minor planets significance and adding to the main ones: titius bode and astrology

iauiugu

Active member
(sorry for the cheesy title -- i'm new to aiming for accuracy with them)

So this is kinda a big question, and sorry that I'm a beginner with this stuff -- but I'm wondering how people are approaching the ballooning number of minor planets and asteroids in general, and going about encorporating the lot into a workable astrological system

Specifically I'm curious how people are considering any additions to the central pantheon of planetary archetypes (generally the sun, mercury, venus, moon, mars, saturn, uranus, neptune, and pluto) and how exactly such a thing might be accounted for, if at all

I think that its reasonable that there be around 12 central planetary/luminary archetypes in line with the signs and houses. many astrologers i've read seem to be following this hunch of likely synchronicity. but how to choose the sharers of virgo/gemini and taurus/libra doesn't seem to have consensus, nor a consensus on how all other recently discovered bodies may be understood

Some astrologers, like astronomers, seem to go based on the physical size of the minor planets, which undoubtedly boosts support for Eris, as the (?) most massive minor planet (and likewise find Chiron's importance overemphasized, given its diminutive, dinky size)

But personally I think there should be some underlying pattern of the planetary position in the solar system, giving the pattern-centered nature of astrology (and much of the universe). Pluto (and Chiron) is good evidence for why scale doesn't mean everything. and it's not like astrologers consider aspects and conjunctions in a chart by the physical size of the solar bodies in question

as such I feel like the titius-bode orbital periodicity model is a good basis for looking at the significance of planetary archetypes, as it reflects the actual pattern of planetary distances from the sun, following a fibbinocci-like sequence (fractal geometry). the model is currently ill-considered by most in astronomy; Neptune violates the model, which caused it to lose favor about a century ago, though to be fair Neptune is essential at a half interval of the primary sequence.

(even so, since recent studies show that the pattern holds for some distant solar systems and for the moons of jupiter and uranus, the system may soon gain more favor in astronomy again)

i made a chart of various bodies in the solar system and the titius-bode equation. the bodies colored blue are at half intervals of the sequence (as in the planet after Uranus should be double Uranus's fibonaccian number of 6 (what Pluto is), but Neptune's distance relates to half of 64), while the pink ones are at quarter intervals

tumblr_nu8f7x59vt1qa2zvho1_1280.png


as such, the model would suggest that ceres and sedna are possibly the rightful archetypal planets for the signs and houses, and that an as-of-now unnamed minor planet could be more prominent than the popular minor planet Eris

of course this is only my idea, but the significance of the fibbinoci sequence throughout nature as a recurring motif is hard for me to ignore as significant

sedna has qualities that make it exceptional worth mentioning: it's orbit is 11, 500, close to the the mythic 12, 000 year denomination for the cycle of great ages of ascending and descending global higher consciousness, and it is, within the century approaching its closest point to the sun (the distance used in the chart). it hasn't been this close since the end of the mini ice age, what was undoubtedly a tumultous time for most humans across the globe, bringing about a complete redoing of every facet of our existence, right to how to derive sustenance from the primal earth -- perhaps this will parallel what will begin to become an inconceivably hostile planet (climate change, ocean acidification, oceans rising, deep-water methane leaks, water scarcity, rare tech metal scarcity) within the century.

i 'd love any feedback! thank you if you read this far :)
 
Last edited:
Top