A few questions about the planets

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

SunConjunctUranus

Well-known member
Allow me to put it this way then:

I am asking why it's a rule that we cannot at the very least challenge the beliefs of astrology as a whole on this forum, simple as that. Why you think I'm asking anything other than that is unclear to me.

You want to challenge astrology without deep knowledge of astrology is simply useless and no direction. So we don't know what is your true intention in this forum.
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
On a side note, and I am aware that it is a rule that I am not allowed to ask this question on this site:

What evidence is there that outer space is what we are taught it is, let alone that there even are planets? I know, this might sound crazy to some who read this, but if you think about it, it really is a legit question.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
On a side note, and I am aware that it is a rule that
I am not allowed to ask this question on this site:
What evidence is there that outer space is what we are taught it is, let alone
that there even are planets?
I know, this might sound crazy to some who read this, but
if you think about it, it really is a legit question.
Good idea for a new thread :smile:
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
You want to challenge astrology without deep knowledge of astrology is simply useless and no direction. So we don't know what is your true intention in this forum.

Oh brother, not you again. Every comment from you is just worse and worse. Another one and I'm done replying to you, so better hope your next reply isn't as illogical as all of your previous ones.

Anyways. I never said I am challenging the whole of astrology, but merely some of it's beliefs is all. If you can't even figure out how this is what I was intending on doing and not what you claimed I was trying to do, then I honestly think it's best we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
Good idea for a new thread :smile:

Seriously?

Because wasn't it you who JUST claimed any challenging of the beliefs of any branch of astrology being done on this site is a "forbidden crime" by this site's rules?

I mean unless I'm missing something of course, that IS what you said.
 

SunConjunctUranus

Well-known member
Oh brother, not you again. Every comment from you is just worse and worse. Another one and I'm done replying to you, so better hope your next reply isn't as illogical as all of your previous ones.

Anyways. I never said I am challenging the whole of astrology, but merely some of it's beliefs is all. If you can't even figure out how this is what I was intending on doing and not what you claimed I was trying to do, then I honestly think it's best we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You asked and I'm just answer it. That's not illogical to be honest.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Oh brother, not you again.
Every comment from you is just worse and worse.
Another one and I'm done replying to you, so
better hope your next reply isn't as illogical as all of your previous ones.
Anyways. I never said I am challenging the whole of astrology, but
merely some of it's beliefs is all.
If you can't even figure out how this is what I was intending on doing
and not what you claimed I was trying to do, then
I honestly think it's best we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
so your intention is to challenge astrology
You asked and I'm just answer it. That's not illogical to be honest.
Thread title certainly seeks answers :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
On a side note, and I am aware that it is a rule that
I am not allowed to ask this question on this site:
What evidence is there that outer space is what we are taught it is, let alone
that there even are planets?
I know, this might sound crazy to some who read this, but
if you think about it, it really is a legit question.
Good idea for a new thread :smile:
Seriously?
Because wasn't it you who JUST claimed
any challenging of the beliefs of any branch of astrology
being done on this site is a "forbidden crime" by this site's rules?
I mean unless I'm missing something of course, that IS what you said.
easy check whether you may or may not "be missing something"
as you just commented
by simply reading over previous comments on this thread
 

YonyGursho

Well-known member
so your intention is to challenge astrology

Thread title certainly seeks answers :smile:

SunConjunctUranus claimed that I was challenging the whole of astrology seeing as he claimed that I was "challenging astrology", and this was simply based off of me claiming that gravity doesn't exist.

So he wasn't saying I was challenging astrology in just some way that may or may not have disputed the entirety of every branch of astrology's beliefs, but rather was indeed insisting that I was for certain challenging the entirety of astrology, regardless of which branch of it, but obviously, as made apparent by my above point, I was never challenging the entirety of astrology, but only some of it's beliefs.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
If I understand correctly,
traditional astrology doesn't use the outer planets.

Which is logical,
since they hadn't yet been discovered when astrology was first developed.
outers were not discovered simply because outers are invisible to naked eye viewing :smile:


although one of the outers IS visible
but

ONLY under optimum stringent conditions
such as
skies must have no light pollution

therefore
no outers are ever visible to naked eye viewers in cities or towns
furthermore
for rural skies observation - perfect eyesight is required
as well as perfect weather conditions
However, now that we have the means to identify other planets,
why shouldn't they be recognised in astrology as well, as having an effect on us?
And the latest discoveries,
thanks to ever more effective technical means,
of the asteroids.
Why should these not be taken into account, widening our knowledge
and enriching traditional astrology?
This is a question... not a comment.
Thanks for your replies.
fact is, there are more than one thousand five hundred asteroids
and more are discovered daily

HOWEVER
some modernists choose to use a mere 700 asteroids :smile:
which reduces the number per every degree of every natal chart
to only two asteroids on EVERY DEGREE
instead of FOUR ASTEROIDS on EVERY DEGREE of every natal chart
for example:
I use the following asteroids for love and relationship:
Erato, Amor, Bienor, Bosque Alegre, Compassion, Amanda,
Frigga, Klyria, Medea, Rousseau, Summa, Valentine, Anteros, Hathor, Jason, Moraes, Peirithoos,
Pocahintas, Sidi, Ubasti, Sappho, Amicitia, Patroclus, Cupido, Medusa,
Hephaistos, Demeter, Hera, Thereus, Valentine, Nessus,
Ariadne,
Chariklo, Close, Rhoda, Damocles

Does anyone use others not here, and what do they mean?
Wow- that's a lot of asteroids in your list! :surprised:

I sometimes look at Psyche and Eros..


Zarathu

its a small number. I regularly use 700 of them

clearly then
for some moderniss, asteroids supercede Sun, Moon et al
Pluto doesn't reflect light....Pluto doesn't carry a message for us.....

You can't see pluto with the naked eye.


There are thousands of Pluto Like objects in the orbit of the sun, so
....if we are using pluto we should be using those planets too.

The problem si that we assume

that because pluto is in our solar system, it should be added to our astrological calculations.
Astrology is born in ancient egypt/greece, by tracking the movements of the 2 luminaries
and the 5 errant stars, along with the placement of the fixed stars
and constellations:
Sun and moon + mercury/venus/mars/jupiter/saturn + stars

To explain further,
there are a few philosophical issues that arise when using the outer planets.

Dirius is correct in noting that the fact the outers carry no visible light
is a major detriment to their inclusion into the classical framework. Astrology evolved alongside ancient optical theories
and these theories still permeate astrological discourse to this day.
Planets in aspect are said to "see" or "regard" one another
and their light is often considered a transmitter of their influence.
The word "planet" originally evolved from the Greek "planetes aster", or "wandering star"
and referred to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn
whose motion could be detected against the backdrop of fixed stars that are stable in their relative distance from one another,
but all move together as one large group.

Another issue with the outer planets in general is that they lack much of the tools that the classical planets have.
This isn't just referring to dignities (though that is a large part of it), but
they also lack nature, sect, gender, years, winds, orbs, signatures, etc.
This may all seem superfluous or unnecessary, but
its significance really cannot be overstated.
Without these associations, the outer planets are essentially blank orbs
without instruction or meaning.

Finally, there is the issue with the meanings contemporary astrologers have given to them.
Mostly they either
1) don't make sense within their own context
or
2) are already taken by another planet.

About the first,
a lot of the meanings of the planets
have been assigned to them based on mythological interpretations
or perceived mundane events happening around the time of their discovery.
A lot of the mythological meanings are cherry picked
and often nonsensical, like Uranus ruling rebellion, but
in the myth Ouranos is the tyrannical dictator, not the freedom fighter.

The mundane events are definitely cherry picked
as there are many important events happening around the world at any given time.
Pluto was discovered in 1930
and has taken on an association with nuclear force, but
when I hear 1930s I think Great Depression
and I've never heard anyone associate Pluto with financial ruination.
About the second,
each of the outer planets have significations that are more or less plucked from the classical planets.

Uranus's reported instability and recklessness can be found in Mercury and Mars.

Neptune's illusions and mysticism can be found in the Moon.
Pluto's transformation and general heavy-handedness are the domains of Mercury and Saturn.
Like KnS said in his beautiful well-written post,
the traits given to the outer planets are sort of cherry picked,

and stolen from the other planets. They have no logical use.
There are Sumerian texts from 7,000 years ago (circa 5,000 BCE) that talk about Planets ensnaring things in their "nets" and casting light and casting rays.

What does that mean? It means they were infinitely more intelligent than we are....this is the 21st Century, you have public education systems in nearly every State on Earth, and yet the vast majority of people don't even know that the formula for the Force of Gravity is...

F(g) = M1 * M2 / d^2

How would you explain Gravity to a child that is 4 years old?

"You know how you dip your net into the water to catch goldfish or tadpoles?"

"Yeah."

"Well, Gravity is just like your net, only you can't see Gravity."


It isn't until the late 1950s that our so-called "advanced civilization" figures out there really is a "net" and they call that "net" a "Gravity-well."

And so for science fiction shows for the next 20 years or so -- like the Original Star Trek -- you hear them saying things like: "Captain, we're going to get caught in the Planet's Gravity-well."

If you get stuck in Earth's Gravity-well, you need to be moving at a speed of 17,500 Miles Per Hour to escape the net...and no, I don't know what that is in Kilometers Per Hour (and don't care).

In the Arabic, Farsi, and Latin texts, you see the phrase "[Saturn]...hurling its rays at...."

That's real....it really happens....and that is science.

In reality, the Sun is the only celestial body that actually casts light;
the Moon and Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn reflect light...
....that's why we can see them.
Light is electromagnetic radiation.


In the middle of the electromagnetic radiation band are the colors....to the right of the blues, you have violet, then ultra-violet (UV), then X-Rays, then Gamma Rays.

To the left of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, you have your yellows, oranges, reds and then infrared (IR), microwaves, radar, VHF/UHF, short wave radio, AM and FM radio bands.

Your eyes have evolved to allow you to see select frequencies in the electromagnetic radiation spectrum which are the colors.

An object absorbs frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, but reflects certain frequencies back at you, and that is what you are seeing....the reflected frequencies -- the color --- the specific wavelengths in the electromagnetic radiation band.

Asteroids do not reflect light,
therefore, logically, rationally, scientifically,
asteroids have no impact or affect on you.
Likewise, the Outer Planets -- Uranus, Neptune and Pluto do not reflect light,
and they have no affect on you individually
and there is no possible way using math or science to justify that they do.


In addition to reflecting light, the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn also hurl rays
(although the Sun really does cast Ultra-Violet Rays, X-Rays and Gamma Rays).
Space is not "empty."
Space is filled with particles -- electromagnetic radiation -- from the Sun.

As the Planets move through Space, their mass, their orbital velocity (speed)
and their exact chemical/elemental make-up
creates something called the magnetosphere.
The magnetosphere reflects (some but not all) electromagnetic radiation away from it.

The magnetosphere on each of the Planets is "tuned"
to attenuate certain frequencies in the electromagnetic radiation spectrum.
The Earth's magnetosphere does a great job of screening out Gamma rays,
a decent job of screening out X-Rays,
a mediocre job of screening out UV rays
and then a really bad job of screening out everything from the colors through microwave, radar and the radio bands.


But, then....we already knew that, didn't we?

If the Earth's magnetosphere filtered out electromagnet frequencies in the color band,
then we wouldn't see anything outside of Earth,
and if it screened out frequencies in the radio band,
we would not be able to communicate with our satellites and probes.

Anyway, the magnetospheres of the Planets reflect certain frequencies at certain rates to Earth....

...and that is scientific fact, not speculation.

Since the advent of radio in the early 20th Century,
it has been known that radio are affected by other forms of electromagnetic radiation.
The primary cause is ionized particles in the Earth's stratosphere and mesosphere.
The region in the stratosphere and mesosphere that is heavily ionized is known as the "ionosphere."
These ionized particles severely degrade the performance of microwave, radar, VHF, UHF, Short Wave and AM radio signals,
and diminish the performance of FM radio signals.

This degrading of performance caused a lot of angst in the US Army, Air Force and Navy,
and also with companies involved in radio communications, like Motorola.

It was noted that certain alignments of Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn
could either neutralize the effects of the ionosphere, or amplify the effects.
Scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific and engineering journals
showed that Planets in sextile marginally improve radio performance;
in trine they strongly improve performance;
in square they strongly hamper performance,
and in opposition they severely impede performance;
and that Planets in conjunction could harm or help.


What is the Doctrine of Aspects in Traditional Astrology?

Sextiles indicate weak friendship
Trines show strong friendship
Squares show enmity
Oppositions conflict
Conjunctions can be helpful or harmful

Well, there you go
....scientific proof
that people knew more about the world around them 7,000 years ago
than they do now.

Anyway, asteroids do not have sufficient mass and/or speed to generate magnetopheres,
which is the other reason we ignore them,
and while Uranus and Pluto generate magnetospheres
(no verification yet on whether Pluto does),
they are nothing like the size of magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn,
and their vast distance from Earth precludes the possibility that the Outer Planets can affect individuals...

...F(g) = M1 * M2 / d^2

Good luck with that.


.....So, there you go.

 
Top