JUPITERASC
Well-known member
As a spin-off from this thread http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=602250#post602250 
What makes an astrological planet?
- Thread starter JUPITERASC
- Start date
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Definition of a planet http://missionscience.nasa.gov/nasascience/what_is_a_planet.html
Before telescopes, scientists relied on their naked eye
and
careful observations to catalogue the night sky.
Five planets easily visible with the naked eye have been observed for all of human history:
i.e.
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
The Sun is a star and the Moon is a Moon.
Technically,
there was never a scientific definition of the term Planet before 2006.
When the Greeks observed the sky thousands of years ago
they discovered objects that acted differently than stars.
These points of light seemed to wander around the sky throughout the year.
We get the term "planet" from the Greek word "Planetes" - meaning wanderer.
Before telescopes, scientists relied on their naked eye
and
careful observations to catalogue the night sky.
Five planets easily visible with the naked eye have been observed for all of human history:
i.e.
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
The Sun is a star and the Moon is a Moon.
Technically,
there was never a scientific definition of the term Planet before 2006.
When the Greeks observed the sky thousands of years ago
they discovered objects that acted differently than stars.
These points of light seemed to wander around the sky throughout the year.
We get the term "planet" from the Greek word "Planetes" - meaning wanderer.
Tessie
Banned
What makes an astrological planet?
Recent threads have shown the necessity to distinguish between astronomy and astrology. The two are not one and the same. It is true that if we listed criteria for both, astrology and astronomy, there could be areas of overlap. This is mainly because all scientific phenomena are distinct areas combined to describe the whole. Humans, the observers, have an intrinsically limited perceptual system. Although science has suggested that human perception has a bidirectional relationship with the universe, human ability is fundamentally limited relative to it. Whichever side of the fence one is on, they remain learners about this world, not know it all gods.
From the human perspective, astronomy and astrology are different. Astronomy appears to commit itself to Newtonian physics; whereas astrologers have long understood that Newtonian physics alone is necessary yet insufficient to explain the operational mechanisms of astrology. This indeed is the reason why astrology is rejected by astronomers. If astrology works, it seems clear a physical mechanism must account for it. However, that mechanism is not identified. Until it is identified, and its relevance reconciled to astronomy, there is no need to feign a relationship between the two fields, which is not quite justified.
Astrology is the analysis of celestial and mathematical points and their interaction in the event chart. In the absence of a more complete reconciling theory, in practical terms, this means astrologers are at liberty to choose what they want to analyse, even if their analysis is used as research. In legal or authoritative terms, there is no regulating body which prohibits the aforementioned. There are several discrete sets of practices, traditional, modern, Chinese, Vedic, to name only a few, the philosophies of which are contradictory yet each seems to work to do the same task: astrology.
Traditionalists have their own methodology. It is called "traditional astrology" and the fact it was one of the first methods used to practice is now being used as an argument for why it is the correct method. I love the structure and rules in the traditional astrology method. However, it is not a logical argument that just because something is old it is right. We do not apply the tradition argument to our lives in society, getting from A to B on horse and carriage. Astronomy has come a way since its original thoughts about the solar system. Astrology has come a way since its original methods of calculation. So why should astrologers, who draw upon the astronomy argument, limit themselves to the old? If it is a matter of personal preference. That is as good a reason as any. But let's not pretend there is a logical argument for why traditional is the gold standard of practice, because there is no such argument. All astrological methodologies use the same few planets. There is going to be theoretical overlap between the meaning attributed to each. This can't be avoided. But it does not a priori prove their original method, or the newest method on the block, is the right one.
A conversation with a friend about this topic once led me to use the recipe analogy. We have a cupboard full of ingredients, all different spices and tools. Often times a recipe calls for a select number of materials as well as specific ones. Some other recipes involve chucking in far more or being relatively indiscriminate. Different recipes, different cooking behaviours, different diets, will yield different results. Our task here is to determine which is the correct one. That is ultimately the question which follows each traditional versus modern debate in astrology. But when it comes to taste, is that ever possible? Astrology is fundamentally subjective and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Whoever participates in this debate does so in attempt to prove the impossible. Experimenting is not always fruitful but it has been the means by which humans have come to gain more insight about the world in which they live. Should this experimenting be shunned? Empirically speaking, that would be ignorant, misguided advice. Therefore it is unlikely the opposing views will reconcile on the terms which constitute an astrological planet. Not all mysteries can be or are meant to be solved.
Recent threads have shown the necessity to distinguish between astronomy and astrology. The two are not one and the same. It is true that if we listed criteria for both, astrology and astronomy, there could be areas of overlap. This is mainly because all scientific phenomena are distinct areas combined to describe the whole. Humans, the observers, have an intrinsically limited perceptual system. Although science has suggested that human perception has a bidirectional relationship with the universe, human ability is fundamentally limited relative to it. Whichever side of the fence one is on, they remain learners about this world, not know it all gods.
From the human perspective, astronomy and astrology are different. Astronomy appears to commit itself to Newtonian physics; whereas astrologers have long understood that Newtonian physics alone is necessary yet insufficient to explain the operational mechanisms of astrology. This indeed is the reason why astrology is rejected by astronomers. If astrology works, it seems clear a physical mechanism must account for it. However, that mechanism is not identified. Until it is identified, and its relevance reconciled to astronomy, there is no need to feign a relationship between the two fields, which is not quite justified.
Astrology is the analysis of celestial and mathematical points and their interaction in the event chart. In the absence of a more complete reconciling theory, in practical terms, this means astrologers are at liberty to choose what they want to analyse, even if their analysis is used as research. In legal or authoritative terms, there is no regulating body which prohibits the aforementioned. There are several discrete sets of practices, traditional, modern, Chinese, Vedic, to name only a few, the philosophies of which are contradictory yet each seems to work to do the same task: astrology.
Traditionalists have their own methodology. It is called "traditional astrology" and the fact it was one of the first methods used to practice is now being used as an argument for why it is the correct method. I love the structure and rules in the traditional astrology method. However, it is not a logical argument that just because something is old it is right. We do not apply the tradition argument to our lives in society, getting from A to B on horse and carriage. Astronomy has come a way since its original thoughts about the solar system. Astrology has come a way since its original methods of calculation. So why should astrologers, who draw upon the astronomy argument, limit themselves to the old? If it is a matter of personal preference. That is as good a reason as any. But let's not pretend there is a logical argument for why traditional is the gold standard of practice, because there is no such argument. All astrological methodologies use the same few planets. There is going to be theoretical overlap between the meaning attributed to each. This can't be avoided. But it does not a priori prove their original method, or the newest method on the block, is the right one.
A conversation with a friend about this topic once led me to use the recipe analogy. We have a cupboard full of ingredients, all different spices and tools. Often times a recipe calls for a select number of materials as well as specific ones. Some other recipes involve chucking in far more or being relatively indiscriminate. Different recipes, different cooking behaviours, different diets, will yield different results. Our task here is to determine which is the correct one. That is ultimately the question which follows each traditional versus modern debate in astrology. But when it comes to taste, is that ever possible? Astrology is fundamentally subjective and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Whoever participates in this debate does so in attempt to prove the impossible. Experimenting is not always fruitful but it has been the means by which humans have come to gain more insight about the world in which they live. Should this experimenting be shunned? Empirically speaking, that would be ignorant, misguided advice. Therefore it is unlikely the opposing views will reconcile on the terms which constitute an astrological planet. Not all mysteries can be or are meant to be solved.
CapAquaPis
Well-known member
A planet is a celestial body in our solar system orbits around a star, our Sun. They can be solid surfaced: Mercury, Venus, our Earth and Mars; or they can be gaseous: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Then there are natural satellites orbiting around planets (The Earth has our Moon, while Mercury and Venus has none), and finally the "dwarf" planets due to being a smaller size than our moon and has different characteristics: Pluto with its 5 satellites (Charon is half of Pluto's size, once called a "binary"), Eris (Dysonoma is its satellite), Sedna, Xena, Haumea and Makemake. And finally, the non-planetary celestial objects: Chiron, the asteroids Ceres (a planet-like shape), Juno, Pallas, Vesta (the 3 most prominent) and so many out there: I just read about Eros and Pysch in this forum today, and the two orbit our Earth: Lilith known as "the black moon" and Cruithne.
Now on the declaration of what makes a planet in both astronomy and in different definitions in astrology: The Sun is a star, once erroneously believed to be our "3rd planet" orbiting the earth in traditional astrology, the Moon which isn't a planet is the second-leading part of astrological personal identity after the Sun, and the continuous use of Pluto to rule Scorpio, while the Sun rules Leo and the Moon rules Cancer. Traditional astrologers don't use the newer discovered planets Uranus which rules Aquarius and Neptune the ruler of Pisces, both are thought to rule modern astrology except traditionalists said Mercury and Saturn rules astrology. And the use of nodes: True, North and South in astrology.
Astrologers believe a planet has to have a significant effect on the affairs of life on earth, it has to be large enough or easily detected by telescopes or space satellites. I don't hear much on Ixion, Orcus, Quaoar, Salacia and Varuna, which are smaller dwarf-planets, and I can find them on the list of custom-additions for charts in astrological websites. There are astrologers who connect orbiting planets on the ecliptic with fixed stars or like the Galactic Center (located between 29 deg Scorpio and 1 deg Sag, right in 23 deg south latitude) where the sun, as well the moon and planets are on the "winter solstice" in the northern hemisphere (summer for the southern). So far, astrologers declared the Sun, Moon and 7 planets plus the demoted Pluto as "ruler planets" of the 12 signs of the ecliptical zodiac, and already decided to designate their rulerships over the signs.
Now on the declaration of what makes a planet in both astronomy and in different definitions in astrology: The Sun is a star, once erroneously believed to be our "3rd planet" orbiting the earth in traditional astrology, the Moon which isn't a planet is the second-leading part of astrological personal identity after the Sun, and the continuous use of Pluto to rule Scorpio, while the Sun rules Leo and the Moon rules Cancer. Traditional astrologers don't use the newer discovered planets Uranus which rules Aquarius and Neptune the ruler of Pisces, both are thought to rule modern astrology except traditionalists said Mercury and Saturn rules astrology. And the use of nodes: True, North and South in astrology.
Astrologers believe a planet has to have a significant effect on the affairs of life on earth, it has to be large enough or easily detected by telescopes or space satellites. I don't hear much on Ixion, Orcus, Quaoar, Salacia and Varuna, which are smaller dwarf-planets, and I can find them on the list of custom-additions for charts in astrological websites. There are astrologers who connect orbiting planets on the ecliptic with fixed stars or like the Galactic Center (located between 29 deg Scorpio and 1 deg Sag, right in 23 deg south latitude) where the sun, as well the moon and planets are on the "winter solstice" in the northern hemisphere (summer for the southern). So far, astrologers declared the Sun, Moon and 7 planets plus the demoted Pluto as "ruler planets" of the 12 signs of the ecliptical zodiac, and already decided to designate their rulerships over the signs.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
DEFINITION OF A PLANET - source: NASA
Astronomers of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted on and passed the first scientific definition of a planet in August 2006.
According to this new definition, an object must meet three criteria in order to be classified as a planet.
First, it must orbit the Sun.
Second, it must be big enough for gravity to squash it into a round ball.
And third, it must have cleared other objects out of the way in its orbital neighborhood.
To clear an orbit, a planet must be big enough to pull neighboring objects into the planet itself
or sling-shot them around the planet and shoot them off into outer space.
According to the IAU, Pluto does not meet this third requirement
and so is now in a new class of objects called "dwarf planets."
The problem for Pluto is the fact that its orbit is in the Kuiper Belt along with 43 other known Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs).
There are possibly billions of objects in the Kuiper Belt that have not been cataloged yet
Scientists have even found 8 KBOs between Neptune and Pluto.
a planet must be massive enough to clear smaller objects – like asteroids – from their own orbit.
The gravity of the planet would pull in smaller objects which would become part of the new planet.
david starling
Well-known member
If a "planet" has to be visible to exert astrological influence, then how do the Ascendant and the lunar nodes exert their influence? Just asking.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Neither the Ascendant nor the lunar nodes are planets
Just answering
david starling
Well-known member
They "wander" (the ancient meaning of "planet") and correlate to astrological effects, yet aren't visible.
Oddity
Well-known member
The sun and moon weren't mistaken for planets. Under the old definition, they are planets. Planets are stars that wander, not stars that are fixed.
The nodes are eclipse points, and the ascendant is the point on the eastern horizon. They're both mathematical markers.
I guess I don't understand why they should be considered planets?
The nodes are eclipse points, and the ascendant is the point on the eastern horizon. They're both mathematical markers.
I guess I don't understand why they should be considered planets?
david starling
Well-known member
,,I view them all as major and minor astrological indicators, whether they are potentially visible in the sky or not. In fact, Aspects are drawn using the celestial longitude of the moon and the celestial objects we call "planets", not necessarily taking their declination into account; mathematical location and correlation are what counts, not visibility--that's the point I was trying to make. The Ascendant is as major as they get, but must, as you say, be located mathematically. So, logically, I wouldn't exclude the outer planets as major indicators only because we can't see them (or, in the case of Uranus, recognize them as "wandering") without the aid of mathematics, telescopes and photography. So, it's either "the Old ways are best" or "standing on the shoulders of giants" in order to progress further--Astrology as a "work in progress", a living art.
Oddity
Well-known member
I guess we look at it in very different ways. I can't see how the ascendant or the nodes would have the same effects as planets, or planetary transits.
The nodes: This is where the sun or moon becomes invisible. That's fairly specific. The ascendant: In a nativity, this is the person.
I just don't see those the same, as say, Saturn transitting the ascendant, or the moon on its own node.
The nodes: This is where the sun or moon becomes invisible. That's fairly specific. The ascendant: In a nativity, this is the person.
I just don't see those the same, as say, Saturn transitting the ascendant, or the moon on its own node.
Oddity
Well-known member
Or possibly we aren't speaking academically enough.
One of my old teachers said that without the mindset, you will never understand how the ancient and medieval worldview works in astronomy and astrology. I didn't used to believe that. I do now. Not solely as a consequence of this thread. It isn't the first time I've seen this kind of complete incomprehension, and words don't seem to help, at least not without the background of the science of the day.
One of my old teachers said that without the mindset, you will never understand how the ancient and medieval worldview works in astronomy and astrology. I didn't used to believe that. I do now. Not solely as a consequence of this thread. It isn't the first time I've seen this kind of complete incomprehension, and words don't seem to help, at least not without the background of the science of the day.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Too much academic talk and not enough chart delineation.
Someone delineate a chart using Pluto/Uranus/Neptune or even Chiron!
As of Thursday 2 July 2015
there are:
10 objects which are nearly certainly dwarf planets,
23 objects which are highly likely to be dwarf planets,
49 objects which are likely to be dwarf planets,
86 objects which are probably dwarf planets
and
375 objects which are possibly dwarf planets http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html
Oddity
Well-known member
Take two. The ascendant and the nodes do not cast aspects because they have no light. A planet can cast an aspect to them, though.
Bunraku
Well-known member
As of Thursday 2 July 2015
there are:
10 objects which are nearly certainly dwarf planets,
23 objects which are highly likely to be dwarf planets,
49 objects which are likely to be dwarf planets,
86 objects which are probably dwarf planets
and
375 objects which are possibly dwarf planets http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/dps.html
What if they all somehow work?
I don't think I want to test out 10 "nearly certainly dwarf planets" and 49 "objects which are probably dwarf planets."
Someone else has done part of the research though:
http://www.astroamerica.com/wescott.html
MECHANICS OF THE FUTURE: ASTEROIDS - Martha Lang-Wescott
Umm... so does anyone own this book? I don't lol.
How threads like these goes:
1.)Theory crafting,some gathering evidence from history, some people saying move on with the times, etc.
1.5) Everyone reaches a stalemate
2.)Some flame wars (it's inevitable)
3.)And then eventually someone asks proof
4.)Someone posts chart
Just speeding up the process
(Oddity, what type of Mercury do you have? Just curious)
_______
Currently trying to find delineations that involves asteroids.
__________
An offtopic response:
I've seen very few people use asteroids, and even if they use asteroids, they still use the main 7 (and usually have a very strong foundation on the main 7) and only use asteroids like food seasonings, it acts to add some spice to the main dish.
This "everyone using every little rock in outer space" is a viewpoint that sees the opposition as extreme as possible. I really doubt anyone is going to do that!
Last edited:
Oddity
Well-known member
I stand by my 'if you don't have the mindset...' statement.
Points do not cast aspects. Planets do.
The idea of what constitutes an astrological planet varies these days. If you're traditionally minded, it's a wandering star. If not, it gets a whole lot more nebulous - especially around 'what's the cut-off?'
That's not a value judgement on people who see it a different way. They just....see it a different way.
Points do not cast aspects. Planets do.
The idea of what constitutes an astrological planet varies these days. If you're traditionally minded, it's a wandering star. If not, it gets a whole lot more nebulous - especially around 'what's the cut-off?'
That's not a value judgement on people who see it a different way. They just....see it a different way.
Too much academic talk and not enough chart delineation. Someone delineate a chart using Pluto/Uranus/Neptune or even Chiron!
I have a T-Square between Uranus Moon and Mercury
Uranus is on the second house cusp.
I do work with computers and i feel like the description of the tsquare applies to me.
I also have Jupiter opposite Neptune and the description of that fits me perfectly
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
certainly an understanding of the ancient and medieval world view in astronomy and astrology
is required in order to fully discuss the issue of what makes an astrological planet