A. Volguine)
"Kore, la dixieme planete" (R. Ambelain)
"Planetes inconnues en Amerique" (P. Colombet)
"Les 'Transneptuniennes' de l'Ecole de Hambourg" (L. Rudolph)
10 Witte, A.:"Der Mensch - eine Empfangsstation kosmischer Suggestionen"
Hamburg, no year
(includes all articles Witte has ever written in Astrologische Rundschau)
11 Ephemerides for intramercurial Vulcan can be found in
_Les Cahiers astrologiques_ Mai-Juin 1938 No 3
(includes also the article "Le mystere de Vulcain")
_Les Cahiers astrologiques_ Juillet-Aout 1938 No 4
" Septembre-Octobre 1938 No 5
" Novembre-Decembre 1938 No 6
" Janvier_Fevrier 1939 No 7
12 "Notre enquete sur la Combustion et Vulcain" in
_Les Cahiers astrologiques_ Mars_Avril 1939 No 8
" Mai-Juin 1939 No 9
" Juillet-Aout 1939 No 10
" Novembre-Decembre 1939 No 12
" Janvier-Fevrier-Mars-Avril 1940 No 13-14
" Mai-Juin 1940 No 15
13 Becker, Wilhelm:"Die Hamburger Schule" in _Astrale Warte_
Heft 10/1937, p.224-231
(includes a review not only of the Uranians but also of Isis, Osiris,
planet Nr.3 (Sutcliffe), planet Nr.4 (Sutcliffe), Pluto (Duncan-
Macnaughton), Jason, La Croix, Ov, Melodia)
If anybody has additions to make please forward them.
Andreas Bunkahle
since Paul has forwarded the orbital elements of intramercurial Vulcan,
would it be possible to implement Vulcan in Astrolog 4.10 ?
So far I know Astrolog 4.10 would be the only and first program available
for all knowm computer systems which would support Vulcan !!!
(this is a chance....:-)
Paul Schlyter
Andreas Bunkahle <bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>
>So far I know Astrolog 4.10 would be the only and first program available
>for all knowm computer systems which would support Vulcan !!!
>(this is a chance....:-)
A good try... but not quite. There are several planetarium programs out
there who allows the user to enter the orbital elements of any celestial
body, and then the program displays that celestial body too. This is of
course mainly intended for asteroids and comets, but nothing prevents you
from entering the orbital elements of e.g. Vulcanin that data file (which
usually is in ASCII format, allowing easy modification by a text editor).
Paul Schlyter
Andreas Bunkahle <bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>>Would you like to post or email me the longitudes from these ephemerides?
>>One position every 10 years, for each of the uranians from both ephemerides,
>>over their entire time span, would probably be enough.
>
Thanks!
>Transneptun-Ephemeride (Brummund)
>=================================
> CU HA ZE KR AP AD VU PO
>
>==================================
>(data is given not always for 01/01, sometimes it's 01/01, sometimes 01/03
>
> CU HA ZE KR AP AD VU PO>1900/1 15.17CN 06.22PI 14.17CN 17.07AR 18.34LE 20.37PI 25.24TA 16.08VI
It seems like these two ephemerides also disagree about the positions
of the Uranians by up to three arc minutes.... let's see how it agrees
with my Uranian ephemeris, the one published by Alfred Witte himself:
CU HA ZE KR AP AD VU PO
These positions are for the date of conjunction (with the Sun) in 1900
(this clever little trick makes Witte's ephemeride's heliocentric AND
geocentric). Applying corrections to bring the heliocentric positions
back to 01-01 yields:
1900 15.11CN 07.17PI 14.12CN .58AR 18.04LE 21.20PI 25.54TA 15.31VI
Here the discrepancies are considerably larger -- up to one degree! Perhaps
your ephemerides are geocentric, not heliocentric?
Let's check 1950
Brummund:
1950 25.13VI 26.56AR 24.59LE 22.17TA 20.03VI 19.44AR 22.51GE 10.27LI
1950/4 25.10VI 26.58AR 24.57LE 22.17TA 20.02VI 19.46AR 22.52GE 10.25LI
1950 24.52VI 28.21AR 24.49LE 23.12TA 19.44VI 20.41AR 23.21GE 10.06LI
So the question remains which one to trust: Witte himself, or later
ephemeris calculators. Or are your ephemerides simply geocentric, while
I have derived heliocentric positions from Witte's ephemerides?
>> > According to James Neely was Zeus considered to be in his node-position in
>> > 1911 though it remains unclear if it was the as- oder descending node.
>
>>Perhaps the size of the inclination is also unclear?
>
>In (7) it is said that the inclination of Zeus is also unclear so it is
>set to 0.
inclination is so badly determined that it's indistinguishable from zero,
then it's not meaningful to even try to define the node. Perhaps that's
why he doesn't say whether Zeus was in the ascending or descending node
back in 1911 --- he wasn't able to distinguish the two from each other... :-)
> > >Sutcliffe
> > >---------
> > >Isis period 360y
> > >Osiris (ruler of Aries)
> > >Vulcan (intramercurial, 'explosive')
> > I know about Horus (No.3) and and anonymous No.4.
> > These are described in Sutcliffe's book: The New Astronomy and Cosmic
> > Physiology, London, 1930.
> > Data about these two is highly differing depending on the
> > source you use.
>How different? Over 100 degrees or so?
> distance: 50 AU (T.N.A.a.C.P.), 50,6 AU (1
> 01/01/1906: 00 deg 42 min AR (9)
> 01/01/1930: 24 deg 46 min AR (A.E.Thierens:"Elementen der esoterische
> Astrologie" - Dutch book)
> supposed to rule news and the fashion, also grammophones, typewriters
> (don't laugh, Paul :-)
supposed to rule e.g. computers, CRT screens, and the Internet !!!
Believe me, it's only a matter of time before that happens....
> Sources which I possess and from which I can quote:
>
> 1 Wemyss, Maurice: "The wheel of life" Vol.3, London, 1930
Paul Schlyter
TIme for an update of the list of hypothetical astrological planets,
since I've received some additional info since last time. I've also
added a reference list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list of hypothetical astrological planets
===========================================
Uranians (Witte, "Hamburg school")
----------------------------------
Cupido period 262y (community, marriage, art)
Hades period 360y (lowness, dirt, antiquity, secrets)
Zeus period 456y (physical leadership, cerativity, Uranus upper octave)
Kronos period 522y (authority)
Apollon period 576y (expansion, science, commerce, peace)
Admetos period 617y (raw material, circulation, death)
Vulkanus period 663y (power, strungth, upper octave of Mars)
Poseidon period 740y (mind, spirit and ideas)
According to Witte (reverse engineered from ephemerides in [B]):
P a Mean longitude dlon e Perihel i Ascnode
sidereal 1900.0 1950.0 /100y lon lon
Cupido 262.50 40.99 105.026 174.294 138.535 0.0045 300 1.08 130
Hades 360.63 50.67 337.180 27.790 101.219 0.0024 305 1.05 342
Zeus 455.64 59.21 104.172 144.375 80.406 0.0011 295 0 -
Kronos 521.75 64.81 17.298 52.495 70.394 0.0028 205 0 -
Apollon 589.4 70.3 138.060 169.297 62.474 0 - 0 -
Admetos 631.8 73.6 351.334 20.521 58.374 0 - 0 -
Vulkanus 679.1 77.3 55.900 83.104 54.407 0 - 0 -
Poseidon 765.3 83.7 165.521 189.739 48.435 0 - 0 -
According to Matrix (from Walter's Astrolog 4.00):
Lon 1900.0 n/100y a
Cupido 104.5959 138.5369 40.998370
Hades 337.4517 101.2176 50.667443
Zeus 104.0904 80.4057 59.214362
Kronos 17.7346 70.3863 64.816896
Apollon 138.0354 62.5000 70.361652
Admetos 351.3220 58.3468 73.736476
Vulkanus 55.9826 54.2986 77.445895
Poseidon 165.3595 48.6486 83.493733
According to James Neely was Zeus considered to be in his node-position in
1911 though it remains unclear if it was the as- oder descending node.
Ram (Dutch astrologer)
----------------------
Demeter (rules Cancer, spiritual aptitudes, art, music.
upper octave of Saturn)
pos. 1925 10Sag lon +4.30 lat 17.32 decl. 249.03 RA
Hermes (rules Gemini, spiritual/ideal/occult,
upper octave of Jupiter)
Persephone (ruler of Taurus, spiritual performance, creativity,
upper octave of Mars)
Longitude Yearly motion Ref: [3]
1925 1929
Demeter 10 Sag 12 Sag 0.40 deg
Hermes 27.30 Leo 0 Vir 0.50 deg
Persephone 10 Aqu 13 Aqu 0.60 deg
Maurice Wemyss
--------------
Dido period 365y (ruler of Virgo)
(existence doubtful, even admitted by Wemyss himself)
Hercules period 654y (ruler of Leo)
Jason period 45y (ruler of Sagittarius)
Wemyss-Pluto period 1366y (ruler of Cancer)
Longitude Yearly motion Period a Ref [1]
1850.0 1900.0 years a.u.
Hercules 20.5 Gem 18.0 Can 0.55 deg 654 75.3
Jason 13.2 Leo 23.7 Vir 8.01 deg 44.9 12.6
Wemyss-Pluto 13.96 Leo 27.13 Leo 0.2634 deg 1367 123.2
Thierens
--------
Bacchus/Horus (future ruler of Cancer)
Pluto/Osiris (future ruler of Aries)
Vesta/Isis (future ruler of Taurus)
Hermes/Mercurius (future ruler of Gemini)
Vulcan/Vulcanus (intramercurial)
Sutcliffe
---------
Isis period 360y
Osiris (ruler of Aries)
Vulcan (intramercurial, 'explosive')
Horus (No.3) and and anonymous No.4. are described in
Sutcliffe's book: The New Astronomy and Cosmic Physiology,
London, 1930. Data about these two is highly differing
depending on the source you use.
Isis: period 360 y [13], 350 y (The New Astronomy and Cosmic Physiology)
distance: 50 AU (T.N.A.a.C.P.), 50,6 AU [13]
07/05/1929: 228-230 deg (heliocentric, (T.N.A.a.C.P.))
01/01/1906: 00 deg 42 min AR [9]
01/01/1930: 24 deg 46 min AR (A.E.Thierens:"Elementen der esoterische
Astrologie" - Dutch book)
(rules news and the fashion, also grammophones, typewriters)
Osiris: period 990 y [13] and 600 y (T.N.A.a.C.P.)
distance: 90,3 [13] 70 AU (T.N.A.a.C.P.) 99,43 AU [9]
09/09/1929: supposed in conj. with the sun (heliocentric 165 deg)
01/01/1906: 3 deg 01 min 49 sec LI [9]
yearly motion: 0 deg 21 min 08 sec [13]
0 deg 21 min 49 sec [9]
Horus: (T.N.A.a.C.P.):
period 5 y
between Ma and Ju, supposed to be in its infancy and gaseous
distance: 2.91 AU
BUT: according to other sources this planet is behind Osiris.
yearly motion: 00 deg 09 min 49 sec [13], [9]
0 deg 10 min (Thierens)
01/01/1930: 2 deg 11 min AR (Thierens)
period 2200 y (Thierens)
01/01/1906: 28 deg 09 min 49 sec PI [9],[13]
distance: 169,2 AU [9]
(is the super-physical in ultra-violet area)
No.4 : beyond the orbit of No.3 (Horus)
period: 5658 y [13]
yearly motion: 0 deg 3 min 49 sec [9],[13]
01/01/1906: 22 deg 05 min 49 sec VI [9],[13]
01/01/1930: 23 deg 41 min VI (Thierens)
Jayne, 1962
-----------
Isis (transplutonian)
Lion (transplutonian)
Midas (transplutonian)
Minos (1962 in Aqr, sighted in 1850)
Moraya (transplutonian)
Pan (transplutonian)
Charubel, discovered by clairvoyance 1897
-----------------------------------------
La Croix period 340y (higher properties of Mars)
Ov period 297y (longevity, magnetic power, probably same as Melodia)
Longitude Yearly motion Period a
Nov 1905 years a.u.
La Croix 5.55 Ari 1.05 deg 343 49.0
Ov 17.75 Aqu 1.20 deg 300 44.8
Goldstein-Jacobson
------------------
Lilith period 126d (temptations,betrayal,abortion,stillbirth)
"Dark Moon", "Esoteric Moon"
Geocentric longitude of Lilith can be computed like this (reverse engineered
from ephemeris in [E]):
Entry data: JD, the Julian Day Number of the moment, including fractional part
MJD = JD - 2415021.0
lon = 262.294 + MJD * 3.019554294 degrees
If MJD is greater than (about) 23800.0 subtract 3.00 degrees from lon !!!
Strange? I agree, but this discontinuity more or less mimics the figures
in Delphine Jay's "The Lilith Ephemeris", where the longitude actually
DOES jump by this amount during a few months in 1965! Note that 3.00 very
nearly corresponds to the daily motion of Lilith -- the most likely cause
of this is therefore an error of one day in the calculation of this
ephemeris -- perhaps a leap year error somewhere. nevertheless, if you
want to mimic this error in "The Lilith Ephemeris", include this
discontinuity.
Add the periodic term below to lon (degrees):
-1.55 * sin( ((MJD - 272.0) / 354.00 ) * (360_degrees) )
* sin( ((MJD - 333.5) / 11444.0) * (360_degrees) )
Yes, this is a product of two sinusoidial oscillations, one with a period
of 354 days, the other with a period of 11444 days.
(There's another Lilith too - the apsides of the orbit of our normal moon.
Joelle de Gravelaine writes about the second one in her book: Le retour de
Lilith (German translation: Lilith, der schwarze Mond, Wettswil, 1990). In
the appendix of her book Gravelaine gives tables to compute the apsides of
the moon 1900-01-01: 4.28 Vir, 1950-01-01: 28.53 Ari, 2000-01-01: 23.20 Sag,
period about 8 years. The interpretation of both Liliths is quite similiar
though. The "dark moon" Lilith is more the American Lilith while in Europe
Gravelaine's "apside line" Lilith seems to be more popular. )
Harris
------
Melodia period 297y (diam 50000 miles, probably same as Ov, see above)
Nov 1905 6Gem42, yearly motion 1# 13'
At the same time Ov (which could be identical with
Melodia) is supposed to be at 17Aqu45 [13]
Polyhymnia (in orbit beyond Melodia)
Vulcan (NOT intramercurial)
Pagan, 1911
-----------
Pagan-Pluto (ruler of Scorpio)
Landscheidt
-----------
Transpluto (transplutonian: P=686y/a=77.75au/e=0.3 by M.E.Sevin) [D]
Kitzinger
---------
Transpluto/Persephone (transplutonian: P=676y/a=77.0au/e=0.073) [D]
M w N i e dlon a P RA Dec mag
deg deg/yr a.e. 1960
83.1 358.3 205.7 38.0 4.2 0.5238 77.0 675.7 21h30m +19 10
Weston, 1920
------------
Vulcan (fiery, explosive, etheral, tends to nullify the
effect of all planets except Sun/Merc in conjunction,
rules the atmosphere, produces storms. Strange freaks
are produced in human nature, mentally/physically,
usually in malevolent form) [C]
Weston 1908 Weston 1920
Sid. period 18.584 18.58415 days
Syn. period 19.5804 19.5804 days
Semi-major axis 0.13744 0.13744 a.e.
Daily motion 19.3715 19.3714 deg/day
Desc node 102.38 102.92 degrees 1907-06-25
Node motion (not given) -16.7058 deg/day
Inclination (not given) 7.50 degrees
Mean longitude (not given) 318.3869 degrees 1911-01-00
Eccentricity (not given) 0.019
Perih. lon (not given) 10 degrees 1907
Mass (not given) 1/37E+6 solar masses
Zecharia Sitchin, 1976
----------------------
Nibiru period 3600y Perihelion in 0 AD, in the asteroidal belt.
Inside the solar system 100 BC - 100 AD
Semi-major axis 235 a.e.
(rules balance, possible ruler of Libra) [D]
I received an email about nibiru, from megat...@aol.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Jesse D. Weiss. By chance on my first look into the net I
happened to read your post on Mythical Planets. The path of intuitive
reasoning led me to think Niburu rules Libra (I Am a double LIbra) as well
as my research into establishing why this planet was so identified with
equilibrium of the solar system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawkins, 1978
-------------
Transpluto/Bacchus (transplutonian) [D]
Period a e i T Perih lon
julian a.e. 1947.0
years
685.65 77.755 0.300 0.0 1772.76 0.7 deg
Blavatsky, Bailey, Bessant
--------------------------
A complicated system of "esoteric planets", "sacred planets", "non-sacred
planets", "seven rays" etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
[A] Fred Gettings "The Arkana Dictionary of Astrology", Arkana/Penguin
1985,1990 - used as a source where no other source is speicified.
[B] The Uranians: "Immerwahrende Ephemeride fur Mondknoten, Uranus, Neptun,
Cupido, Hades, Zeus, Kronos", Alfred Witte, Witte-Verlag Ludwig Rudolph,
Hamburg. Year of print not given but probably in the earlier parts of
our century. That booklet, which I found in an occult bookshop in London
back in 1973, also had an appendix giving ephemerides for Apollon, Admetos,
Vulkanus (note the spelling!) and Poseidon. Positions are given for the
four inner uranians from 1350 to 1960, and for the four outer from 1600
to 2000. And, yes, there are ephemerides for Uranus and Neptune there too,
but NOT Pluto! This booklet was obviously published before Pluto was
discovered....
[C] Weston's Vulcan: "The planet Vulcan - History, Nature, Tables",
L.H. Weston, American Federation of Astrologers. A reprint of Weston's
publications in 1908 and 1920 - contains the orbital elements as given
by Weston in 1908 and 1920. Also speculates about the "personality" of
Vulcan. The orbital elements I gave here are the 1920 Weston elements.
This book too was purchased in London 1973.
[D] Transpluto: "Transpluto or Should we call him Bacchus, the Ruler of
Taurus?", John Roberk Hawkings 1976/1978, ISBN 0-86690-386-0. Hawkings
tries to give "scientific" evidence (he e.g writes: "This (transpluto)
is no Uranian") by pointing out earlier small residuals in the orbit of
Uranus, and then over-interpreting those very insecure data (Hawkings
need to attend an elementary course in error analysis!!!). Whatever
little evidence there was for such a transplutonian planet has now
completely vanished, since new orbital integrations by JPL, using updated
masses of Uranus and Neptune from Voyager, causes those residuals to
essentially disappear. In addition, despite many seraches, no such
planets has been found -- instead ASTEROIDS outside Pluto's orbit have
been found! However, since astrologers are unaware of or is ignoring
this, Transpluto must be counted among the hypothetical astrological
planets...
[E] Lilith: "The Lilith Ephemeris 1900-2000", Dolphine Jay, 1983,
ISBN 0-86690-255-4. Contains mostly an ephemeris, and a short text which,
among other things, gives dates of claimed observations of Lilith, the last
one listed was in 1898 (...why haven't anyone seen Lilith since then ??? :-)
The book also gives some physical data about Lilith: mass = 1/80 Earth mass
or almost the same as the Moon, diameter 700 km or 40% of the Moon's diameter,
distance about three times the Moon's distance. These data would imply that
the density of Lilith would be more than 50 times the density of water, or
about 4 times the density of lead or mercury! Yet, Lilith is described as
being "cloudy" and mostly invisible.... (a pretty dense cloud! :-), visible
only close to opposition, or when passing in front of the Sun (but nobody
seems to have seen Lilith, in front of the Sun or otherwise, during our
century...). The book also vaguely mentions a third Earth satellite,
claimed to have been seen by someone at one or two occasions, but give no
further information about it.
Sources which Andreas Bunkahle (bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) possesses
and from which he can quote:
[1] Wemyss, Maurice: "The wheel of life" Vol.3, London, 1930
[2] Esser, E.I.K.: "Dutch Astrology" in _The Astrological Journal_ (UK),
[14] Transneptun-Ephemeride 1890-1990 von Alfred Witte, neu bearbeitet von
Ruth Brummund, Hamburg, 1972 (this is supposed to be the original
ephemeride for the Uranians published by Ludwig Rudolph (WITTE-VERLAG))
[15] Uranian Transneptune Ephemeris 1850-2050 by Neil F. Michelsen,
Franksville, 1989
mikemagee
pau...@electra.saaf.se "Paul Schlyter" writes:
> TIme for an update of the list of hypothetical astrological planets,
> since I've received some additional info since last time. I've also
> added a reference list.
> Paul Schlyter, SAAF (Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society)
I'm sorry but you seem to have missed out details of the planet
Jung. This particular celestial body was first spotted
after the publication by Carl Gustav Jung of his research into
the influence of astrology. It was pure synchronicity that it
happened to have the same name.
No-one knows for sure if it really exists or not. It certainly
hasn't been seen in this newsgroup for a while. If anyone can
provide me with its co-ordinates, I'd be grateful.
Nor in your interesting yet incomplete list, Paul S, is there any mention of
the gas giant Jai Maharaj which appears with great regularity on
the horizon.
Call yourself an astronomer? Pah. Maharaj can
be seen with the naked eye every day although it's advisable
to wear rose-coloured filters to protect your vision.
Mike (Eurocentric) Magee
--
Paul Schlyter
mikemagee <mike...@magee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm sorry but you seem to have missed out details of the planet
> Jung. This particular celestial body was first spotted
> after the publication by Carl Gustav Jung of his research into
> the influence of astrology. It was pure synchronicity that it
> happened to have the same name.
>
> No-one knows for sure if it really exists or not. It certainly
> hasn't been seen in this newsgroup for a while. If anyone can
> provide me with its co-ordinates, I'd be grateful.
>
> Nor in your interesting yet incomplete list, Paul S, is there any mention
> of the gas giant Jai Maharaj which appears with great regularity on
> the horizon.
>
> Call yourself an astronomer? Pah. Maharaj can
> be seen with the naked eye every day although it's advisable
> to wear rose-coloured filters to protect your vision.
planets, right? :-)
Regarding Jung, do you have any orbital elements for that planet? :-)))
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, SAAF (Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society)
Andreas Bunkahle
>Let's check 1950
>Brummund:
>1950 25.13VI 26.56AR 24.59LE 22.17TA 20.03VI 19.44AR 22.51GE 10.27LI
>Michelsen:
>1950/4 25.10VI 26.58AR 24.57LE 22.17TA 20.02VI 19.46AR 22.52GE 10.25LI
>Witte:
>1950 24.52VI 28.21AR 24.49LE 23.12TA 19.44VI 20.41AR 23.21GE 10.06LI
>So the question remains which one to trust: Witte himself, or later
>ephemeris calculators. Or are your ephemerides simply geocentric, while
>I have derived heliocentric positions from Witte's ephemerides?
I think that the ephemerides of Brummund and Michelsen are geocentric,
because they are supposed to be for astrologers who work usually
with geocentric ephemerides. It's not expressed literally that they
are but I think so.
>Thanks - perhaps I'll return to you later with additional questions.
I am offline for almost 10 days by wednesday (03/16). Since I am not
able to capture all the incoming news from a.a. you better ask per
PM if any questions arise.
--
Andreas Bunkahle
Some astrological thoughts about the hypothetical planets:
There seems to be quite a tohuwabohu concerning the hypothetical planets.
A lot of them have been often suggested on a very unclear or even
clairvoyant basis. Sometimes even their inventors were in doubt about
their existence (Wemyss and Dido). So what is to believe and which
hypothesis is reliable not in terms of astronomical thought but in terms
of astrological thought ?
This is just a suggestion but I think a reasonable one for astrologers:
In ancient times there were 7 planets which ruled 12 signs. This was
accomplished by assigning 5 planets to 10 signs and the two lights sun
and moon to Leo and Cancer.
So it looked like:
AR: Mars LI: Venus
TA: Venus SC: Mars
GE: Mercury SG: Jupiter
CN: Moon CP: Saturn
LE: Sun AQ: Saturn
VI: Mercury PI: Jupiter
If you ever try to see how Medieval horoscopes were interpreted you will
find very quickly that certain assumptions are based on astrological
interpretation which is grounded on factors which wouldn't be used in
today's astrology.
No, the discovery of three (resp. 4 if you take Cheiron also into
account) more planets made astrology working better and more precise.
These three more planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) have been found and
have been assigned to SC: Pluto, AQ: Uranus, PI: Neptune.
Cheiron has been assigned to VI what I can assure of being right.
What is the opinion of other astrologers concerning Cheiron ? Is it
a planet or rather a planetoid in astrological means ? Does it rule
Virgo or another sign ?
But in my opinion there is still a lack of planets since you will find
that sometimes you can't prove evidence of the earthly found facts in
the horoscope. But at different times you will find evidence very well.
So maybe there is a 10th planet though astronomically this is to be ruled
out (latest data by Voyager). Maybe this 10th planet is to be found in
the asteroid belt since maybe the asteroid belt has once been a planet
which exploded/was destroyed by whatever means.
The assumption that there must be another planet is simply based on the
astrological speculation that the ruler for the 12th sign namely Libra
is still missing. It looks like:
AR: Mars LI: ???
TA: Venus SC: Pluto
GE: Mercury SG: Jupiter
CN: Moon CP: Saturn
LE: Sun AQ: Uranus
VI: Cheiron PI: Neptune
What is the opinion of the people in alt.astrology ?
wp1...@albnyvms.bitnet
>
>Some astrological thoughts about the hypothetical planets:
>
>There seems to be quite a tohuwabohu concerning the hypothetical planets.
>A lot of them have been often suggested on a very unclear or even
>clairvoyant basis. Sometimes even their inventors were in doubt about
>their existence (Wemyss and Dido). So what is to believe and which
>hypothesis is reliable not in terms of astronomical thought but in terms
>of astrological thought ?
[stuff deleted]
>The assumption that there must be another planet is simply based on the
>astrological speculation that the ruler for the 12th sign namely Libra
>is still missing. It looks like:
>
>AR: Mars LI: ???
>TA: Venus SC: Pluto
>GE: Mercury SG: Jupiter
>CN: Moon CP: Saturn
>LE: Sun AQ: Uranus
>VI: Cheiron PI: Neptune
>
Check out Barbara Hand Clow's book _Chiron_ (Llewellyn, 1992?). She includes a
brief discussion on "Nibiru," a hypothetical 12th planet (and new ruler of
Libra) proposed by Zecharriah Stichin. The symbology is elegant, but the whole
notion of a planet with a 3600 year retrograde period is kind of suspect.
According to the book, such a planet was discovered at around the same time
that we started talking about the concept of the astrological Great Year and
the precession of equinoxes.
Bill Panepinto
wp1...@albnyvms.bitnet
INTERNET: wp1...@uacsc1.albany.edu
stephen james
Paul Schlyter
Andreas Bunkahle <bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> There seems to be quite a tohuwabohu concerning the hypothetical planets.
> A lot of them have been often suggested on a very unclear or even
> clairvoyant basis. Sometimes even their inventors were in doubt about
> their existence (Wemyss and Dido).
> So what is to believe and which hypothesis is reliable not in terms of
> astronomical thought but in terms of astrological thought ?
> If you ever try to see how Medieval horoscopes were interpreted you will
> find very quickly that certain assumptions are based on astrological
> interpretation which is grounded on factors which wouldn't be used in
> today's astrology.
or perhaps even none of them?
> No, the discovery of three (resp. 4 if you take Cheiron also into
The correct spelling is: Chiron --- take out the "e" !!!
> account) more planets made astrology working better and more precise.
Just imagine how incredibly precise a natal chart with all those 5000+
asteroids included. And how many aspects -- what intricate detail!!!
<grin>
> These three more planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) have been found and
> have been assigned to SC: Pluto, AQ: Uranus, PI: Neptune.
> Cheiron has been assigned to VI what I can assure of being right.
> What is the opinion of other astrologers concerning Cheiron ? Is it
> a planet or rather a planetoid in astrological means ?
very concept of "planetoid" alien to astrology?`
> Does it rule Virgo or another sign ?
of the "Cenatur" group of asteroids discovered -- and Sagittarius was a
Centaur (...of course we could say Chiron rules Centaurus instead, but
since Centaurus isn't a zodiacal constellation, it's alien to astrology).
> But in my opinion there is still a lack of planets since you will find
> that sometimes you can't prove evidence of the earthly found facts in
> the horoscope.
(Chiron is an asteroid although an unusual one) you have 5000+ asteroids to
pick from! Go ahead!
> So maybe there is a 10th planet though astronomically this is to be ruled
> out (latest data by Voyager). Maybe this 10th planet is to be found in
> the asteroid belt since maybe the asteroid belt has once been a planet
> which exploded/was destroyed by whatever means.
>
> The assumption that there must be another planet is simply based on the
> astrological speculation that the ruler for the 12th sign namely Libra
> is still missing. It looks like:
>
> AR: Mars LI: ???
> TA: Venus SC: Pluto
> GE: Mercury SG: Jupiter
> CN: Moon CP: Saturn
> LE: Sun AQ: Uranus
> VI: Cheiron PI: Neptune
Why not let Pholus (the second "Centaur" asteroid discovered) rule Libra?
Astrolog
Andreas Bunkahle <bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
>Hello Walter,
>
>since Paul has forwarded the orbital elements of intramercurial Vulcan,
>would it be possible to implement Vulcan in Astrolog 4.10 ?
>
>So far I know Astrolog 4.10 would be the only and first program available
>for all knowm computer systems which would support Vulcan !!!
>(this is a chance....:-)
Since Astrolog has the Uranians, there's no reason why we couldn't add
in Vulcan and other invisible planets. However this will have to wait
for a version 4.20 as version 4.10 is supposed to be done soon.
> **************************************************************************
> * Andreas Bunkahle * bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de **********************
> * Cetero censeo televisionem videonemque esse delandam *******************
> **************************************************************************
#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#+#
Andreas Bunkahle
>
> > If you ever try to see how Medieval horoscopes were nterpreted you will
> > find very quickly that certain assumptions are based on astrological
> > interpretation which is grounded on factors which wouldn't be used in
> > today's astrology.
>
> Which of the two astrologies is the correct one? Medieval or contemporary,
> or perhaps even none of them?
I think that astrology is a still developing art. In contrast to Tarot or
other divination arts it is not completed yet. If you do Tarot there are
22 cards and nothing more to use. Maybe you could find a sophisticated
system of divination but actually that's it. It's complete. Not so in
astrology.
Take alone the fact that the apsides of the moon can be used to determine
boundary-breaking events. This rule is relatively new. It wasn't known
before the the 30ies or 40ies of this century (no wrong I now remember
that they also have been used in Medieval astrology for predictiing the
weather, anyway) but it's not a classic astrological rule.
So you see neither the Medieval nor the contemporary astrology is right -
for 100 percent - there are still many things to discover and when you
read "Recent advances in natal astrology" you will find many things which
have been discovered in this century.
Probably you could use extra-solar factors - this could be a quite amazing
research, but and that's most important if you do astrology you have to
tell important from unimportant. And this is IMHO the biggest source of
mistakes for nowaday's astrologers. They take little aspects or little
asteroids for too important. Or they lead astrological conclusions to
causes which have nothing to do with each other.
>
> > No, the discovery of three (resp. 4 if you tke Cheiron also into
> ^^^^^^^
>
> The correct spelling is: Chiron --- take out the "e" !!!
>
Actually it should be Cheiron since it's a Greek name. But probably you
are right because everybody got to use to the spelling Chiron. OK.
BTW I indeed use Chiron but not the asteroids. IMHO it's significant in
contrast to Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, etc.
There is also the significant difference of location: Between Uranus and
Saturn it is the only known asteroid or should I say planet ? Or am I
wrong ?
> > account) more planets made astrology working better and more precise.
>
> Then why ignore the 5000+ other asteroids with well-known orbits out there?
> Just imagine how incredibly precise a natal chart with all those 5000+
> asteroids included. And how many aspects -- what intricate detail!!!
>
see above
> > These three more planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) have been found and
> > have been assigned to SC: Pluto, AQ: Uranus, PI: Neptune.
> > Cheiron has been assigned to VI what I can assure of being right.
> ^^^^^^^
> > What is the opinion of other astrologers concerning Cheiron ? Is it
> ^^^^^^^
> > a planet or rather a planetoid in astrological means ?
>
> Is there any difference from an astrological point of view? Isn't the
> very concept of "planetoid" alien to astrology?
No, since even in old Greek hermetic texts planetoids are mentioned but
they are not assigned any astrological influence. From what I can recall
from memory Hermes said to Tat (?): "In later times these (=planetoids)
will be named but we do not think it worthwhile."
Planetoids don't have (IMHO) any influence while planets do.
>
> > Does it rule Virgo or another sign ?
>
> Chrion must of course rule Sagittarius! Why? Because Chiron is the first
> of the "Cenatur" group of asteroids discovered -- and Sagittarius was a
> Centaur (...of course we could say Chiron rules Centaurus instead, but
> since Centaurus isn't a zodiacal constellation, it's ali to astrology).
No I think you are wrong. Chiron was the master of medicine and he also
represented in old Greek mythology the consciousness. Medicine as well
as consciousness belongs in astrological terms to Virgo.
>
> > So maybe there is a 10th planet though astronomically this is to be ruled
> > out (latest data by Voyager). Maybe this 10th planet is to be found in
> > the asteroid belt since maybe the asteroid belt has once been a planet
> > which exploded/was destroyed by whatever means.
> >
> > The assumption that there must be another planet is simply based on the
> > astrological speculation that the ruler for the 12th sign namely Libra
> > is still missing. It looks like:
> >
> > AR: Mars LI: ???
> > TA: Venus SC: Pluto
> > GE: Mercury SG: Jupiter
> > CN: Moon CP: Saturn
> > LE: Sun AQ: Uranus
> > VI: Cheiron PI: Neptune
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Why not let Pholus (the second "Cenatur" asteroid discovered) rule Libra?
A good question. Maybe even a reasonable hint. But actually the name of
the ruler of LI should be Aphrodite if you take the circle of 12 Olymic
gods in account.
Gadfly
bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Andreas Bunkahle) writes:
> astrological speculation that the ruler for the 12th sign namely Libra
> is still missing. It looks like:
>
> AR: Mars LI: ???
> TA: Venus SC: Pluto
> GE: Mercury SG: Jupiter
> CN: Moon CP: Saturn
> LE: Sun AQ: Uranus
> VI: Cheiron PI: Neptune
>
> What is the opinion of the people in alt.astrology ?
I have always--over the 20-odd years I've been studying astrology--
favored just 10 planets for the 12 signs, because 10 is a tetrahedral
number. That is, you could stack 10 marbles (if they'd stay put :-)
in a triangle of 6, then one of 3, and then 1, thus forming a
perfect tetrahedron. The tetrahedron has at the same time the
quality of four-ness (four sides) and three-ness (each side is an
equilateral triangle), these components representing the simultaneous
elements and triplicities whose essences combine to form the signs.
The tetrahedron is the simplest and most stable Platonic solid.
The rulership of two signs each by Mercury and Venus is also
natural, as these are the only two inferior planets--bodies which
can reach two types of conjunction (inferior and superior) but
never opposition with the Sun--they are in a sense chained to the Sun
and thereby reflect its dominance. So put Mercury back in Virgo, and
Venus in Libra, and relax and marvel to the harmony of the spheres.
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** *****
15 Mar 94 ****** ****** 25 Ventose An CCII
***** ***** gad...@ihspc.att.com
** ** ** **
...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Paul Schlyter
Astrolog <crui...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >So far I know Astrolog 4.10 would be the only and first program available
> >for all knowm computer systems which would support Vulcan !!!
> >(this is a chance....:-)
>
> Since Astrolog has the Uranians, there's no reason why we couldn't add
> in Vulcan and other invisible planets. However this will have to wait
> for a version 4.20 as version 4.10 is supposed to be done soon.
>
> + Walter D. "Cruiser1" Pullen | crui...@stein.u.washington.edu
Why not go one step further, and do what most astronomical planetarium
simulators do: support some external data file where the user him/herself
can enter the orbital elements for ANY planet, asteroid, comet -- existing
as well as hypothetical? And, yes, the user should be able to enter more
than one planet in that way -- perhaps up to 5-6 planets would do. For
simplicity let that file be in ASCII form, suitable for editing in any
text editor.
Perhaps you'd have top hardcode Lilith in your program though, since there
seems to be no set of normal orbital elements that can be used for that
"invisible" moon -- and also since it's supposed to orbit the Earth, not
the Sun....
Paul Schlyter
Gadfly <gad...@cbnews.cb.att.com> wrote:
>The rulership of two signs each by Mercury and Venus is also
>natural, as these are the only two inferior planets--bodies which
>can reach two types of conjunction (inferior and superior) but
>never opposition with the Sun--they are in a sense chained to the Sun
>and thereby reflect its dominance. So put Mercury back in Virgo, and
>Venus in Libra, and relax and marvel to the harmony of the spheres.
Astrologers often claim that astrology is "universal", i.e. inhabitants
at e.g. Venus could just cast a chart as seen from Venus, and have it
interpreted according to the same rules as Earthly astrologers use.
Considering planets ruing signs, as seen from Venus there's only one
inferior planet: Mercury. Which sign would the Earth rule as seen from
Venus? The same signs as Venus rules as seen from us? Should the Earth
rule two signs? Remember that as seen from Venus, Earth is a superior
planet.... One way out of this dilemma would of course be to let Earth
rule one of those signs and the Moon (which should be easily visible to the
naked eye as seen from Venus) rule the other.
Now, let's travel to Mars -- which planets should rule which signs as seen
from that planet? Should the Earth/Moon rule the same signs as when seen
from Venus? But these signs are already occupied by Venus ..... is the
sign which a planet rules dependent on from which planet it is seen? Also
remember that Mars has three inferior planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth --
should each of those rule two signs, as you suggested above? Then there
aren't signs enough....
Finally, let's travel to Pluto -- ALL the other planets are inferior
planets as seen from Pluto (except Neptune -- sometimes, e.g. now).
As seen from Pluto, should each inferior planet rule two signs? Which
sign should the Earth rule as seen from Pluto?
Your nice little rules break down when applied to other planets.
mikemagee
I'm sorry to have to disappoint you hypothetical planet fans,
but I have grave news for you.
The Hindu astrologers not only used Rahu and Ketu but had
a total of 18 upagrahas (shadowy planets) as well.
Ask Jai for the co-ordinates. I'm sure he knows.
(Source: Varahamihira's son)
Mike
--
Gadfly
(Paul Schlyter) writes:
> Astrologers often claim that astrology is "universal", i.e. inhabitants
> at e.g. Venus could just cast a chart as seen from Venus, and have it
> interpreted according to the same rules as Earthly astrologers use.
Pure BS! Name these astrologers who "often" make this claim. Astrology
is so integrally geocentric that such claims have no empirical nor even
philosophical basis. What value would the earth's moon have when viewed
from, oh, Titan? It would always be in conjunction with the earth.
And the influences of everything else in Saturn-space would also have to
be worked out--they surely would be unique to Titanians.
> Considering planets ruing signs, as seen from Venus there's only one
> inferior planet: Mercury. Which sign would the Earth rule as seen from
> Venus? ...
Who cares? Well, if life evolves on Venus before the Sun goes red giant,
it may be an issue. That's something I'm sure you worry about "often".
> Finally, let's travel to Pluto -- ALL the other planets are inferior
> planets as seen from Pluto (except Neptune -- sometimes, e.g. now).
> As seen from Pluto, should each inferior planet rule two signs? Which
> sign should the Earth rule as seen from Pluto?
> Your nice little rules break down when applied to other planets.
Come on, Paul, my "nice little rule" breaks down under other conditions,
too: more planets are discovered, existing planets disappear or collide
or exchange orbits, or if 10 is suddenly no longer a tetrahedral number
or else simply turns into 11 (which it very well might for sufficiently
large values of 10 :-) And hey, even some of *your* "nice little rules",
you know, the physical pillars of that completely rationalist universe
you inhabit, may break down in black holes or on neutron stars. Then
whatever will you do?
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** *****
17 Mar 94 ****** ****** 27 Ventose An CCII
Paul Schlyter
mikemagee <mike...@magee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm sorry to have to disappoint you hypothetical planet fans,
> but I have grave news for you.
>
> The Hindu astrologers not only used Rahu and Ketu but had
> a total of 18 upagrahas (shadowy planets) as well.
a collector of hypothetical planets! However, I have grave news for YOU:
the astronomers have been even better at proposing hypothetical celestial
bodies: Vulcan, Neith, Earth's 2nd moon, Swift's martian moons, Kepler's
martial moon's, Jupiter XIV, Saturn X, Saturn X (not the same as the prev.
Saturn X), 4 nonexistent moons of Uranus, at least some two dozen trans-
Neptunian planets, and finally Nemesis --- now let's count, that'll be
a total of: 1+1+1+2+1+1+1+1+4+24+1 = 38 !!!!
But I'd love to add those 18 upagrahas to my "collection" of hypothetical
planets - so please supply whatever you know about them....
> Ask Jai for the co-ordinates. I'm sure he knows.
trust him! Second, he's in my killfile so I cannot see what he writes
(no, I'm not removing him from the killfile!)
Paul Schlyter
Gadfly <gad...@cbnews.cb.att.com> wrote:
> In article <2m7k85$p...@electra.saaf.se>, pau...@electra.saaf.se
> (Paul Schlyter) writes:
> > Astrologers often claim that astrology is "universal", i.e. inhabitants
> > at e.g. Venus could just cast a chart as seen from Venus, and have it
> > interpreted according to the same rules as Earthly astrologers use.
>
> Pure BS! Name these astrologers who "often" make this claim.
of view: "Astrology is a geocentric system from medieval times, however
the solar system is helio-centric!". The astrologers then often claim
that e.g. inhabitants on Mars could take over human astrology more-or-less
unchanged, but applying it to a Martio-centric system instead.
I also knwo that Maggie is fond of this idea. Remember for instance last
fall, when the Mars Observer failed, and (mostly) Maggie posted several
charts of the planets -- as seen from Mars (close to which MO failed)!
They had great fun at that in sci.astro!
> Astrology is so integrally geocentric that such claims have no empirical
> nor even philosophical basis.
I agree with this 100%. However have YOU considered this as an argument
against astrology?
> What value would the earth's moon have when viewed from, oh, Titan?
not pay any attention to planetary satellites, unless the satellite orbit
the planet to which the astrology is applied (for Earthly astrology the Moon).
Saturnian astrology should therefore ignore our Moon and instead invent
"personalities" for the 25+ moons of Saturn, one of them even always moving
retrogade.... In addition, each of those 25+ moons have a node in their
orbit to consider too.... and apside lines (imagine 25+ Lilith's to
account for as well!).
Another question to consider: what "personality" would Saturnian astrologers
assign to the rings of Saturn ???? Since the Earth has no ring, this question
is alien to Earthly astrologers, but to Saturnian astrologers it ought to
be quite natural...
Or perhaps there wouldn't even be a Saturnian astrology if Saturn was
inhabitated, since Saturn as well as the other outer planets always is
covered by clouds.
> It would always be in conjunction with the earth.
"personality" moerged with the Earth's.
> > Considering planets ruing signs, as seen from Venus there's only one
> > inferior planet: Mercury. Which sign would the Earth rule as seen from
> > Venus? ...
>
> Who cares? Well, if life evolves on Venus before the Sun goes red giant,
> it may be an issue. That's something I'm sure you worry about "often".
if existent, ought to be there even if there's no life there!
> > Finally, let's travel to Pluto -- ALL the other planets are inferior
> > planets as seen from Pluto (except Neptune -- sometimes, e.g. now).
> > As seen from Pluto, should each inferior planet rule two signs? Which
> > sign should the Earth rule as seen from Pluto?
>
> > Your nice little rules break down when applied to other planets.
>
> Come on, Paul, my "nice little rule" breaks down under other conditions,
> too: more planets are discovered, existing planets disappear or collide
> or exchange orbits, or if 10 is suddenly no longer a tetrahedral number
> or else simply turns into 11 (which it very well might for sufficiently
> large values of 10 :-)
conicidences. Did you ever read Martin Gardner's little story about the
"fiveness" of the Washington monument? Read on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for fun, if one looks up the facts about the Washington Monument in the
World Almanac, one will find considerable fiveness. Its height is 555 feet
and 5 inches. The base is 55 feet square, and the windows are set at 500
feet from the base. If the base is multiplied by 60 (or 5 times the number
of months in a year) it gives 3,300 which is the exact weight of the
capstone in pounds. Also the word "Washington" has exactly ten letters
(two times five). And if the weight of the capstone is multiplied by the
base, the result is 181,500 - a fairly close approximation of the speed of
light in miles per second. If the base is measured with a "Monument foot",
which is slightly smaller than the standard foot, its side comes to 56.5
feet. This times 33,000 yields a figure even closer to the speed of light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just amazing, isn't it ??? <grin> This is from a charpter about "The
Great Pyramid" - the "numerological mysteries" invented among the Cheops
pyramid. The name of Gardner's book is: "Fads and Fallacies in the Name
of Science" (Dover Books 1952, 1957).
> And hey, even some of *your* "nice little rules", you know, the physical
> pillars of that completely rationalist universe you inhabit, may break
> down in black holes or on neutron stars. Then whatever will you do?
very interesting when a well-known and widely accepted physical law breaks
down, and the breakdown is well-documented (i.e. the phenomenon is real and
not just e.g. some artifact from errors in measurements or data reduction,
which happens all too often in science). Such a case is more interesting
than the much more common case where the physical laws still works.
Gadfly
(Paul Schlyter) writes:
> > > Astrologers often claim that astrology is "universal", i.e. inhabitants
> > > at e.g. Venus could just cast a chart as seen from Venus, and have it
> > > interpreted according to the same rules as Earthly astrologers use.
> > Pure BS! Name these astrologers who "often" make this claim.
> It usually pops up from astrologers when they're attacked from this point
> of view: "Astrology is a geocentric system from medieval times, however
> the solar system is helio-centric!". The astrologers then often claim
> that e.g. inhabitants on Mars could take over human astrology more-or-less
> unchanged, but applying it to a Martio-centric system instead.
It "usually pops up" huh? Suuuure it does. Astrologers "often claim"
this, you say? How often would that be? You know, if you really could
make stuff up convincingly as you go along, you'd at least be amusing.
> I also knwo that Maggie is fond of this idea. Remember for instance last
> fall, when the Mars Observer failed, and (mostly) Maggie posted several
> charts of the planets -- as seen from Mars (close to which MO failed)!
> They had great fun at that in sci.astro!
I'll bet they did have fun in sci.astro--in that group it's considered very
rude to even mention astrology. In this group, where we tend to be a bit less
rigid, we simply draw the line at trashing astrology. But that doesn't
stop you, does it?
As for Maggie's possible fondness for heliocentric or other-planet-centric
astrology, well, I know she did post about it once. So I'll be generous
and say that's 1. OK, who else?
> > Astrology is so integrally geocentric that such claims have no empirical
> > nor even philosophical basis.
> That doesn't prevent the astrologer's from believing in them though...
Well, something does. You could only provide me with one instance of one
person making a conjecture. And there's a lot of astrologers out there.
> I agree with this 100%. However have YOU considered this as an argument
> against astrology?
Why would I? Hey, this is astrology, not rocket science. That a geo-
centric system might only work here on earth does not invalidate its
principles. Which are about the relationships between planets and people,
that latter group existing only on earth.
> > What value would the earth's moon have when viewed from, oh, Titan?
> Probably even less than Titan viewed from the Earth..... astrologers do
> not pay any attention to planetary satellites, unless the satellite orbit...
Someow I just knew you'd get off on Saturn-space astrology. I trust you
enjoyed yourself. We can only hope you'll try to go there personally to
validate your conjectures.
> > > Considering planets ruing signs, as seen from Venus there's only one
> > > inferior planet: Mercury. Which sign would the Earth rule as seen from
> > > Venus? ...
> > Who cares? Well, if life evolves on Venus before the Sun goes red giant,
> > it may be an issue. That's something I'm sure you worry about "often".
> "Who cares?" ????? Oh boy, what an ignorant attitude...... The influences,
> if existent, ought to be there even if there's no life there!
Why? See, there you go again with the physics. Platonist systems like
astrology revolve around the concept of a life force. Without life the
question is indeed irrelevant. You're the one who is ignorant--assuming that
the mechanism underlying astrology has a physical manifestation. All you
know about is astrophysics. Alas, those rules don't apply here.
> > Come on, Paul, my "nice little rule" breaks down under other conditions,
> > too: more planets are discovered, existing planets disappear or collide
> > or exchange orbits, or if 10 is suddenly no longer a tetrahedral number
> > or else simply turns into 11 (which it very well might for sufficiently
> > large values of 10 :-)
> That's why numerology is pretty dangerous.... or just looking too much for
> conicidences. Did you ever read Martin Gardner's little story about the
> "fiveness" of the Washington monument? Read on...
You know, if you're going to play the rationalist skeptic in this newsgroup,
it behoves you at least to know the standard *scientists'* jokes. Or
hadn't you heard the one about "2 = 3, for sufficiently large values of 2"?
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** *****
21 Mar 94 ****** ****** 1 Germinal An CCII
mikemagee
sys...@devetir.qld.gov.au "Darren Bock" writes:
> In article <2m1tsj$m...@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>,
> bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Andreas Bunkahle) writes:
> >
> >Some astrological thoughts about the hypothetical planets:
> >
> >There seems to be quite a tohuwabohu concerning the hypothetical planets.
> >A lot of them have been often suggested on a very unclear or even
> >clairvoyant basis.
>
> Someone mentioned that some of the indian texts refer to 18 "shadowy planets"
> in addition to the physical planets.
>
> Does anyone with the relevant texts know how to compute the orbital elements
> for these shadowy planets?
>
> If orbital elements are not available, does anyone have ephemeride style tables
> (for a significant period) for these planets?
> --
> Darren Bock Snail: Department of Employment Vocational Education
Sorry Darren, that's a Hindu text I don't have. As I said
earlier, the author claimed to be the son of the famous Varahamira
and at least some of these upagrahas were the nodes of other
of the Hindu planets.
If I remember the name of the book -- and I'm getting very absent minded
in my middle age -- I'll post details.
(Unfortunately the School of Oriental and Asiatic Studies (SOAS) here in
London has cut off my ordinary library membership and offered me corporate
membership instead -- I understand this is a growing trend
in education here in the UK. I protested -- but they just said
pay us 60 a year and place 500 deposit.)
The book with the co-ordinates of the upagrahas is in SOAS.
Mike
--
Paul Schlyter
Gadfly <gad...@cbnews.cb.att.com> wrote:
> > the solar system is helio-centric!". The astrologers then often claim
> > that e.g. inhabitants on Mars could take over human astrology more-or-less
> > unchanged, but applying it to a Martio-centric system instead.
>
> It "usually pops up" huh? Suuuure it does. Astrologers "often claim"
> this, you say? How often would that be?
astrologers claim the opposite, like you do.
> You know, if you really could make stuff up convincingly as you go along,
> you'd at least be amusing.
say unless tons of evidence can be presented?
> I'll bet they did have fun in sci.astro--in that group it's considered very
> rude to even mention astrology.
complained about this, he was posting in swnet.sci.astro. He violated two
rules of the group: 1. his subject was irrelevant to the group, and 2. he
didn't post his message in swedish, the conference language of that group.
It's NOT considered 'rude to even mention astrology' in sci.astro. In its
proper context (i.e. the history of astronomy) it's perfectly accepted, and
it has been done several times - astronomers do NOT deny the contribution to
astronomy by those ancient astrologers. However if some cretin post
something like "Hey, I was born at <birthtime+birthplace> -- can anyone do
a chart reading for me?" in sci.astro or swnet.sci.astro, THAT's not
appreciated!
> In this group, where we tend to be a bit less rigid, we simply draw the
> line at trashing astrology.
evidence against astrology ???
> But that doesn't stop you, does it?
more -- anyone responding to me, without having anything intelligible to
say, ends up there.
> As for Maggie's possible fondness for heliocentric or other-planet-centric
> astrology, well, I know she did post about it once. So I'll be generous
> and say that's 1. OK, who else?
just dreamt it all or even is making it up. I'll return to the subject when
I've gathered some more names or found some references in books. But
basically I agree with you -- astrology IS inherently geocentric (or, to be
proper, topocentric), and I'm happy that at least someone clearly agrees
with me on this. You know, you are the first astrologer I've heard that
has stated this that clearly -- otherwise it's usually astronomers who
considers astrology geocentric.
> Why would I? Hey, this is astrology, not rocket science. That a geo-
> centric system might only work here on earth does not invalidate its
> principles. Which are about the relationships between planets and people,
> that latter group existing only on earth.
outside the Earth?
> > if existent, ought to be there even if there's no life there!
>
> Why? See, there you go again with the physics. Platonist systems like
> astrology revolve around the concept of a life force. Without life the
> question is indeed irrelevant. You're the one who is ignorant--assuming that
> the mechanism underlying astrology has a physical manifestation. All you
> know about is astrophysics. Alas, those rules don't apply here.
somehow get aware of this and suddenly activate their dormant "influences" ?
Yes, I'm assuming some kind of "physical manifestation", that's correct.
The manifestation need not be something we know today, and it may be
very very complex -- however there should be SOME manifestation! That
assumption has proved very successful in many different situations, no
need to abandon it yet.
> You know, if you're going to play the rationalist skeptic in this newsgroup,
> it behoves you at least to know the standard *scientists'* jokes. Or
> hadn't you heard the one about "2 = 3, for sufficiently large values of 2"?
pi :-) However MArtin Gardner's essay on the "fiveness" of the Washington
monument was NOT a joke, but simply a demonstration of how "pyramidology"
(that "occult science" about the Cheops pyramid) works, and generally about
how coincidences ALWAYS are found if one looks hard enough for them.
> > But if these correlations correspond to real causal relations -- why is the
> > natal chart useless as a predictor?
>
> Because correlation does not imply cause-and-effect. You are stubbornly
> holding on to the only model of the universe you understand, I know that,
> but still, if you're going to hang around this newsgroup and bother
> everybody, you could at least become a little bit broad-minded.
OK -- if the "astrological infuences" are effects without any cause, how
on Earth could the planetary positions have any significance on these
effects??? If there's no cause involved, and if there are some relation
found, then that relation must be pure coincidence, nothing more.
> I know you were. You have the collosal arrogance to claim to understand
> why *all* astrologers do and believe what they do.
I suppose that matches the arrogance of astrologers pretending they know
who I am just from looking at my birth data....
> That's you, singular, Paul Schlyter. You, who know only rationalism.
I suppose I've become far too acquantied qith irrationalism in this
newsgroup....
> > I'm beginning to learn though --- more and more evidence piles up showing
> > that astrology really has nothing to do with the real world.....
>
> It certainly does not adhere to physical rules or methods, so if for you
> that is the alpha and omega of the "real world" then you're absolutely
> right, and you can go away now.
Not that easy, my friend! If astrology really works without any causes and
any (known as well as unknown) physical mechanisms -- then it doesn't really
say anything....
> Good bye m---f---, you're on you're own.
What does m--- f--- mean? "mean fart", or what ???
Bye!
Paul Schlyter
Darren Bock <sys...@devetir.qld.gov.au> wrote:
>In article <2m1tsj$m...@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>, bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de (Andreas Bunkahle) writes:
>>
>in addition to the physical planets.
>
>Does anyone with the relevant texts know how to compute the orbital elements
>for these shadowy planets?
>
>If orbital elements are not available, does anyone have ephemeride style
>tables (for a significant period) for these planets?
to my text about hypothetical planets, and then post an updated version
here.
Anyone? I'll even remove Jai from my killfile for awhile in case he has
something to say about this matter....
Darren Bock
>
>Some astrological thoughts about the hypothetical planets:
>
>There seems to be quite a tohuwabohu concerning the hypothetical planets.
>A lot of them have been often suggested on a very unclear or even
>clairvoyant basis.
Someone mentioned that some of the indian texts refer to 18 "shadowy planets"
in addition to the physical planets.
Does anyone with the relevant texts know how to compute the orbital elements
for these shadowy planets?
If orbital elements are not available, does anyone have ephemeride style tables
(for a significant period) for these planets?
Anyone that is participating in Project Hindsight is there any information
coming forward about Hypothetical planets or Shadowy planets?
This thread at least is getting back towards discussion of astrology
---
--
Darren Bock Snail: Department of Employment Vocational Education
sys...@devetir.qld.gov.au Unix Support, ITB, 1st Floor Forbes House
Ph: +61 7 227 5726 c/- GPO Box 69
Brisbane, Qld, Australia, 4001
Unknown
and was forwarded to you by PETE STAPLETON
--------------------
In article <2mcf4p$b...@electra.saaf.se>, pau...@electra.saaf.se
(Paul Schlyter) writes:
> > > Astrologers often claim that astrology is "universal", i.e.
inhabitants
> > > at e.g. Venus could just cast a chart as seen from Venus, and have it
> > > interpreted according to the same rules as Earthly astrologers use.
> > Pure BS! Name these astrologers who "often" make this claim.
> It usually pops up from astrologers when they're attacked from this point
> of view: "Astrology is a geocentric system from medieval times, however
> the solar system is helio-centric!". The astrologers then often claim
> that e.g. inhabitants on Mars could take over human astrology more-or-less
> unchanged, but applying it to a Martio-centric system instead.
It "usually pops up" huh? Suuuure it does. Astrologers "often claim"
this, you say? How often would that be? You know, if you really could
make stuff up convincingly as you go along, you'd at least be amusing.
> I also knwo that Maggie is fond of this idea. Remember for instance last
> fall, when the Mars Observer failed, and (mostly) Maggie posted several
> charts of the planets -- as seen from Mars (close to which MO failed)!
> They had great fun at that in sci.astro!
I'll bet they did have fun in sci.astro--in that group it's considered very
rude to even mention astrology. In this group, where we tend to be a bit
less
rigid, we simply draw the line at trashing astrology. But that doesn't
stop you, does it?
As for Maggie's possible fondness for heliocentric or other-planet-centric
astrology, well, I know she did post about it once. So I'll be generous
and say that's 1. OK, who else?
> > Astrology is so integrally geocentric that such claims have no empirical
> > nor even philosophical basis.
> That doesn't prevent the astrologer's from believing in them though...
Well, something does. You could only provide me with one instance of one
person making a conjecture. And there's a lot of astrologers out there.
> I agree with this 100%. However have YOU considered this as an argument
> against astrology?
Why would I? Hey, this is astrology, not rocket science. That a geo-
centric system might only work here on earth does not invalidate its
principles. Which are about the relationships between planets and people,
that latter group existing only on earth.
> > What value would the earth's moon have when viewed from, oh, Titan?
> Probably even less than Titan viewed from the Earth..... astrologers do
> not pay any attention to planetary satellites, unless the satellite
orbit...
Someow I just knew you'd get off on Saturn-space astrology. I trust you
enjoyed yourself. We can only hope you'll try to go there personally to
validate your conjectures.
> > > Considering planets ruing signs, as seen from Venus there's only one
> > > inferior planet: Mercury. Which sign would the Earth rule as seen
from
> > > Venus? ...
> > Who cares? Well, if life evolves on Venus before the Sun goes red
giant,
> > it may be an issue. That's something I'm sure you worry about "often".
> "Who cares?" ????? Oh boy, what an ignorant attitude...... The
influences,
> if existent, ought to be there even if there's no life there!
Why? See, there you go again with the physics. Platonist systems like
astrology revolve around the concept of a life force. Without life the
question is indeed irrelevant. You're the one who is ignorant--assuming
that
the mechanism underlying astrology has a physical manifestation. All you
know about is astrophysics. Alas, those rules don't apply here.
> > Come on, Paul, my "nice little rule" breaks down under other conditions,
> > too: more planets are discovered, existing planets disappear or collide
> > or exchange orbits, or if 10 is suddenly no longer a tetrahedral number
> > or else simply turns into 11 (which it very well might for sufficiently
> > large values of 10 :-)
> That's why numerology is pretty dangerous.... or just looking too much for
> conicidences. Did you ever read Martin Gardner's little story about the
> "fiveness" of the Washington monument? Read on...
You know, if you're going to play the rationalist skeptic in this newsgroup,
it behoves you at least to know the standard *scientists'* jokes. Or
hadn't you heard the one about "2 = 3, for sufficiently large values of 2"?
*** ***
Unknown
Quadibloc
> In article <CMtE6...@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
> Gadfly <gad...@cbnews.cb.att.com> wrote:
> > In article <2m7k85$p...@electra.saaf.se>, pau...@electra.saaf.se
> > (Paul Schlyter) writes:
> > > Astrologers often claim that astrology is "universal", i.e. inhabitants
> > > at e.g. Venus could just cast a chart as seen from Venus, and have it
> > > interpreted according to the same rules as Earthly astrologers use.
> > Pure BS! Name these astrologers who "often" make this claim.
> It usually pops up from astrologers when they're attacked from this point
> of view: "Astrology is a geocentric system from medieval times, however
> the solar system is helio-centric!". The astrologers then often claim
> that e.g. inhabitants on Mars could take over human astrology more-or-less
> unchanged, but applying it to a Martio-centric system instead.
for use on Mars, since it's a logical part of rebutting a claim that astrology
ought to be heliocentric.
I have made the crazy (?) suggestion that perhaps what is needed is what
I would call "polycentric astrology". That is: make a chart as if it were for
someone living on Jupiter - but focus on the aspects between other planets
and luminaries and Earth, considering them as factors affecting the "ray"
sent by Jupiter to us on Earth.
John Savard