Which is a stronger conjunction?

[Cactus]

Which conjunction would be stronger, Sun conjunct ASC by 1 degree or Pluto conjunct ASC by 8 degrees, if Pluto is much stronger in a chart than the Sun?

I have read that the outer planet would trump the Sun when conjunct the ASC but I am not sure if the degree of closeness would matter??

 

[JUPITERASC]

Which conjunction would be stronger, Sun conjunct ASC by 1 degree or Pluto conjunct ASC by 8 degrees, if Pluto is much stronger in a chart than the Sun?

I have read that the outer planet would trump the Sun when conjunct the ASC but I am not sure if the degree of closeness would matter??

Interesting question - to which every astrologer shall have their own preferred opinion!

Let's consider these two heavenly bodies (1) dwarf planet Pluto http://www.universetoday.com/13573/why-pluto-is-no-longer-a-planet/ and (2) The Sun

The major clue as to which trumps which is that we refer to our home planet earth as being part of 'a solar system'

NOT
a 'pluto system'

Without the Sun all life, as we know it, ends for our planet.

If the Sun were to somehow vanish from our skies then planet earth would be in perpetual icy cold and darkness both day and night. In fact there would be no distinction between day and night BECAUSE so far as planet earth is concerned, THE SUN ALONE DETERMINES DAY AND NIGHT that's how powerful the Sun is - Pluto has no comparable influence.

Furthermore, without the Sun, the Moon would have no light to reflect and would therefore be invisible. Planet earth would have only the light of stars, many hundreds/ billions of light years away.

The sun exerts a slight gravitational effect on the tides in tandem with the moon... with no sun there would be no full moons and no high tides... no new moons and no low tides...

the earth and all visible planets would be in free-fall with nothing to orbit in space until drawn into some other orbit of some other planetary body.

Human and animal life could not survive under those conditions - perhaps sea creatures would do best


Consider also that from our geocentric perspective no one on earth would notice if Pluto vanished - except a few scientists with extremely powerful telescopes

BUT IF THE SUN VANISHED - NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE HAVOC!! THE SUN VANISHING WOULD BE AN INCALCULABLE INFLUENCE ON ALL PLANETS CURRENTLY IN ORBIT OF IT!!

just my two cents worth

 

[greybeard]

The sun exerts a slight gravitational effect on the tides in tandem with the moon... with no sun there would be no full moons and no high tides... no new moons and no low tides...

Get that dusty old astronomy book off the shelf. Or check the tide table for the Bay of Fundy and compare with the full and new moons. Or, if you prefer, just think. At full moon, two powerful gravitational bodies reside on opposite sides of the Earth; at new moon, both are on the same side of Earth....

My answer to the original question is Sun is more powerful, based on the information given, simply due to orb.

It's only my opinion.... Pluto is the most powerful planet in the heavens, excepting Sun and Moon. More powerful even than Chiron. Go figure.

 

[JUPITERASC]

The sun exerts a slight gravitational effect on the tides in tandem with the moon... with no sun there would be no full moons and no high tides... no new moons and no low tides...

Get that dusty old astronomy book off the shelf. Or check the times for high tides at the Bay of Fundy.

The quote is out of context. The context is:

IF there were no sun

IF the sun somehow 'vanished' there would BE no 'solar system'

THEN

there would be no high tides anywhere or low tides either THEORETICALLY since all planets would be in free fall with oceans sloshing around - no new or full moons since new moons and full moons are defined by the sun

"....What is stronger on the Earth, the tidal force from the moon or the tidal force from the Sun?

The moon exerts a stronger force, but the Sun's tidal force can be significant.

Hence the concept of spring tides and neap tides:

Spring Tides: Sun and Moon in alignment; tidal forces add. Big tides!
Neap Tides: Sun and Moon 90 degrees apart; tidal forces counteract. Small tides".... http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/Gravity/tides.html

 

[greybeard]

Spring Tides: Sun and Moon in alignment; tidal forces add. Big tides!
Neap Tides: Sun and Moon 90 degrees apart; tidal forces counteract. Small tides"....

Sun and Moon are "in alignment" at both full and new. They are not aligned at the quarters.

Once again, if you prefer, just think.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Spring Tides: Sun and Moon in alignment; tidal forces add. Big tides!
Neap Tides: Sun and Moon 90 degrees apart; tidal forces counteract. Small tides"....

Sun and Moon are "in alignment" at both full and new. They are not aligned at the quarters.

Once again, if you prefer, just think.

Just think
If there were no sun

 

[greybeard]

I have in fact considered a sky without stars when comparing the tropical and sidereal zodiacs.

There is a scientific "test" for the validity of theories and mathematical models. It consists of applying 4 standards to the theory or model. One of these standards is "parsimony", which is comparable to Occam's razor...does the theory or model require the least possible "supports" for it to work?

Take the stars from the sky and the tropical zodiac still holds; the sidereal does not. Therefore, according to the universally accepted (among scientists) standard for testing theories or models, the tropical zodiac wins over the sidereal. The sidereal zodiac MUST have stars; the tropical does just fine without them.

I trust you have gotten your tides in order.

 

[JUPITERASC]

I have in fact considered a sky without stars when comparing the tropical and sidereal zodiacs.

There is a scientific "test" for the validity of theories and mathematical models. It consists of applying 4 standards to the theory or model. One of these standards is "parsimony", which is comparable to Occam's razor...does the theory or model require the least possible "supports" for it to work?

Take the stars from the sky and the tropical zodiac still holds; the sidereal does not. Therefore, according to the universally accepted (among scientists) standard for testing theories or models, the tropical zodiac wins over the sidereal. The sidereal zodiac MUST have stars; the tropical does just fine without them.

I trust you have gotten your tides in order.

I'm reminding you that you took my comment out of context therefore I shall repeat my comment in context as I intended it to be read i.e. - in response to the OP I said

Interesting question - to which every astrologer shall have their own preferred opinion!

Let's consider these two heavenly bodies (1) dwarf planet Pluto http://www.universetoday.com/13573/why-pluto-is-no-longer-a-planet/ and (2) The Sun

The major clue as to which trumps which is that we refer to our home planet earth as being part of 'a solar system'

NOT
a 'pluto system'

Without the Sun all life, as we know it, ends for our planet.

If the Sun were to somehow vanish from our skies then planet earth would be in perpetual icy cold and darkness both day and night. In fact there would be no distinction between day and night BECAUSE so far as planet earth is concerned, THE SUN ALONE DETERMINES DAY AND NIGHT that's how powerful the Sun is - Pluto has no comparable influence.

Furthermore, without the Sun, the Moon would have no light to reflect and would therefore be invisible. Planet earth would have only the light of stars, many hundreds/ billions of light years away.

The sun exerts a slight gravitational effect on the tides in tandem with the moon... with no sun there would be no full moons and no high tides... no new moons and no low tides...

the earth and all visible planets would be in free-fall with nothing to orbit in space until drawn into some other orbit of some other planetary body.

Human and animal life could not survive under those conditions - perhaps sea creatures would do best


Consider also that from our geocentric perspective no one on earth would notice if Pluto vanished - except a few scientists with extremely powerful telescopes

BUT IF THE SUN VANISHED - NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE HAVOC!! THE SUN VANISHING WOULD BE AN INCALCULABLE INFLUENCE ON ALL PLANETS CURRENTLY IN ORBIT OF IT!!

just my two cents worth

 

[greybeard]

The sun exerts a slight gravitational effect on the tides in tandem with the moon... with no sun there would be no full moons and no high tides... no new moons and no low tides...

Whatever. I understand the "out of context"...
An astrologer should master basic astronomy, and I'm sure you do.
There was nothing personal in my comment about the tides. The above suggested to me that you did not understand tides, that's all. It was a friendly correction. If you want to take it as some sort of personal affront, help yourself.
But obviously you know all about tides.
If the chicken hadn't crossed the road....

End of discussion.

 

[sworm09]

For this I'll invoke the "Orb/Power Doctrine" one of the rules that I personally stick to. To me, it doesn't matter what planet is involved, the closer the aspect, the more powerful the aspect. In my opinion, the Sun/Ascendant conjunction is much more powerful than the Pluto/Ascendant conjunction, especially looking at how the Pluto/Ascendant conjunction is just barely in orb.

 

[dr. farr]

For me (my perspective) there would not be a conjunction between Pluto and the ascending degree, since the max. orb for conjunction (by degree) I consider effective is 6 degrees (in most cases; I have exceptions to this orb which I use in certain predictive models I am experimeting with relative to sporting event prognostics), so, in the OP's example I would say that the Sun/ascendant conjunction is operative.

 

[Cactus]

Thank you for the replies. I didn't want it to be any kind of debate on suns, moons and astronomy, however, lol...just opinions on a simple conjunction.

Yes the closer the planet, the stronger, I agree, and with the wider orb, not sure if that's in effect...

 

[greybeard]

Pluto, with its highly inclined orbital plane (it can be 17 degrees above or below the ecliptic) sometimes appears above the horizon even though its zodiacal degree has not yet risen. For example, this morning at my latitude Pluto popped over the horizon while its zodiacal degree was still 4 degrees below the Ascending degree; Venus, today in partile conjunction with Pluto, did not appear on the horizon until 13 minutes later. And Pluto's present latitude is only 3*18'. At other points along its orbit the difference between the rising of the planet itself and its zodiacal degree can be much greater. In 1963 (It held a latitude of 13*43' then) Pluto appeared on the horizon (at my latitude) 33 minutes of time before its zodiacal degree ascended.

So in considering the rising of Pluto you may want to look at its mundane rising in distinction to its zodiacal rising. Experience will tell you which is more powerful.

 

[Kofe]

Hello to all! Pluto is a very significant planet and can increase tremendously the power of Sun. Definitely you will see the characteristics of Sun enhanced by Pluto, even in 8 degrees orb. The Asc axis is an important axis and allow wider orbs than other axis. Pluto (power) to Sun (ego) on Asc (personality). Can you separate the energy of these two planets on the personality? If you see strong ego, will you think it's the Sun or Pluto. I guess a combination! Just an idea!

 

[JUPITERASC]

The sign occupied by the Sun is important AND the location of the planet ruling that sign.

However, the Sun is most powerful within our particular solar system simply because the Sun is the centre around which our planet - as well as our planet's companion planets - ALL orbit

 

[Skywomb]

The sign occupied by the Sun is important AND the location of the planet ruling that sign.

However, the Sun is most powerful within our particular solar system simply because the Sun is the centre around which our planet - as well as our planet's companion planets - ALL orbit

What about the Moon with it's huge gravitational effect upon us Earthlings...

Without the Moon, there would be no Earth. Without the Moon, we would have no Sun.
We would drift somewhere unpleasant in space.

Therefore behold LUNA, our closest ally in space...whom from all else derives, etc. etc... Our singularly most important astrological object.

 

[JUPITERASC]

What about the Moon with it's huge gravitational effect upon us Earthlings...

Without the Moon, there would be no Earth. Without the Moon, we would have no Sun.
We would drift somewhere unpleasant in space.

Therefore behold LUNA, our closest ally in space...whom from all else derives, etc. etc... Our singularly most important astrological object.

Moon orbits Earth. Earth orbits Sun. Therefore Moon orbits Sun

We reference a 'solar system' not 'a lunar system'

From a Geocentric perspective, Sun is central

 

[Zarathu]

Interesting question...

But it pretty much depends on the chart. There a so many factors that can be brought into the mix that its really hard to tell.

It will vary per chart. Give us an actual chart with these aspects and we'll tell you what we think.

Z

 

[JUPITERASC]

Interesting question...
But it pretty much depends on the chart. There a so many factors that can be brought into the mix that its really hard to tell.
It will vary per chart. Give us an actual chart with these aspects and we'll tell you what we think.
Z

Many simply ignore the Sun - although it is rather obvious

 

[Skywomb]

Moon orbits Earth. Earth orbits Sun. Therefore Moon orbits Sun

We reference a 'solar system' not 'a lunar system'

From a Geocentric perspective, Sun is central

And why would we want to use that in determining the most influential planets and so forth, as far as astrology is concerned? Surely, the Moon (or our own planet Earth for that matter) is if I suggested we'd want to use the most subjective perspective, the most important.
Just poking around here, but isn't a huge way of looking at astrology just that, i.e. using the most subjective perspective to determine this that and the other.... Therefore I can make the claim that it is indeed a lunar system we live in, so to speak.