Orbs

[wayne penner]

This has probably been discussed before as it is an important issue.

There is a movement in American astrology to enlarge the orbs allowed but I believe the orbs should be cut back severely. The trine, square and opposition are traditionally eight degrees. They should be cut to seven. The sextile should be kept to no more than five. The quincunx should be no more than two degrees, and the sesquiquadrate, a much misunderstood aspect I think, should be maxed at three. All other aspects, quintiles and so on should be no more that one degree.

The fewer aspects you can find, the better. Again this is just a personal opinion

I do believe there is a difference between applying and separating aspects. Applying seem to be more energetic and feisty if you will, while separating aspects are slower, plodding, bored.

Anyway, I would be interested in what othes think of my orb tolerances. By the way I have examples to back up my opinions which I haven't posted because I try not to bore people (I don't always succeed though).

[starlink]

Hello Wayne, I agree with you. Personally I never allowed more than max. 6 degrees for a conjunction ,square, trine and I used 5° max. for sextiles. Oppositions 7° but for Sun and Moon I take up to 10°, other planets 8°.
When planets fall in the 12th, applying to the Ascendant I might take a bit more, especially when Sun or Moon for the conjunctions. So I would go to 10° for the Lights and up to 8° for other planets.
For inconjuncts 2°, applying 2.5° and all other minor one's 1°, applying 1.5°
Maybe I take a bit too small, but when I am in doubt I ask the client how she feels about ......(the expression of that particular aspect) and when they say. OH YES, then I take a bigger orb. I think planets ruling Sun, Moon and Ascendant could be taken as more expressive energy and maybe the orbs a bit bigger, accordingly. Cheers, Star.

[lillyjgc]

Hi there,
I think it needs to be pointed out that in William Lilly's day, much larger orbs were used.Any so-called *modern trend* to enlarge the orbs is in a fact a return to older procedures. Like everything else, orbs need to be looked at in the context of the chart. For example if a stellium is involved, it would make sense to *allow* a wider orb...I assess *orb allowance* in terms of what else is happening in the chart, and whether an aspect is applying or separating. My astrology program uses a 10 deg orb, with a toggle for reducing it.
In terms of *the fewer aspects you can find the better*, Wayne, I totally disagree with you here..(assuming we are talking about natal here, not horary, where orbs serve a different purpose altogether)...To me it is the lesser used aspects that provide the colour/light and shade in a chart. these aspects are like *the fine print*.
Again, let me give you an example:
A moon square mercury aspect may play out very differently if there's a quintile attached to each end of the square...or a number of lesser aspects contacting the midpoints etc etc etc. See what I mean? It's too easy to generalise, even about orbs. Cheers Lillyjgc

[Natasha]

Luminary to luminary is extended as far as 10 degrees by some.
I feel that by the time we get to 10 degrees orb it would be difficult for most people the notice the aspect.
I am inclined to feel that it tails off after 7 degress.

But it varies . If you have a large stellium then some say they influence each other out to a wide orb. I am dubious tho.
Plus if there are other strong aspects to the planet/s like squares or oppositions it can concentrate the energy.

All being well I am inclined to feel about 7 degrees for a cojunction square & opposition. Trine is less - the energy is just too easy to take the distance.
Sextile I would go for about 4 degrees - 5 degreees tops.

I dont get into using minor aspects like semi sextiles or semi squares etc in natal charts.
But I definately use the quincunx also known as inconjunct. But wouldnt give it an orb of more than 2 degrees

In transits of outers like PLuto or Neptune I will look at semi squares if nothing else was going on. But I remember when I was studying astology how some students got bogged down in sequiquadrates when major oppositions were also occuring.

Consultation helps to indicate what is going on also.

[starlink]

Lilly, yes you are right, it is important not to overlook minor aspects, but I only do so if they are totally exact. An exact semi-sextile for instance I have seen as really working out, especially when I look at progressed planets touching natal one's, like for a wedding. Often you dont find a trine or sextile but several semi-sextiles, but they have to be exact. The minor aspects to non-personal planets, like Pluto, Neptune, Uranus I dont take serious, but to the luminaries or the other personal one's I do, as well as to the Ascendant and Asc. ruler, Sun and Moon rulers. I must confess, I hardly ever look at Quintiles and bi-quintiles. cheers, Star.

[Arian Maverick]

Luminary to luminary is extended as far as 10 degrees by some.
I feel that by the time we get to 10 degrees orb it would be difficult for most people the notice the aspect.
I am inclined to feel that it tails off after 7 degress.

I feel the same way, especially if the Moon is in its Balsamic phase because the New Moon has not occured until the Sun and the Moon are exactly conjunct, no matter how close they may be.

Yet if the Moon is ahead of the Sun in the zodiac (i.e. in the New Moon phase), I think I would consider a 10 degree orb because the person would feel the effects of the moon phase under which he or she is born, and the conjunction aspect corresponds with the New Moon.

I personally prefer tighter orbs for all aspects, however.

Arian Maverick

[gaer]

Personally I never allowed more than max. 6 degrees for a conjunction ,square, trine and I used 5° max. for sextiles. Oppositions 7° but for Sun and Moon I take up to 10°, other planets 8°.

Starlink, here is the problem I see with orbs.

If you only deal with aspects that align by sign and degree (conjunction, semi-sextile, sextile, square, trine, inconjunct), it's rather simple.

However, if you pay any attention at all to quintiles and biquintiles and to septile-like aspects (1/7, 2/7, 3/7, septile, biseptile, triseptile), you begin to run into aspects that can be analyzed two different ways unless orbs are kept very small.

An example:

Inconjunct=150 degrees
Triseptile=154 degrees 17 minutes.

If you give both an orb of 2 degrees, an aspect of around 152 degrees becomes a problem.

150=7/12
Triseptile=3/7

On one hand, semi-sextiles and inconjuncts are breaking up the circle into smaller divisions, since the denominator is 12.

A triseptile, with a denominator of 7, has a lower denominator.

So which aspect is more important?

I THINK most of us would immediately say that the inconjunct is more important, perhaps because of the resonance with 12, so important in Western astrology.

The most reasonable answer for orbs might be to set them a bit wide, then examine them carefully. Most of our programs will instantly list all of them, showing which are applying or separating and giving a read-out of the orbs according to distance.

In this way, for instance, you could specify 10 or 9 or 8 degrees for oppositions, then ignore any shown that seem too large. You might mentally cut them down to 6 degrees, 5, or less.

For transits I set to very small orbs, since the possible number of aspects explodes.

Now, a question to you and others here: which would you consider more important?

An inconjunct that is applying at one degree (approximately) or a square that is separating at 5 or 5 degrees? I'm not asking for a definite answer here, just posing a "balance" problem.

This is where I think intuition or at least "synthesizing" comes into play, looking at the whole chart and getting a feel for groupings, patterns, etc. :)

g

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I think it needs to be pointed out that in William Lilly's day, much larger orbs were used.

I think what you're referencing here is actually the moety (I hope I spelled that right) of the planets. The Greater Malefic and Benefic enjoy a 9° orb, while their lesser counterparts (including Mercury) are reduced to a 7° influence, Luna enjoys 12°, while Sol takes a whopping 15°, that's half a Sign.

I, personally, don't use the minor aspects. Interestingly enough, the tighest aspect in my chart is a Venus/Jupiter semi-square.

[starlink]

Hi Kaiousei! Long time no see! I would most certainly keep that semi-square in the picture, only because it is so tight. I never ever look at Septiles and most certainly not at tri-septiles as Gear mentioned. I take semi-squares and semi-sextiles always in account if they really have half degree to 0° orb, very very exact, otherwise you dont notice anything.
So Gear, to answer your question: the inconjunct is of course way more important than the tri-septile.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I would most certainly keep that semi-square in the picture, only because it is so tight.

Hey Starlink, just haven't been that active lately. Anyway, silly me, it was between Luna/Jupiter, 0°09' orb.

What's it mean? Minor tension between my least and most dignified planets? I want my three discordant aspect chart back. :(

[gaer]

So Gear, to answer your question: the inconjunct is of course way more important than the tri-septile.
Did I ask a question about that?

I probably did, but it would have been rhetorical, making people think about the orbs. ;)

I think that the semi-sexitle and inconjunct are two "major-minor" aspects, if I can play with words a little. In other words, although they are not considered major aspects, I think they can be as important or powerful when the orbs are very small as the more "major aspects", when the orbs for them are much larger.

If I see an inconjunct between two planets and the orb is less than a degree, I take it seriously. If it is less than 1/2 degree, it can be key to understand something important, in my experience.

The reason I think that sem-squares need to be examined equally carefully is that they often are keys in charts that have most planets in just two or three houses. This can be especially important when a sextile is split in half by a planet at the midpoint, all tight orbs, because the planet at the midpoint is slightly at odds with both planets that form the sextile. If that middle planet were 180 degrees away, in opposition to its position, it would form a yod.

I never look at quintiles or septiles (talking about biquintiles and biseptiles, triseptiles under the classification before I have carefully considered a chart without them.

However, if you are looking at a chart that seems to be lacking in aspects, if you are dealing with a person who seems amazingly at ease, advanced or "evolved" and can't see a reason for it, often looking at quintiles and septiles will show a very interesting picture. Not different, but it is as if there is a whole extra set of "colors" added.

I would certainly agree that you want VERY tight orbs when even thinking about septiles. For one thing, there will always be a lot of them unless you keep the orbs very small. Any planet can form a septile-type aspect three ways, on either side (total of 6), so they will be more common than quintiles purely statistically.

Quintiles, on the other hand, can only form two ways, on either side (total of 4)

In the same way there are only four places for the major hard aspects to show up (represented by the cross), and four places for the easy ones (a planet can be sexile and trine to four points in the wheel). :)

I've never been too sure about semi-squares and sesquiquadrates. Does a division by 8 resonate more than one by 7 or 5? My mind is open. I'm still investigating. ;)

Gaer

[wayne penner]

Well of course the Vedics allow the entire signs as aspects and there are highly intelligent people who swear by traditional Hindu astrology, although I have not studied it much so I have no opinion either way on Vedic, although such treatment of orbs is at odds with the Western view.

Just to throw a wrench in here (or a spanner if you're English), I think some of the least studied aspects are not just those that are in longtitude, but latitude. North or South declination may also be important, the precurser to the longtitudinal mid-points first proposed by Ebertin, which I do think have validity, but I can't see the reasoning for mid-point to mid-point aspects. For example to echo Gaer's point I think an exact semi-square between two planets in square has validity and brings that square into prominence, but the sem-square and sesqui-quadrate should not be overlooked.

Most people I know don't bother to check parallels, although surely it would make sense that two planets in longtitudinal aspect that also share the same latitude would be much more powerful than longtitude alone.

I will admit to a degree of laziness here as I too don't often consider latitudes, but I wonder if anyone has an opinion here. (Let me guess ...)

On the really minor aspects such as septiles and and so on, especially when they have the prefix "bi", I haven't found much to support these aspects with anything more than a one-degree orb, and even then they seem fairly insignificant. The quintile seems to be a benefic aspect, but again I cut the orb to one degree or less. I try to keep it simple because I think the fewer aspects you use the better results you will have.

In one sense of course the entire chart is simply one huge and complex aspect, and it is probable that the more integrated the chart, the more major aspects, the more clear is the destiny, for want of a better word.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Most people I know don't bother to check parallels, although surely it would make sense that two planets in longtitudinal aspect that also share the same latitude would be much more powerful than longtitude alone.

I was wondering if you'd explain this 'parallel', I know I've seen it mentioned in other places. Isn't it where say planet A is at 17°S and planet B is at 18°N? Close to one another's same degree of lattitude. Do they have to be in a beholding Sign or can it occur in any Sign? To me it would seem that they would have to be in the same Sign as, physically, a planet in the North lattitude in the Sign of Leo wouldn't be parallel to a planet in the South lattitude of Pisces. Even then, what is the symbolic interpretation of such aspects?

I've never been too sure about semi-squares and sesquiquadrates. Does a division by 8 resonate more than one by 7 or 5? My mind is open. I'm still investigating.

It's actually pretty interesting that you mention this division, as the major aspects are divided off of prominent Sign characteristics. I believe the conjunction is based off of the number 12, a number divided by itself is always 1, which would lead to the Conjunction being contained within the same Sign, and the number 12 is the number of Signs in the Zodiac. A Sextile is based off of 2, which we know to be the number of polarities in the Zodiac (positive, negative). A Square is based off of the number 3, which we know to be the number of modes of the Signs (Fixed, Mutable, Cardinal). A Trine is based off of the number 4, which is the number of elements contained within the Zodiac (Fire, Earth, Water, Air). I'm not exactly sure about the Opposition, but I think it's just an extension of the Square as one Fixed Signs can only Square two of the other three, and Oppose the final one. I'd like clarification on that if anyone can offer it.

[astro.teacher]

I have a page which describes the Traditional orbs of Planets and how to use them (in the case of being Combustion & Under the beams of the Sun) which may add to this discussion;

http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Chap2-14.html

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

(in the case of being Combustion & Under the beams of the Sun)

That's an interesting thought, as any planet within Sol's moety orb of conjunction would be delibated Within the Beams or Combust...

[wayne penner]

I was wondering if you'd explain this 'parallel', I know I've seen it mentioned in other places. Isn't it where say planet A is at 17°S and planet B is at 18°N? Close to one another's same degree of lattitude. Do they have to be in a beholding Sign or can it occur in any Sign? To me it would seem that they would have to be in the same Sign as, physically, a planet in the North lattitude in the Sign of Leo wouldn't be parallel to a planet in the South lattitude of Pisces. Even then, what is the symbolic interpretation of such aspects?



They used to be called Parallels of Conjunction and were considered like a conjunction if both planets were in North or both in South latitude. If one planet was North and the other South they were considered to be in opposition. I haven't done much research in this area though.

[starlink]

Did I ask a question about that?


Hi Gear, I believe you did ask something like that:

150=7/12
Triseptile=3/7 and then:



So which aspect is more important?



Maybe I misunderstood but I thought you meant between these two, which one is the more important.

Cheers, Star.

[starlink]

Gear, here another question you posted:


Now, a question to you and others here: which would you consider more important?
An inconjunct that is applying at one degree (approximately) or a square that is separating at 5 or 5 degrees? I'm not asking for a definite answer here, just posing a "balance" problem.


This I also find a difficult one and my first thought was:"the ingoing aspect"
In the past the inconjunct was not yet playing a major role in Astrology but that has changed and I think an inconjunct is mighty important. I put it as something as strong as a square because I find that the inconjunct is an aspect that is very difficult to live with or to recognize even. When we have a square, we usually know (or find out one way or another) what the problem is: we come on too strong, or we have great difficulties achieving etc.etc. We can work on that aspect (improve our behavior) after a couple of people have told us , or because we are confronted again and again with a certain problem. Or we leave it like that, give in, use it negatively.
But the inconjunct has something psychological attached to it so that the problems it causes are far more difficult to recognize. We could have crisis after crisis and still wonder why on earth we always end up in this mess and we probably have to undergo psycho-therapy to figure it all out.
I dont know if I express myself clearly here. Maybe you are of another opinion, very possible. But to answer this question, I think an ingoing inconjunct is probably stronger than an outgoing (after 5°!)square, BUT like you also mentioned, we should look at the whole picture here. Maybe the inconjunct does not involve personal planets and the square is between Moon and Mars, VERY personal. This will make a difference then. If planets like Pluto, Neptune and Uranus should be rulers of Asc., Sun or Moon (in an inconjunct), then it becomes again more important than a square between Neptune and Pluto. In the latter case, the square could work out more in the life departments (the houses), like problems with polution in your neighborhood or something like that, not a charactertrait that causes trouble. Cheers, Star.

[starlink]

Hi Wayne, I am very much a person who needs visual explanation, like someone drawing it for me instead of telling me. So in this case:

They used to be called Parallels of Conjunction and were considered like a conjunction if both planets were in North or both in South latitude.

If I look at a chart and draw the Horizon and the MC/IC axis line, where would I then find these parallels of conjunction between say, Mars and Venus.? Same latitude, both either East or West with same distance to the MC/IC or same distance between the ASC/DESC.? I have great difficulties "seeing" these paralells. I actually never used them.


I try to keep it simple because I think the fewer aspects you use the better results you will have.


I would say, the fewer minor aspects you use. This goes for most things in Astrology I find. Like I personally never use the fixed stars, Lilith (finally start looking more at Chiron but with reserve) Arabic parts and the likes. (just in horary but also very limited).It complicates matters and it starts like you are entering a maze where you can easily loose your way. Small (simple) is beautiful, that is and has always been my motto! Starlink

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

You're a lot like I am when it comes to this, Starlink. Don't tell me about it. Draw it out for me and show me how it works while telling me about it. :D

Here's something I drew up really quickly in Paint just now, showing how I understand parallels. I'm not sure if it's correct though, but it's how I envision it.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/imagehosting/3113472fa6307866a.jpg

[starlink]

OH WOW!! Kay, this is terrific. Thanks, even if it should not be correct ha ha!!! But that's upon Wayne to tell us I guess.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I'm always willing to help people understand concepts with my powers of Paint! :D

If it's not correct I'll take it down and put up the correct one.

[gaer]

Hi Gear, I believe you did ask something like that:

150=7/12
Triseptile=3/7 and then:

So which aspect is more important?

Star,

I remember now. Yes! Here is my own answer to my own question, but it's just my opinion. If an inconjunct is under 2 degrees orb, I'm interested in it. Usually I try to make a cut-off closer to 1 degree, but I set an orb for 2 in case a get a readout for an aspect that is 1 degree 10 minutes, for example.

However, if I see a triseptile that is 0 degree 00 minutes orb and an inconjunct that is 1 degree 30 minutes, I might be more interested in the triseptile. The problem is that so little research has been done, so it's all a matter of investigation at this point, or at least for the most part.

Quintiles really interest me too. There are you dealing with 1/5 or 2/5 (biquintile), and when you think about it, that's only a slightly larger division than a square (1/4).

Here's the interesting part: if you set the same orb for squares/oppositions and quintiles/biquntiles, you'll find roughly the same amount of each. Statistically, I think they are equally common.

The problem with doing that is that if we restrict quntiles to 2 degrees, and even that is getting rather large, then we would restrict squares and oppositions to 2 degrees. I don't think any of us would feel comfortable with that.

Here is what I do, just for a sort of "feel" for balance: I set major orbs to 6 degrees, minor ones to 2. But then I shade them in my mind. I don't really like using orbs as large as 10 degrees for anything, although at times I think there is a "feel" of something going on in certain patterns, but using up to 8 for a major aspect between Sun/Moon would not be too much for many. 6 is a nice round number, probably a bit large for sextiles, perhaps about right for trines and squares, perhaps a bit conservative for oppositions and conjunctions.

I read on one site that one astrologer uses orbs based on the "harmonic", so he uses the largest orbs for conjunctions, smaller for oppositions, smaller for square, smaller for trines, smaller for sextiles, and so on. His method seemed a bit extreme to me, since it would result in giving a quintile/biquintile (1/5, 2/5) a larger orb than a sextile (1/6).

Let me stop here, and I won't say more until you respond, because it will get too long. I agree that inconjuncts are terribly important when they are small orbs. Someone mentiond Jeffrey Dahmer, and I don't ever recall seeing so many inconjuncts in a chart. It's interesting that most of them disappear if you do not include Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, and Chiron (I know some people are going to reject this) also comes into play.

I don't think any formula works. There are two many factors, and a system can be as limiting as it is helpful, but it does seem that an aspect that is applying should have more "power" than one that is separating, given the same orb, and it also seems to me that a "minor" aspect of very small orb, close to zero, at least needs to be as carefully considered as a "major" aspect that is rather wide.

So I think we are reasoning along the same line. ;)

Gaer

[wayne penner]

Gear, here another question you posted:


This I also find a difficult one and my first thought was:"the ingoing aspect"
In the past the inconjunct was not yet playing a major role in Astrology but that has changed and I think an inconjunct is mighty important. I put it as something as strong as a square because I find that the inconjunct is an aspect that is very difficult to live with or to recognize even. When we have a square, we usually know (or find out one way or another) what the problem is: we come on too strong, or we have great difficulties achieving etc.etc. We can work on that aspect (improve our behavior) after a couple of people have told us , or because we are confronted again and again with a certain problem. Or we leave it like that, give in, use it negatively.
But the inconjunct has something psychological attached to it so that the problems it causes are far more difficult to recognize. We could have crisis after crisis and still wonder why on earth we always end up in this mess and we probably have to undergo psycho-therapy to figure it all out.
I dont know if I express myself clearly here. Maybe you are of another opinion, very possible. But to answer this question, I think an ingoing inconjunct is probably stronger than an outgoing (after 5°!)square, BUT like you also mentioned, we should look at the whole picture here. Maybe the inconjunct does not involve personal planets and the square is between Moon and Mars, VERY personal. This will make a difference then. If planets like Pluto, Neptune and Uranus should be rulers of Asc., Sun or Moon (in an inconjunct), then it becomes again more important than a square between Neptune and Pluto. In the latter case, the square could work out more in the life departments (the houses), like problems with polution in your neighborhood or something like that, not a charactertrait that causes trouble. Cheers, Star.

This is excellent observation in my opinion.

The inconjunct used to be considered very minor but over time we have realized that it is indeed an important, if not major, aspect. I had not considered the psychological stress that you refer to with the inconjunct although I suppose in a general sense all afflictions have some inherent psychological issues. As for the inconjunct being as powerful as a square, and I understand that you are using dimensional thinking here, but I haven't seen evidence that it is quite that powerful. I recall one writer stating that it is like a weak opposition, and this seems more in tune with the aspect. It seems to strain the planets rather than crystalize and shatter them as the square does. The square is a sudden shock to the system, the inconjunct seems to stress.

Some authorities consider four degrees the orb for the inconjunct, although I think that is just too wide. I am a proponant of cutting down the orbs drastically ... I just seem to get better results when I work with fewer aspects.

As for the asteroids, I still can't get my head around the dynamic. I don't know how asteroids work. Fixed Stars make sense, certainly at latitudes close to the ecliptic, but asteroids are bewildering to me because I can't see them as anything than pieces of rock, and there are several million of them, some the size of a TV set. So it's hard to think that the asteroids have influence.

I have an exact sextile of Sun and Chiron. I have not found any evidence in my own life of the effects of this aspect.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

The inconjunct used to be considered very minor but over time we have realized that it is indeed an important, if not major, aspect.

What's the significance of 2.4?

I am a proponant of cutting down the orbs drastically ... I just seem to get better results when I work with fewer aspects.

I don't think the aspect itself is going to say much. Sol Trining Jupiter from 14° away may fit within the moety of the planet, but how strong of an influence can such a wide Trine be? You can cut them down all you like, as the fact that they aspect one another is not important as if one feels and exhibits this aspect, and this happens depending on the 'tightness' of the orb itself.

I don't know how asteroids work. Fixed Stars make sense, certainly at latitudes close to the ecliptic, but asteroids are bewildering to me because I can't see them as anything than pieces of rock, and there are several million of them, some the size of a TV set. So it's hard to think that the asteroids have influence.

Heh, I'm a huge Quartet fan. This thinking you've exhibited here is rather simplistic. "So many objects, too little time". But that's a topic for another thread. ;)

I have an exact sextile of Sun and Chiron. I have not found any evidence in my own life of the effects of this aspect.

I agree, Chiron = gross. :P *covers self in flame retardant blanket*

[wayne penner]

Well while my thinking might be simplistic, I am a simple man.

I have yet to find anyone who can explain why the asteroids work. Perhaps you should start a thread on asteroids and explain the dynamic, how and why they work. I would be interested especially as I need all the sextiles I can get.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I have yet to find anyone who can explain why the asteroids work.

I have yet to find anyone who can explain why astrology works. So, I guess you and I are in the same boat. :(

I would be interested especially as I need all the sextiles I can get.

Ahahaha! :D I don't know if this was meant to be humourous or not, but it definately made me laugh.

Perhaps you should start a thread on asteroids and explain the dynamic, how and why they work.

While that would be interesting, I only use four asteroids. If you can find someone who can explain how and why anything in astrology works, you've found yourself a keeper. Besides that, I think my computer's messed up or something. I tried to post a thread earlier today, an event chart concerning the writer's strike, but when I went to post it I got the dreaded "Website Not Responding" page and I lost everything I typed. :( Sad day. I guess I could still try though.

[wayne penner]

I have yet to find anyone who can explain why astrology works. So, I guess you and I are in the same boat. :(



Ahahaha! :D I don't know if this was meant to be humourous or not, but it definately made me laugh.



While that would be interesting, I only use four asteroids. If you can find someone who can explain how and why anything in astrology works, you've found yourself a keeper. Besides that, I think my computer's messed up or something. I tried to post a thread earlier today, an event chart concerning the writer's strike, but when I went to post it I got the dreaded "Website Not Responding" page and I lost everything I typed. :( Sad day. I guess I could still try though.

Well I think there is some logic to using the planets and the Stars, and we all know that astrology works, whether we can explain how is a different problem, and a problem it is because scientists - people who measure things carefully and precisely think we're all baked out of our minds.

Here's my issue with asteroids. You might use the larger Chiron but why would not the smallest asteroids also not have influence? But if that is the case you have to deal with the million or so asteroids that have been identified so far, and I wonder why these wouldn't work, if Chiron does?

I have asked many astrologers who use asteroids to explain, but I have never received an answer.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I tried to put up a thread about it, but I got the freakin' "Website not Responding" page again, and it didn't post. Though, so as not to distract from the topic of orbs anymore, I'll PM you my thoughts on it.

Look for it. ;)

[gaer]

Well I think there is some logic to using the planets and the Stars, and we all know that astrology works, whether we can explain how is a different problem, and a problem it is because scientists - people who measure things carefully and precisely think we're all baked out of our minds.

Here's my issue with asteroids. You might use the larger Chiron but why would not the smallest asteroids also not have influence? But if that is the case you have to deal with the million or so asteroids that have been identified so far, and I wonder why these wouldn't work, if Chiron does?

I have asked many astrologers who use asteroids to explain, but I have never received an answer.
Wayne, like many other people, I'm also in the dark.

http://erc.arc.nasa.gov/HowBig/mass.htm (http://erc.arc.nasa.gov/HowBig/mass.htm)

If we can accept this data as correct, then the earth is 500 times the mass of pluto. To put that into perspective, earth has a bit more than 18 times the mass of Mercury.

However, I recently found out that it's "demotion" is not because of mass but because it is incapable of "clearing away debris" as it orbits. That's the third criterion for determining "planet-hood", and scientists are not in agreement about any of this, not all of them. Are they ever?

At any rate, size, gravitational attraction, and mass have nothing to do with how we rate power or influcence. That's why scientitist DO claim we are all "baked"!

There are about 40,000 known asteroids that are over 1 km in diameter in the asteroid belt. It seems to me that there has to be (at least) some cut off point.

I don't use asteroids, at least not yet, but here's a powerful argument for at least Ceres, if what I just read is correct:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/asteroids/ (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/asteroids/)

Ceres is about 578 miles (930 kilometers) in diameter. Ceres is now considered to be a dwarf planet.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ephemerides/asteroid/masses/PressRelease.htm (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ephemerides/asteroid/masses/PressRelease.htm)


For comparison, this means that Ceres has 1.18% of the mass of the Moon while Pallas has 0.43% the Moon's mass and Vesta is 0.41% of the mass of the Moon.

Juno is apparently in the top 10 asteroids (in mass) but probably was discovered so early becaue of its brighness.

As far as I can tell, there is a HUGE drop off in mass once you get past the biggest of the asteroids. Estimates I read give Ceres something between 1/3 and 1/2 the mass of all the comets.

If I ever get around to investigating an asteroid in my own chart and those of other people I know, comparing it with information I'm able to gleam from other sources, I would certainly think Ceres would be good place to start.

Now: how large an orb would we give it? :)

No answers, just a lot of questions. ;)

Gaer

[wayne penner]

Wayne, like many other people, I'm also in the dark.

http://erc.arc.nasa.gov/HowBig/mass.htm (http://erc.arc.nasa.gov/HowBig/mass.htm)

If we can accept this data as correct, then the earth is 500 times the mass of pluto. To put that into perspective, earth has a bit more than 18 times the mass of Mercury.

However, I recently found out that it's "demotion" is not because of mass but because it is incapable of "clearing away debris" as it orbits. That's the third criterion for determining "planet-hood", and scientists are not in agreement about any of this, not all of them. Are they ever?

At any rate, size, gravitational attraction, and mass have nothing to do with how we rate power or influcence. That's why scientitist DO claim we are all "baked"!

There are about 40,000 known asteroids that are over 1 km in diameter in the asteroid belt. It seems to me that there has to be (at least) some cut off point.

I don't use asteroids, at least not yet, but here's a powerful argument for at least Ceres, if what I just read is correct:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/asteroids/ (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/asteroids/)

Ceres is about 578 miles (930 kilometers) in diameter. Ceres is now considered to be a dwarf planet.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ephemerides/asteroid/masses/PressRelease.htm (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/ephemerides/asteroid/masses/PressRelease.htm)


For comparison, this means that Ceres has 1.18% of the mass of the Moon while Pallas has 0.43% the Moon's mass and Vesta is 0.41% of the mass of the Moon.

Juno is apparently in the top 10 asteroids (in mass) but probably was discovered so early becaue of its brighness.

As far as I can tell, there is a HUGE drop off in mass once you get past the biggest of the asteroids. Estimates I read give Ceres something between 1/3 and 1/2 the mass of all the comets.

If I ever get around to investigating an asteroid in my own chart and those of other people I know, comparing it with information I'm able to gleam from other sources, I would certainly think Ceres would be good place to start.

Now: how large an orb would we give it? :)

No answers, just a lot of questions. ;)

Gaer

Gaer I don't think anyone is in agreement about anything, which I find wonderful ... If we all agreed it would surely be a boring world.

But really, how would the asteriods work? Surely it must be by size, and if not why not, and I will accept elevation sort of, but the problem is that there are millions of these things floating about. It's a simple question I ask and I have never received an answer from those who use asteroids.

I keep an open mind on asteroids, as I try to do on all matters, but the use of asteroids seems, frankly, an excuse to plug in more complexity into what is already a highly complex system so that we can abrogate thought.

[gaer]

Gaer I don't think anyone is in agreement about anything, which I find wonderful ... If we all agreed it would surely be a boring world.

But really, how would the asteriods work? Surely it must be by size, and if not why not, and I will accept elevation sort of, but the problem is that there are millions of these things floating about. It's a simple question I ask and I have never received an answer from those who use asteroids.

I keep an open mind on asteroids, as I try to do on all matters, but the use of asteroids seems, frankly, an excuse to plug in more complexity into what is already a highly complex system so that we can abrogate thought.
My answer is practical and personal, so only valid for me.

You check something out in your own chart, think about it deeply. If you find an important aspect, you read what others say. Does it fit?

Then you check it out in charts of other people you know very well. Does it add anything? Or just add confusion?

A perfect example is Chiron. Some people feel strongly that it is important in their charts and in those of others they know. Other people don't see a connection.

There is always a balance between simplicity and complexity. Too many factors (planets, points, asteroid, fixed stars) produce so many factors that it seems out of control to me. Ignoring something that MIGHT be important could result in missing important information.

We are dealing with yet another razor's edge. One obvious result of using more factors (and this includes analyzing more minor aspects) is that at some point you have to start cutting back on orbs or their is an overflow of data that is beyond the capability of the human mind to digest.

Astrologers, at least many of them, are attracted to astrology because of patterns. At least this is true for me. We look for connections, and we become good at it. But there is always the danger that we will see importance in things that are pure coincidence. We never know for sure.

An example: Chiron was conjunct Pluto between December 30th and 31st, depending on your position in the world (longitude) in 1999.

That could mean something. The new millenium. Or could be absolute coincidence.

That's what I love about astrology, but it's also what frustrates me immensely. It defies scientific analysis and logic. It remains a deep and fascinating mystery to me, because frankly I don't understand why it works—any of it. :)

g

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Juno is apparently in the top 10 asteroids (in mass) but probably was discovered so early becaue of its brighness.

Definately, she and Vesta are the most luminous asteroids.

As far as I can tell, there is a HUGE drop off in mass once you get past the biggest of the asteroids. Estimates I read give Ceres something between 1/3 and 1/2 the mass of all the comets.

The Quartet alone hold just over half the mass of the entire Main Asteroid Belt.

Now: how large an orb would we give it?

I use 5° :D But that's for everything. I feel that their moety would be larger than the Outer planets, as (if I'm not mistaken) all four members of the Quartet can be seen in the sky under the right conditions (like Uranus).

It's a simple question I ask and I have never received an answer from those who use asteroids.

Well...I guess you didn't get my PM last night. -.-' So, there ya go, answered by a Quartet fan.

A perfect example is Chiron. Some people feel strongly that it is important in their charts and in those of others they know. Other people don't see a connection.

Chiron...*twitch* :D

[starlink]

Hello Wayne, thanks for writing down your side of the whole thing.
You are right of course when you say:
I suppose in a general sense all afflictions have some inherent psychological issues. As for the inconjunct being as powerful as a square, and I understand that you are using .
Maybe I expressed myself wrongly. What I meant was, that the (psych.)issues of a square are more noticable to the individual. They usually know they go a bit over the top with this or that, as opposed to the issues of a Yod. There they feel (stress, tension, the eternal cloud in the background) that something is out of balance (maybe that's why that certain Astrologer compared it as being a light version of the opposition, where I totally disagree by the way. Oppositions more often than not give relational troubles, with others ,and the houses show where these problems are (2-8, troubles about money issues within your partnership or with the bankmanager, 10-4, troubles with your spouce because you are never home, always in the office.(just an example), Yods are personal troubles that have to find a balance within the person.It is like being pulled in two completely unrelated directions and you dont even know why you have this. So you get into a crisis (which often affects your health by the way!!) and you could still not know how that happened. You are not really aware of the problems that cause the crisis. In real life it very often coincides with HAVING to make a choice, a very difficult one.

Kayiou, sorry man, I know that this is YOU:Heh, I'm a huge Quartet fan and because we are not like you, are we therefore:

thinking rather simplistic
??


asteroids are bewildering to me because I can't see them as anything than pieces of rock, and there are several million of them, some the size of a TV set. So it's hard to think that the asteroids have influence.

Yes, I think so too. Honestly, we are already have to deal with so many different aspects of Astrology, let's keep it straight and simple and leave the nitty gritty details to those who just like doing those things. We need people who go into all of that otherwise we would never know if Asteroids work or not, but for me it is AAAAHHHH really a bit too much to go into.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Kayiou, sorry man, I know that this is YOU:

Heh, I'm a huge Quartet fan

and because we are not like you, are we therefore:

thinking rather simplistic

??

Well, if you're only argument is "So many!!"...yes. It's either "So Many" or "All or None" and neither are very good arguments, I think.

Honestly, we are already have to deal with so many different aspects of Astrology, let's keep it straight and simple and leave the nitty gritty details to those who just like doing those things.

Astrology was never straight or simple, and if it ever was then someone dropped the ball somewhere. I think it's harder for astrology to be simple now than it was back in traditional times. Then, everyone followed one book with some minor changes from astrologer to astrologer. Nowadays we've got such things as Traditional Astrology, Modern Astrology, and Uranian Astrology that all have their own - very different - rulebooks.

[wayne penner]

Okay...well...since this has turned into a "Silly asteroids" thread now :P, I'm not so worried as to distracting from the topic, so I'll post (more or less) what I PMed to Wayne, cept I can do it more thought out and indepth than I did before.

I feel what you have to do is figure out what constitutes an astrological planet. Since astrology really has no rules like astronomy now does, it becomes complicated and basically just becomes guess work, but I feel the best thing to do is look at the original seven planets of tradition, obviously, these seven must have astrological significance, but why? Well, they didn't have a telescope to look into and see Mars as a big red ball or Saturn as a ball of gas with a ring to know it was something special, so how did they do it?

I think it's because they seemed different than everything else. Sol and Luna are obviously different from the rest of the stars in the sky. Sol is alone in the daytime sky, and Luna obviously dominates the night sky by sheer size and brightness. So, what about Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn? The Greek 'planetes' (I think that's right) means 'wanderer', and that's what the ancients saw those five stars as. Unlike the rest of the stars that seemed fixed in their positions and all moved in one massive motion during the night (an optical illusion caused by the Earth spinning on its axis), these five moved independant of those star, going across the sky more quickly, in their own speeds. So, since Sol and Luna so obviously dominate their respective times, and the five planets were the only ones who moved outside the mass flow, they were something special, and so dubbed as planets.

Jumping into the modern era (whoosh!) Uranus was heralded as a planet right after discovery, and it's due to the anamolies in his orbit that astronomers began calculating and searching for the planet that was disturbing Uranus' orbit, and they found Neptune. Neptune was interesting because everyone had a predisposition concerning Neptune, it had to be a planet. Even before it was discovered people were looking for "the planet" that was in the calculated position Neptune was in. The same thing can be said about Pluto, after Neptune was discovered there were anamolies in his orbit too, so there must be another planet beyond Neptune messing with the orbits of both himself and Uranus. Again calculations and searching began to find this "planet", and they found Pluto in this planet's spot, so Pluto must be a planet.

Now, moving on to the Quartet, how does this apply to them? It works just the same way. If any of the asteroidal bodies are going to be considered anything special, it's going to be the first twelve who were all assigned glyphs. After 12 Victoria, they figured out "hey...there are a lot of those suckers out there, let's not give them anymore glyphs." So, it's after 12 Victoria that they decided there was something else going on. After Vesta, there was a thirty-eight year period in which no other asteroids were discovered, in these thirty-eight years, the Quartet were given the status of 'planet' in many astronomical texts, assigned their glyphs, and given their astrological associations. 5 Astraea may have even been considered a planet for a year, but I think it was the discovery of 6 Hebe, 7 Iris, and 8 Flora all in four months of each other (July to October of 1847) that seriously put a doubt on the mind of astronomers and astrologers as to what these bodies were and ultimately cost the Quartet their planethood.

The story of Pluto is just this year's model of the Quartet. Planets for awhile, but then downgraded. So, I don't see how you can use Pluto still and not use the Quartet, to me it's nothing short of hypocracy. There may be several billion objects in the sky, but only fifteen were ever considered as planets (Sol, Luna, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Pluto, Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, Vesta, and Eris for about a month until Pluto's demotion and her ultimate classification, but she would have been a planet).

As for Chiron, please, someone out there tell me the importance of Chiron. And no, being discovered between the orbit of Uranus and Saturn is not enough to be special.



Definately, she and Vesta are the most luminous asteroids.



The Quartet alone hold just over half the mass of the entire Main Asteroid Belt.



I use 5° :D But that's for everything. I feel that their moety would be larger than the Outer planets, as (if I'm not mistaken) all four members of the Quartet can be seen in the sky under the right conditions (like Uranus).



Well...I guess you didn't get my PM last night. -.-' So, there ya go, answered by a Quartet fan.



Chiron...*twitch* :D

To reply (and to Gaer) you have obviously done some considereable research into the asteroids, and the Quartet. I always respect that but it is a difficult area.

I have a general philosophical problem with the asteroids that I don't with the planets. For example when each of the trans-Saturnian were discovered a new form of energy was also discovered. The first experiments to harness electricity were being done. The first oil well was drilled in 1848, the same year that Neptune was discovered. When Pluto was actually discovered in 1930 (although it had been theoretically discovered as far back as 1913 I believe) the first experiments with nuclear fission were taking place. I think this is significant.

I am not at all knowledgable on the meanings of the asteroids and my concern is that there appears to be no real consistentcy in their use. My issue is simply that the asteroids appear to be either the left-overs of some kind of cosmic collision, or a planet that failed to form due to the perturbation of Jupiter's immense gravitational pull. I don't know and astronomers are still debating the issue.

There is some reasonable theory as to why astrology "works", related to Jung's theory of synchronicity, in that while the planets in their cycles do not actually cause anything but rather reflect conditions according to the time of birth of anything that can evolve. Rather like a clock not causing time, but measuring it. Time is after all only a measurement in space.

So I wandered off a bit but I'm prone to do that.

I just can't find a theory to support the use of asteroids.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

The first experiments to harness electricity were being done.

I'm not sure I quite agree with that, you can find electrical experiments being done as far back as the 1600s. The leyden jar experiements occured in the early 1740s, about forty years for Uranus was discovered.

The first oil well was drilled in 1848, the same year that Neptune was discovered.

Oil's been in use for...forever. Mostly whale oil, mind you, used to power their lamps and such, but oil nonetheless.

When Pluto was actually discovered in 1930 (although it had been theoretically discovered as far back as 1913 I believe) the first experiments with nuclear fission were taking place

You win on that one. :)

I am not at all knowledgable on the meanings of the asteroids and my concern is that there appears to be no real consistentcy in their use.

I'd like you to expand on this, if you would. In what way consistent? Meanings? Or inclusion at all? Or...what?

My issue is simply that the asteroids appear to be either the left-overs of some kind of cosmic collision, or a planet that failed to form due to the perturbation of Jupiter's immense gravitational pull. I don't know and astronomers are still debating the issue.

Well, in that case, we may never know. :D Silly astronomers. This reminds me of the whole "Tiamat" theory. The planet that once supposedly resided in the asteroid belt's domain. Hit something, or got blown up...or...something like that and the asteroid belt is what's left. Anyway, would something like that really matter though? It is an interesting thought, but the same theory could be applied to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt, or Eris and the Scattered Disk.

There is some reasonable theory as to why astrology "works", related to Jung's theory of synchronicity, in that while the planets in their cycles do not actually cause anything but rather reflect conditions according to the time of birth of anything that can evolve.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about Jung's theory. That is, of course, assuming that astrology does simply reflect and not cause events. I wonder how someone would test that. Hm...

I just can't find a theory to support the use of asteroids.

I think I already gave you one. ;)

Actually...I just had an idea. I'm going to see if there was anything going in the world during the discovery of the Quartet...we'll say... 1800-18010 (Ceres was discovered in 1801 and Vesta discovered in 1807).

To the internet! *bum bumbumbum!!*

[wayne penner]

I'm not sure I quite agree with that, you can find electrical experiments being done as far back as the 1600s. The leyden jar experiements occured in the early 1740s, about forty years for Uranus was discovered.



Oil's been in use for...forever. Mostly whale oil, mind you, used to power their lamps and such, but oil nonetheless.



You win on that one. :)



I'd like you to expand on this, if you would. In what way consistent? Meanings? Or inclusion at all? Or...what?



Well, in that case, we may never know. :D Silly astronomers. This reminds me of the whole "Tiamat" theory. The planet that once supposedly resided in the asteroid belt's domain. Hit something, or got blown up...or...something like that and the asteroid belt is what's left. Anyway, would something like that really matter though? It is an interesting thought, but the same theory could be applied to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt, or Eris and the Scattered Disk.



Ah yes, I had forgotten about Jung's theory. That is, of course, assuming that astrology does simply reflect and not cause events. I wonder how someone would test that. Hm...



I think I already gave you one. ;)

Actually...I just had an idea. I'm going to see if there was anything going in the world during the discovery of the Quartet...we'll say... 1800-18010 (Ceres was discovered in 1801 and Vesta discovered in 1807).

To the internet! *bum bumbumbum!!*

I agree that there were experiments in electricity prior to 1785, but electricity was first harnessed in 1785, or about then, and that's really what I'm talking about. Oil has been used since biblical times, but once again it was first harnessed in 1848 (Edwin Drake as I recall was the first driller).

On the asteroid belt, I remember being a member of a completely whacked-out society once, although I have been a member of a lot of whacked-out organizations, including the Flat Earth Society of London (which still has proof that the earth is flat and not a sphere). Of course there was a big argument and a splinter-group evolved that stated that the Earth is actually saucer-shaped and not flat. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/)

The Aetherius society (http://www.aetherius.org), a bunch of completely whacked-out lunatics, one reason I felt so comfortable as a member, maintains that the asteroids are the remnants of the planet Maldek (or Malduk - yes there was an argument about the spelling too) which was blown up as a result of experiments with nuclear fission which blew the planet apart. According to these guys the reason there were a massive number of UFO sightings shortly after the US dropped bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 was because the Intergalactic Parliament was concerned that we would do the same thing with Earth. Honest!

I still don't know about asteroids and you will appreciate that this is not a strictly serious post, but I do thank you for taking the time to share your observations regarding asteroids. There may be something to asteroids that I don't know about and I will investigate further.

[gaer]

first oil well was drilled in 1848, the same year that Neptune was discovered.

I just found this:

On September 23, 1846, Johann Gottfried Galle (of the Berlin Observatory) and Louis d'Arrest (student of astronomy) became the first two people to observe the planet Neptune.

Lots of things happend in 1846, but this particularly caught my attention:

http://www.geocities.com/kfzhouy/Chron/Chron12e.html

Two German socialists, Marx and Engels, set up the Communist Correspondence Committee and started the international socialist movement. In 1847 Marx and Engels joined the League of the Just, which was renamed the Communist League in June. In 1848.2 Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto, which laid the theoretical foundation of Communism (also called Scientific Socialism or Marxism).

Does that prove anything? Of course not. But it's interesting timing!

And this:

link (http://library.thinkquest.org/28327/html/universe/solar_system/planets/uranus/exploration/discovery_of_uranus.html)

Historically, Uranus was a planet that was first discovered in 1690 by man named John Flamsteed who at the time did not realize it as a planet, but rather another star (he labeled it 34 Tauri). Thereafter, it was frequently observed but disregarded and ignored. However, on March 13, 1781, an astronomer named William Herschel discovered Uranus with his telescope while surveying the sky.

I find out all sorts of fascinating things while looking up things about astrology/astronomy.

I'm not sure I would link Neptune to energy. A link to a new way of thinking, which I think has been shown to be largely delusional, is more fitting. ;)

Now, what happened in 1781? Well, it's ironic that Herschel meant to honor King George III at exactly the same year that England was clearly loosing the war against the US. British forces under Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. We always think of "1776", but I don't think the war was over until about 1783. This may be ethnocentric, but if the founding of the US was really important, the timing is interesting. :)

When Pluto was actually discovered in 1930 (although it had been theoretically discovered as far back as 1913 I believe) the first experiments with nuclear fission were taking place. I think this is significant.

I've always been interested in that connection too. Pluto and nuclear research, blowing things up, harnessing a new form of incredibly explosive and destructive energy.

Somehow the discussion of orbs seems to have gone right out the window. :rolleyes:

Gaer

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I agree that there were experiments in electricity prior to 1785, but electricity was first harnessed in 1785, or about then, and that's really what I'm talking about

Oops, that one's my bad, I guess I misunderstood.

Oil has been used since biblical times, but once again it was first harnessed in 1848 (Edwin Drake as I recall was the first driller).

I still don't know about this one, oil's been 'harnessed' forever. Perhaps not oil from the Earth, but oil is oil, and I would think whale oil to be more appropriate for Neptune. Same stuff, just a different source.

According to these guys the reason there were a massive number of UFO sightings shortly after the US dropped bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 was because the Intergalactic Parliament was concerned that we would do the same thing with Earth. Honest!

@.@ I think George Lucas wants his story back. :P Anyway, I think I've heard something similar to the Malduk/Maldek story, though I've seen it as Marduk more often than not.

I still don't know about asteroids and you will appreciate that this is not a strictly serious post, but I do thank you for taking the time to share your observations regarding asteroids. There may be something to asteroids that I don't know about and I will investigate further.

No problem, I enjoy arguing the Quartet. Helps me refine my astrological understanding.

On September 23, 1846, Johann Gottfried Galle (of the Berlin Observatory) and Louis d'Arrest (student of astronomy) became the first two people to observe the planet Neptune.

Historically, Uranus was a planet that was first discovered in 1690 by man named John Flamsteed who at the time did not realize it as a planet, but rather another star (he labeled it 34 Tauri). Thereafter, it was frequently observed but disregarded and ignored.

While interesting, I really don't think these count as discovery dates. The emergence of it as something different (rather than a star seen at a passing glance), the birth of it in the mind of the discoverer of "Hey...I've got something here". Just my opinion of course, but I think thinking you've found something new instead of just thinking you've found another star is what counts.

I'm not sure I would link Neptune to energy.

Yes, I agree. I was surprised to see the connection with oil wayne provided. I thought it strange, since Neptune is about lethargy and that which wears away.

Somehow the discussion of orbs seems to have gone right out the window.

Psh, I like this one more anyway. :)

Anyway, I did make up my list of events that I connected with the Quartet.

April 24th, 1800: Library of Congress -- Pallas
May 5th, 1800: Act of Union -- Juno
June 2nd, 1800: Smallpox vaccination -- Pallas
November 17th, 1800: Congress' first session -- Pallas
Undated 1801: First census in France and Great Britian -- Ceres
Undated 1802: Marie Tussaud's wax museum -- Pallas
Undated 1802: Steamship Charlotte Dundas -- Vesta
1803: Lousiana purchase -- Ceres?
February 1804: Steam locomotives -- Vesta
March 7, 1804: Horticultural Society founded -- Ceres
June 15th, 1804: Twelfth Amendment -- Pallas
Undated 1804: World population reaches 1 billion -- Ceres?
Undated 1805: James Squire/hops -- Ceres
Undated 1806: Webster publishes first English dictionary -- Pallas
August 17, 1807: Clermont, first american steamboat -- Vesta
February 11, 1808: Anthracite coal first burned -- Vesta
April 6, 1808: American Fur Company/Pacific Fur Company 1810 -- Ceres?
Undated 1809: Nicolas Francois Appert canning food -- Ceres

Ever changing European alliances -- Juno
Several independences announced -- Vesta

[wayne penner]

Well we're all totally off orbs but things change so you go with the flow.

Gaer pointed out the revolution of 1776 and later the major revolution in France which actually destabilized all of Europe and paved the way for the rise of Napoleon, which did in fact coincide with the official discovery of Uranus.

You might note that 1848 was also a year of total upheaval in Europe, and of course the start of Communism with Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto.

Certainly 1930 was a time of revolution. Recall the great stock market crash which reverberated in Europe, and Germany was in total chaos, which set the path for Hitler's rise. Hitler had chosen the reverse swastika, symbol of the Sun, which is the direct opposite of Pluto in that Sun rules life and Pluto rules death. A bit tenuous but Mr. Spock would find it "interesting". In the US there was the rise of the "underworld", certainly a Pluto term, as Al Capone and his buddies took over the distribution of illegal and Neptunian booze.

I have no idea what any of this means but I felt like typing.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Never would have pinned Neptune as a Commie! :D

[wayne penner]

Never would have pinned Neptune as a Commie! :D

Oh most certainly Neptune is a Commie! It melds everything together so that no boundaries remain which is the essence of communism. Um, everyone becomes equal except for the ones who are more equal than others, to quote Orwell.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Ah...yeah, I see. That makes sense.

I guess there's just something about Neptune that doesn't exactly strike the idea of "political system" in my mind.

Well, I learned something new today. :)

[gaer]

While interesting, I really don't think these count as discovery dates. The emergence of it as something different (rather than a star seen at a passing glance), the birth of it in the mind of the discoverer of "Hey...I've got something here". Just my opinion of course, but I think thinking you've found something new instead of just thinking you've found another star is what counts.

I'm a bit confused about your comment here. Are you referring to this:

On September 23, 1846, Johann Gottfried Galle (of the Berlin Observatory) and Louis d'Arrest (student of astronomy) became the first two people to observe the planet Neptune.

I was just mentioning a fact that was shown in at least two sources. Supposedly it was confirmed as being a planet within a couple days.

or this:

Historically, Uranus was a planet that was first discovered in 1690 by man named John Flamsteed who at the time did not realize it as a planet, but rather another star (he labeled it 34 Tauri). Thereafter, it was frequently observed but disregarded and ignored.

In the case of Uranus, I would go with the discovery by Herschel (1781)that it was a planet. Is that what you were referring to?

Because that was what I was pointing to regarding great changes in the world that were taking place then, in 1781 and shortly after. :)

Gaer

[gaer]

Oh most certainly Neptune is a Commie! It melds everything together so that no boundaries remain which is the essence of communism. Um, everyone becomes equal except for the ones who are more equal than others, to quote Orwell.
I would say that symbolically it is a perfect example of what happens when an ideal becomes ideology. :)

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I was just mentioning a fact that was shown in at least two sources. Supposedly it was confirmed as being a planet within a couple days.

*scratches head* I thought...Le Verrier discovered Neptune...

[starlink]

Hi Guys! I decided to print the whole lot out and read it over quietly as this is great reading (I think) and I am too lazy to look it all up in the internet myself.
OK Kai, It's either "So Many" or "All or None", how about the one's who specialize on one subject then? I agree with "none" because then you never get anywhere, but "All" is, IMO a bit too much (at least for me and I guess I am simplistic indeed when it comes to these things :) .
Nevertheless, what you found out (above) about each member of the Quartet is really nice! Looks like Juno is coming short of examples and this one is actually the only one I occasionally look at in connection with marriage charts. I am slowly starting to look at your favorites though, but JUST those, nothing else. I am getting out now, seems I am surrounded by scientists and historians here!! Thanks for the lessons!! Cheers to you all! Star.

[starlink]

You check something out in your own chart, think about it deeply. If you find an important aspect, you read what others say. Does it fit?

Then you check it out in charts of other people you know very well. Does it add anything? Or just add confusion?

A perfect example is Chiron. Some people feel strongly that it is important in their charts and in those of others they know. Other people don't see a connection.


Gaer, I think this is a perfect way of figuring things out, if not the only way. I do it as well and I am right now "trying out" Chiron with people.


That's what I love about astrology, but it's also what frustrates me immensely. It defies scientific analysis and logic. It remains a deep and fascinating mystery to me, because frankly I don't understand why it works—any of it. :)


Was "intuition" scientifically proven?? Experiments have been done with ESP and proven reliable. Because that's what I think Astrology is a lot about, intuition. A chart is our "medium", like for another person the glass ball , or the coffee rests in a cup or tea leaves. Nobody understands that either.
We need to look at a chart and thereby our intuition gets jolted and all of a sudden "we just see or know" something. Tea leaves also have to have certain patterns, (are they splashed around the cup or in two halves ?)and what not. So does Astrology, only we have more to go by, like planets, signs, configurations etc. A person with little intuitive "powers" can draw a chart and might not feel anything. Sure, he can say that your Ascendant is this and your Mars says that and he might know some interpretations from books, but that is not enough to really be a good astrologer. Why? because 3 people can have the same Ascendants and similar aspects and yet be totally different. If you have no intuition you cant figure out the difference between them and you end up labeling them all the same.

it's also what frustrates me
You shouldn't. The fact that you can tell them things that really hit home should be enough to convince people of the power of Astrology. People after all DO believe in Intuition(and also dont understand how that works!), they know that some people have this ability. Just be content with that.

Cheers, Star.

[gaer]

*scratches head* I thought...Le Verrier discovered Neptune...
http://www.mikeoates.org/naw96/discover.htm

Now I'm scratching my head too. It looks like several people were all on the track at the same time, and god or God only knows why one person and not another was finally given credit. It's a strange story.

How fitting for Neptune!

Gaer

[gaer]

Gaer, I think this is a perfect way of figuring things out, if not the only way. I do it as well and I am right now "trying out" Chiron with people.

I've been doing the same thing. I know where it is in my chart, I know where it is in the charts of all my friends and family. It most definitely falls in a key area in my own chart, and several people have made observations about the location and meaning that fit.

But at this time, it is the last thing I look at.

Kai is now throwing up. Any mention of Chiron sends him into a spin.

(Just kidding, Kai!) :D

Was "intuition" scientifically proven?? Experiments have been done with ESP and proven reliable. Because that's what I think Astrology is a lot about, intuition. A chart is our "medium", like for another person the glass ball , or the coffee rests in a cup or tea leaves. Nobody understands that either.

We need to look at a chart and thereby our intuition gets jolted and all of a sudden "we just see or know" something. Tea leaves also have to have certain patterns, (are they splashed around the cup or in two halves ?)and what not. So does Astrology, only we have more to go by, like planets, signs, configurations etc. A person with little intuitive "powers" can draw a chart and might not feel anything. Sure, he can say that your Ascendant is this and your Mars says that and he might know some interpretations from books, but that is not enough to really be a good astrologer. Why? because 3 people can have the same Ascendants and similar aspects and yet be totally different. If you have no intuition you cant figure out the difference between them and you end up labeling them all the same.

Well, expect to be stoned by all the people who claim that astrology is a science. I'll stick my neck out here, but I'm already ducking. I have said this for YEARS.

There is something very mysterious that happens when those of us who are attuned to a particular way of "reading things" focus on what we feel comfortable with. I fully believe that something very mysterious and very unexplained is going on. Sometimes when I just glance at a chart, I get an instant feeling or "flash" that hits me right in the gut.

Almost every time I see the chart of an abusive person, a violent person, I feel just a little bit sick. This is before I know any facts. This has happened to me a number of times when people have sent me charts before giving me any information at all.

I believe that all people who are good at reading natal charts experience some form of this, although it may be on a more subconcious level.

I'm going to bed, and I expect that both of us will face some strong disagreement here, but you just happened to express my own thoughts, which I've never put into words publicly.

It's a bit weird, but very interesting. And very Neptunian, I think. ;)

Gaer

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

how about the one's who specialize on one subject then? I agree with "none" because then you never get anywhere, but "All" is, IMO a bit too much (at least for me and I guess I am simplistic indeed when it comes to these things

I don't understand...

Nevertheless, what you found out (above) about each member of the Quartet is really nice! Looks like Juno is coming short of examples and this one is actually the only one I occasionally look at in connection with marriage charts. I am slowly starting to look at your favorites though, but JUST those, nothing else. I am getting out now, seems I am surrounded by scientists and historians here!! Thanks for the lessons!! Cheers to you all! Star.

Juno isn't downplayed at all in this decade, I was just lazy and didn't feel like jotting down all the agreements and treaties and whatnot that were drawn up around this time, if I did the list would be much longer. So, I just put down a quick note of it, and I did the same with Vesta as several colonies declared independence from their mother countries during this decade.

I just didn't feel like dating them all individually, so I put them down as one big lump.

As far as asteroids go, I think the Quartet is as far as you need to look. I'm not saying you should use every hunk of rock in the sky, but I think the Quartet are indeed something special, especially now that we have a modern re-telling of their story in Pluto.

Kai is now throwing up. Any mention of Chiron sends him into a spin.

Are you people trying to kill me with Chrion? :p I don't understand, what'd I do!?!?! :(

Well, expect to be stoned by all the people who claim that astrology is a science. I'll stick my neck out here, but I'm already ducking. I have said this for YEARS.

In my opinion, astrology is not a science.

Now I'm scratching my head too. It looks like several people were all on the track at the same time, and god or God only knows why one person and not another was finally given credit. It's a strange story.

Okay, I think what happened was Le Verrier successfully predicted where Neptune was going to be, and then those other two actually found it there. Neptune's the only planet discovered by faith in calculations, rather than actual observation.

[gaer]

Kai,

I lost part of this. About Chiron, I was just kidding! Any way, I reread the information on the site I linked to last night:

Thus in 1845, a Cambridge mathematician, John Couch Adams, predicted the existence of an unseen planet, to account for the fact that Uranus was being pulled slightly out of position in its orbit. Adams attributed this pull to the gravitational effect of an unknown body, and calculated its position.

Then:

Only when a French mathematician, Urbain Leverrier, published a similar prediction to Adams did Airy take action.

There is more, of course, and I didn't know about any of it until last night. Airy did not follow up on the prediction of his own colleague.

Leverrier published. Or so it says on the site I linked to. True? I don't know. But as you know, science is all about publication.

Then Challis (English) found the planet but did not recognize it. So it appears to me that Airy and Challis dropped the ball!

Now, since Neptune is involved, we may never find out the true story. Wouldn't that be fitting? So clear-cut for Uranus, no controversy about Pluto, just Neptune. :)

g

[wayne penner]

Over the years there has been a heated argument (how could it be anything else!) over whether astrology is an art or a science.

In the strict dictionary sense, astrology is a science in thatit is "an organized body of knowledge", although I suppose some would argue just how organized it is.

My own thinking is that astrology is a unique study that defies simple classification. In my opinion it is neither an art or a science, it is astrology.

[starlink]

Juno isn't downplayed at all in this decade
I know Kayiou, I know. It was just that I saw 2 examples of Juno and lots more of Vesta. Not to worry, I understand what you mean by not having put down everything..
I will give the 4 a bit more attention from now on and you look a bit more at Chiron, how about that :)! I think this has been enough info for today, my eyes hurt and I am going to bed as well. Goodnight!! Star.

[astro.teacher]

Over the years there has been a heated argument (how could it be anything else!) over whether astrology is an art or a science.

Anyone who has studied traditional Astrology can tell you that it is both. Astronomy and Astrology were NOT seperate studies but synonymous with each other. You couldnt do Astrology without knowledge of Astronomy and knowledge of Astronomy was useless without knowledge of Astrology, for what purpose is there in knowing Saturns placement in Gemini if it has no meaning in that placement? It wasnt until the scientific revolution that that the non-physically observable part was removed (Astrology). After this people saw science as boring and dull without life and attempted to reintroduce Astrology into Astronomy but once something has been separated it is difficult to rejoin into the matter it was in the beginning. Astrology and Astronomy are traditionally both an art and a science and not separate from each other but two hands of the same body.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I know Kayiou, I know. It was just that I saw 2 examples of Juno and lots more of Vesta. Not to worry, I understand what you mean by not having put down everything..

You want I should go back and put down everything for Juno? I mean...I could...I just...was lazy and didn't want to.

I will give the 4 a bit more attention from now on and you look a bit more at Chiron, how about that :)!

I just don't see anything special about it. Discovered between Saturn and Uranus...okay. Woot?