Do asteroid aspects matter

graay ghost said:

Which planets are we talking about that are millions of lightyears away? Even Pluto is about 340 lightminutes from the sun. the Andromeda Galaxy is a few million lightyears away, but I don't think anyone has proposed using bodies from there in astrology.

And as for planets affecting us... I mean, the moon and sun obviously affect life on Earth. Other than that, Jupiter has so much gravity that it affects comets and asteroids in the inner solar system. Other than that, I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

Thanks graay ghost, changed that to millions of miles. Gravity and electromagnetism are the two forces that affect things over great distances. The Moon’s gravity causes the tides, but the Moon’s electric field is effectively zero, and its magnetic field is nearly non-existent according to physicists. So it must be something not yet understood.

Moondance

graay ghost said:

Which planets are we talking about that are millions of lightyears away?

Click to expand...

Definitely not Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn

graay ghost said:

Even Pluto is about 340 lightminutes from the sun.
the Andromeda Galaxy is a few million lightyears away,
but I don't think anyone has proposed using bodies from there in astrology.

And as for planets affecting us...
I mean, the moon and sun obviously affect life on Earth.
Other than that, Jupiter has so much gravity that it affects comets and asteroids in the inner solar system.
Other than that, I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

LAWRENCE EDWARDS' WORK WITH PLANT BUDS

Lawrence Edwards, retired mathematics teacher
has been researching into the forms of living nature, using geometric analysis.
1982 he daily began photographing tree buds on a selection of trees
and found that the buds expanded and contracted to an approximate fortnightly rhythm.

These periods varied between 13.6 and 14.7 days
but each species of bud kept the same period in their rhythm.
Edwards realised that these were astronomical rhythms
and that each period correlated to the Moon's alignment with a planet and the Earth

When Earth, Moon and planet were in a straight line
the buds of the tree where in a more rounded, expanded shape.
When Moon and planet where 900 apart (as seen from the Earth),
the buds took on a more oval, contracted shape, sharp at one end and blunt at the other.
Even in the middle of Winter buds are doing a rhythmic dance whose tune is called by the planetary movements http://astro-calendar.com/shtml/Research/research_edwards2.shtml

Moondancing said:

Thanks graay ghost, changed that to millions of miles.

Gravity and electromagnetism are the two forces that affect things over great distances.
The Moon’s gravity causes the tides, but the Moon’s electric field is effectively zero,
and its magnetic field is nearly non-existent according to physicists.
So it must be something not yet understood.

Moondance

Click to expand...

Which planet in particular affected a tree
was determined by the tree's planetary "rulership"
Oak trees for example are "ruled" by Mars
(meaning that some of its rhythms are determined by Mars rhythms)
Elm trees by Mercury
Cherry by Moon
Ash by Sun
and
Beech by Saturn.

It takes the Moon 13.67 days to go from conjunction with Saturn to opposition with Saturn.
The opposition and conjunction aspects are when the Earth, Moon and Saturn are in a straight line
this is also when the buds of Beech trees or conifers attain their most rounded shape.

Moondancing said:

Thanks graay ghost, changed that to millions of miles.
Gravity and electromagnetism are the two forces that affect things over great distances.
The Moon’s gravity causes the tides,
but the Moon’s electric field is effectively zero, and its magnetic field is nearly non-existent according to physicists.
So it must be something not yet understood.

Moondance

Click to expand...

Tides refer to the rise and fall of our oceans’ surfaces
caused by the attractive forces of the Moon AND Sun’s gravitational fields
AS WELL AS the centrifugal force due to the Earth’s spin
For example, when the Sun and Moon are aligned with the Earth
water levels in ocean surfaces fronting them are pulled and subsequently rise.
The Moon, although much smaller than the Sun, is much closer.
gravitational forces decrease rapidly as the distance between two masses widen.
Thus, the Moon’s gravity has a larger effect on tides than the Sun.
In fact, the Sun’s effect is only about half that of the Moon’s http://www.universetoday.com/39280/what-causes-tides/

JUPITERASC said:

and so planets are visible
because planets reflect the light from the sun
and
asteroids do not reflect sufficient light from the sun to make them visible

Click to expand...

Visible with the naked eye from earth you mean. So who made the rule that only visible-to-the-unaided eye objects should matter in astrology? That is what you are trying to assert here, isn't it, as part of what seems to be an agenda, a relentless campaign to discredit modern astrology on this board? And do people who follow this rule include the 5-10K visible stars in their astro charts too?

'Roids are visible to our telescopes and probes which are just extensions of our seeing capabilities, just as microscopes and other instruments help us to detect other invisible yet very real factors that affect our lives, many of which the ancients were also unaware. Let's get with the times!

But I believe more in archetypes and symbols in consciousness and the dynamics of energy in our lives and the cosmos being reflected in various ways, rather than these objects exerting (or redirecting solar) the actual energy of their assigned astrological qualities in the physical universe.

In the readings I do, I don't give 'roids a lot of weight nor believe that they modify personal planets (though they themselves can be influenced), but the larger asteroids continue to show up in interesting places in charts which usually make sense in the larger context I perceive, and their meanings continue to check out against the truth much of the time. I'm even finding obscure asteroids in "coincidental" places. "Horus", my name here and in several other boards, shows up in my 1st house. "Atlantis" shows up conjunct my Uranus (Cayce said Atlanteans were of the "Uranian influence") and MidHeaven and I've described myself as an "Atlantologist" (as an unpaid profession) for years. To me it's just more evidence that the Universe is brilliantly orchestrated by Spirit, that the microcosmic is reflected in the macrocosmic and vice-versa.

I encourage you to open your mind on this subject a little more JA, and experiment with them. Include them in some readings for others and see if they check out. Put a little spice on your food, amigo!

Horus said:

Visible with the naked eye from earth you mean. So who made the rule that only visible-to-the-unaided eye objects should matter in astrology?

Click to expand...

I have always wondered about this. Light pollution makes it harder and harder and harder to see anything in the sky except the sun and moon. Would this make astrology that relies on the naked eye to no longer be relevant?

Horus said:

Visible with the naked eye from earth you mean.

So who made the rule that only visible-to-the-unaided eye objects should matter in astrology?
That is what you are trying to assert here, isn't it, as part of what seems to be an agenda, a relentless campaign to discredit modern astrology on this board?
And do people who follow this rule include the 5-10K visible stars in their astro charts too?

Click to expand...

OP has asked "Do asteroid aspects matter"
perhaps that qualifies the OP as part of this (allegedly "relentless") "campaign"
relax amigo
quite obviously astrologers have different opinions
nothing wrong with that
unless you are saying no one is allowed to have an alternative opinion
and all astrologers posting on this thread must agree
which quite clearly makes no sense
since even modern astrologers posting on this thread
are disagreeing regarding various aspects of asteroids
for example:

graay ghost said:

I'm not sure if I agree with his ideas about Juno on the ascendant.
An article on Astropost seems to propose the idea that people with Juno on the ascendant are more "married to themselves"
and therefore marry late or not at all.
Of course, since the article was written, George Clooney did get married again... at 53.

Click to expand...

apparently that's allowed

as is:

Bjorkstrand said:

Pallas is about graphics, how things appear. That's all.

The myth doesn't work.

Click to expand...

disagreements amongst modern astrologers on this subject then include
whether or not the application of myth to asteroids is even workable

Horus said:

'Roids are visible to our telescopes and probes which are just extensions of our seeing capabilities,
just as microscopes and other instruments help us to detect other very real factors that affect our lives,
many of which the ancients were also unaware.
Let's get with the times!

Click to expand...

Let's 'get with the times' then
and acknowledge that more asteroids are being discovered daily
and there are now millions to be delineated
and so
times are changing daily, moment by moment

Horus said:

But I believe more in archetypes and symbols in consciousness and the dynamics of energy in our lives and the cosmos being reflected in various ways, rather than these objects exerting (or redirecting solar) the actual energy of their assigned astrological qualities in the physical universe.

In the readings I do
I don't give 'roids a lot of weight
nor believe that they modify personal planets
(though they themselves can be influenced),
but the larger asteroids continue to show up in interesting places in charts
which usually make sense in the larger context I perceive,
and their meanings continue to check out against the truth much of the time.

I'm even finding obscure asteroids in "coincidental" places. "Horus", my name here and in several other boards, shows up in my 1st house. "Atlantis" shows up conjunct my Uranus (Cayce said Atlanteans were of the "Uranian influence") and MidHeaven and I've described myself as an "Atlantologist" (as an unpaid profession) for years. To me it's just more evidence that the Universe is brilliantly orchestrated by Spirit, that the microcosmic is reflected in the macrocosmic and vice-versa. I encourage you to open your mind on this subject a little more JA, and experiment with them. Include them in some readings for others and see if they check out. Put a little spice on your food, amigo!

Click to expand...

Clearly those who have the time to research more than a million asteroids shall do just that
with no need for encouragement

however
keep in mind that it's simply a great idea to do the research
and
quite clearly
much research needs to be done
by someone

JUPITERASC said:

unless you are saying no one is allowed to have an alternative opinion

Click to expand...

Of course I'm not. I'm exposing your agenda to promote traditional astro whilst tearing aspects of modern down at every turn which is present in numerous threads around here, and as you are blatantly doing in this thread by trying to invalidate asteroids altogether on the basis of their quantity and naked eye "invisibility" from earth's surface.

That's quite a bit different from the stance of the OP.

Let's 'get with the times' then
and acknowledge that more asteroids are being discovered daily
and there are now millions to be delineated
and so
times are changing daily, moment by moment

Click to expand...

So what? Are you feeling overwhelmed? Please let go of the idea that asteroid inclusion has to involve absurd millions of tiny rocks, or nothing. The Universe is full of planets and objects beyond counting, and the night sky includes thousands of stars yet astrologers only use a relative handful of them. The same applies to 'roids too, and the ones which matter most to modern astrologers are the more prominent ones, like Pallas, etc. There's nothing wrong with that.

And to clarify myself on the point you underlined, the relative "minor league" weight I (and perhaps others) give to asteroids is based on their meaning, significance and influence to our lives more on the psychological plane contrasted to the greater and more important provinces of the planets. They're small fries but they can offer some information and clarification on certain subjects.

Clearly those who have the time to research more than a million asteroids shall do just that
with no need for encouragement

however
keep in mind that it's simply a great idea to do the research
and
quite clearly
much research needs to be done
by someone

Click to expand...

People are doing it with some of them, maybe not to your standards or rules though.

It doesn't require 2000 years of study for you to start using Juno or Pallas in an interpretation. Valid personal meaning and insight can be derived from some of these objects now. They can work now.

The bottom line for me in all this is if it get results, if I can help a client to understand themselves and their karma more fully, and then follow-up with transformational work based on that. Sometimes asteroids (or dwarf planet Ceres) provide additional information that's helpful to that end.

graay ghost said:

I have always wondered about this.

Light pollution makes it harder and harder and harder to see anything in the sky
except the sun and moon.

Would this make astrology that relies on the naked eye to no longer be relevant?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily
because
it's important to keep in mind
that the light pollution that makes viewing objects in our night skies increasingly difficult
applies only to towns and cities

those resident in more rural locations
for example
villages
or even in more remote places
have no problems with viewing the night skies clearly


Interesting that astrology of the future may be practiced differently
dependent on whether the astrologer is resident in a large city
or some remote rural location

Certainly most current astrology is focused on charts viewed online
rather than on the skies

astrologers familiar with the skies as viewed from their location
are increasingly rare
mostly due to skyscrapers obscuring the view
as well as the light pollution that has been mentioned

JA has had it explained many times that other bodies in our solar system besides the "naked eye" planets reflect light. That's how they were discovered via telescopes and photographic plates. Moreoever, merely because a planet emits radiation is not terribly useful astrologically. It doesn't explain how or why particular planets fit into the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic schemes that are at the heart of chart delineation.

Major observatories were specifically located in areas of clear skies and little light pollution, although that is changing with urban sprawl. Today, Chile is developing as a leader in observatories because so much of its climate is extremely high and dry. http://www.almaobservatory.org/en/about-alma/location/why-chile

"Dark sky" tourism to more remote small towns, and star parties are really popular today amongst amateur ("backyard") astronomers. In the US. National Parks increasingly promote night-time naturalist programs to help people recognize the night sky.

Astrology itself moved to ephemerides in ancient times.

The relationship between the moon and plant growth has been a cornerstone of traditional agriculture and farmers' almanacs for centuries. Still, this doesn't get at the level of detail demanded of astrological chart interpretation.

waybread said:

JA has had it explained many times that
other bodies in our solar system besides the "naked eye" planets reflect light.
That's how they were discovered via telescopes and photographic plates.

Moreoever, merely because a planet emits radiation is not terribly useful astrologically.
It doesn't explain how or why particular planets fit into the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic schemes
that are at the heart of chart delineation.

Major observatories were specifically located in areas of clear skies and little light pollution,
although that is changing with urban sprawl.
Today, Chile is developing as a leader in observatories
because so much of its climate is extremely high and dry. http://www.almaobservatory.org/en/about-alma/location/why-chile

Click to expand...

Multiple times it has been explained that there are literally millions of “other objects in our solar system”
that do not reflect sufficient light so as to render them visible to anyone gazing up at their local skies
UNLESS
they have access to the artificial aid of a telescope/massive NASA observatory telescope
costing tens of hundreds of millions and/or billions.


Tiny twinkling lights that ARE visible to the naked eye at night time are FIXED STARS.
A Fixed Star = A Sun.
Fixed stars are brilliant enormous SUNS
that are millions of light years distant from our planet
and are visible to the naked eye simply because of their sheer size
- they dwarf our sun.



For example Fixed Star VY Canis Majoris
– a red hypergiant –
has a diameter of about 2,800,000,000 km (that's almost three BILLION km).
To get some idea of the sheer size of Fixed Star VY Canis Majoris
think of a passenger airplane flying along the surface at 900 km per hour.
It would take one thousand one hundred years to circle it once!
STAR SIZE COMPARISON https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOVhj9l-isE


but there is an even bigger Fixed Star discovered since
i.e.

THE BIGGEST STAR EVER DISCOVERED is Epsilon Aurigae B https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US_O0uK5piA


THE BIGGEST FIXED STARS IN OUR UNIVERSE 2015 space documentary
illustrates the massive size of the telescopes required
in order to view these huge stars with more detail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTnO6HGL7mY


As for Aristotle and ptolemy, they are late arrivals on a scene
which began without any need of them, thousands of years before their births


and furthermore
there is much dispute amongst traditional astrologers
as well as amongst astronomers
regarding Ptolemy
who was not an astrologer
instead
Ptolemy was a mathematician and an astronomer
who was fortunate to have access to the Great Library at Alexandria
prior to its destruction
Ptolemy provided no astrological charts of any kind in any of his writings
because he was not a working astrologer

for example:
THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY http://www.amazon.co.uk/Claudius-Ptolemy-Professor-Robert-Newton/dp/0801819903

Aristotle was a Greek Philosopher whose system of Logic influenced astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy


Ptolemy and Ancient Astronomy

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the ancient Greek
astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy
and consider how and why his geocentric theory of the universe held sway for so many centuries.
Ptolemys astronomical work The Almagest was written in the 2nd century AD
Ptolemy proposed that the Earth was at the centre of the universe
Ptolemy's model of the universe remained the dominant one for over a thousand years.
It was not until 1543, and Copernicus's heliocentric theory of the world
that the Ptolemaic model was finally challenged
and not until 1609 that Johannes Kepler's New Astronomy put an end to his ideas for good.
But how and why did Ptolemy's system survive for so long? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017528d

waybread said:

"Dark sky" tourism to more remote small towns,
and star parties are really popular today amongst amateur ("backyard") astronomers.
In the US. National Parks increasingly promote night-time naturalist programs
to help people recognize the night sky.

Click to expand...

Amateur back-yard astronomers simply cannot afford the kind of equipment required to view the
INVISIBLE UNIVERSE REVEALED BY THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIFxzwEHG3o

waybread said:

Astrology itself moved to ephemerides in ancient times.

The relationship between the moon and plant growth
has been a cornerstone of traditional agriculture and farmers' almanacs for centuries.
Still, this doesn't get at the level of detail demanded of astrological chart interpretation.

Click to expand...

It's not solely the relationship between the Moon and plant growth,

there is also an obvious relationship between Sun and Moon that affects plant growth

because
the Moon reflects the light from the Sun

and so
without the sun lighting up the Moon in our night skies

and then the Moon reflecting our Sun's light
plant growth as we understand it would be impossible on our planet.



FURTHERMORE
as Lawrence Edwards work with plant growth clearly showsplanets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn
are involved with plant growth http://astro-calendar.com/shtml/Research/research_edwards2.shtml
Lawrence Edwards has also measured flower buds
as well as sea shells, hearts and many other life forms
and consequently determined their planetary relationships.

Primroses were conducted by the Sun

Geraniums, Oak, Buttercups and Knapweed by Jupiter
and
Stitchwort by Saturn.

Mars has a strongly inhibiting effect on Saturn when in alignment
and vice versa.
The Vortex of Life 0863151485 http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&...vptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_8obs46r55i_b
Supplement & Sequel
Projective Geometry 0961530405

JA, we've covered this ground soooo many times before. I don't hope to change your opinions, only to alert others reading this thread of your anti-modern agenda.

1. The only people I'm aware of who routinely use modern adaptive magnification devices in their lives except in astrology are some (not all) western traditional astrologers. Many people wear corrective eye glasses, or have had microbiological lab work done on their doctor's orders. It makes no sense to allow magnification in any areas of life except in astrology.

Simple "backyard" telescopes for amateurs are capable of picking up all kinds of things in the night sky. Apparently on July 25 you can see dwarf planet Ceres through binoculars. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/this-weeks-sky-at-a-glance-july-17-25/ You don't need a powerful telescope to see Uranus and Neptune before dawn, either.

But this point is irrelevant. It's OK to learn about our solar system and beyond from professional astronomers using the high-powered telescopes of today. Nobody re-invents the wheel every time they drive a car. We rely on professionals for all kinds of information.

As classics professor Daryn Lehoux has shown, people switched from star-gazing to using ephemerides and star-calendars as soon as these became available.


2. Everybody knows that fixed stars are suns.

3. Your points on Ptolemy ignore the fact that nobody knows whether he read charts or not. Actual chart-reading astrologers in the ancient Roman empire were called "mathematicians." The fact is that Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos was widely disseminated as the cornerstone of the western traditional astrology you so revere.

I highly recommend that you read Nicholas Campion's two-volume history of astrology.

To be continued....

Some astrologers, both traditional and modern, use them. What hasn't changed their interpretations of fixed stars, so far as I know, is recent advances in astronomy.

The Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians developed star catalogues and what we would consider to be astral omens. We can stretch this and call it mundane astrology. Other cultures like the ancient Egyptians observed stars for their calendar. What these ancient societies did not develop was horoscopic astrology. It was probably developed by Hellenized Egyptians or Greeks living in Alexandria Egypt during the 2nd century BCE.

Thanks to you, too, Horus, for your sensible posts.

JA, I have no idea why you are so down on Ptolemy. First off, he didn't invent much of what he wrote, but transmitted the writings of prior astrologers plus Plato and Aristotle into his astrological techniques. In the Almagest he explains his knowledge of a heliocentric model and why he rejected it. Today, we don't accept his reasoning, but the western traditional astrologers prior to the Copernican Revolution did accept it.

Are you saying that these major astrologers of the past should have used a heliocentric model of the solar system? What might that have done to your essential dignities?

Plato, who predated Ptolemy by several centuries, proposed the spherical earth at the centre of the universe.

Why in heaven's name does it matter that private individuals can't afford to own the likes of the Hubble telescope? We can keep up with the findings of professional astronomers who use the big telescopes. We can see some of the asteroids and modern outers with simple amateur telescopes or even powerful binoculars; and detect others by photographing the night sky and detecting movement from photo to photo.

How nice that planets affect plant growth. None of us is a plant, and these studies have nothing to do with the type of western traditional astrology you support.

waybread said:

Why in heaven's name does it matter that private individuals can't afford to own the likes of the Hubble telescope?

Click to expand...

It matters because without at the very least THE LOWELL OBSERVATORY
(and/or the Hubble telescope)
asteroids are simply not visible to unaided vision
and require the use of amateur telescopes/binoculars

waybread said:

We can keep up with the findings of professional astronomers who use the big telescopes.

We can see some of the asteroids

Click to expand...

those asteroids that are visible with the use of amateur telescopes/binoculars are rarely (if ever) seen
due to light pollution in cities and towns
as well as due to poor weather conditions

waybread said:

and modern outers

with simple amateur telescopes or even powerful binoculars;

Click to expand...

You need a fairly large telescope, at least 10 inches aperture, because Pluto is currently at magnitude 14.0, very dim in the sky.

They are not cheap
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes...8198+11038.cfm


To view dwarf planet pluto you need a very good chart of the stars through which pluto is passing
otherwise an amateur would not find it
The best printed star atlases go down to 11th magnitude, which is not faint enough http://astronomy.starrynight.com/

waybread said:

and detect others

by photographing the night sky

and

detecting movement from photo to photo.

Click to expand...

That's how Clyde Toynbee discovered pluto - however he needed the resources of the LOWELL OBSERVATORY in order to do so http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/qt/Pluto.htm

i.e.
1894, businessman Percival Lowell built Lowell Observatory to study Mars.
1905, he turned the telescope toward the search for the elusive Planet X,
but died before the new planet could be found.
Clyde Tombaugh was hired in 1929 and joined the search for the missing planet


The telescope at the observatory was equipped with a camera
that would take two photographs of the sky on different days.


A device known as a blink compactor rapidly flipped back and forth between the two photographs.
Stars and galaxies essentially remained unmoving in the images,
but anything closer could be visually identified by its motion across the sky.
Tombaugh spent approximately a week studying each pair of photographs,
which contained over 150,000 stars, and sometimes nearly a million.

18 February 1930, Clyde Tombaugh noticed movement across the field of a pair of images taken a month beforehand.

After studying the object to confirm it,
the staff of Lowell Observatory officially announced the discovery of a ninth planet on 13 March 1930


These are the TWO PHOTOGRAPHS taken by a purpose-built expensive POWERFUL TELESCOPE
that allowed Clyde Tombaugh to notice movement in the skies


Note the ARROW
on EACH of the two separate photographs
highlighting what Clyde Tombaugh noticed
Above image is of Original plates from Clyde Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto in Lowell Observatory Archive. Credit: Lowell Observatory



Clearly, the miniscule light reflected by dwarf planet pluto

allows observation SOLELY
when using expensive equipment housed in a purpose built observatory
consisting of a powerful telescope fitted with a camera


FURTHERMORE

without those two still photgraphs,
taken at the LOWELL OBSERVATORY, ARIZONA
neither Clyde Tombaugh nor anyone else
could possibly have noticed dwarf planet pluto


The photo below is of pluto
as viewed through the most powerful telescope on Earth.
Why isn't it in stunning Techni-Color?

I guess you guys were all expecting something like this...

Sorry....that is a doctored image and digitally colorized

All of you do know and understand that the photos you get from Hubble
are all digitally enhanced with computer software to make them pretty, right?

Regarding the necessity for powerful amateur telescopes
and preferably the Hubble and/or THE LOWELL OBSERVATORY

QUOTE

'.......since pluto's discovery - currently 84 years ago -
telescopes have gotten much more powerful
and astronomers much more clever.
They have found there are 50-100 objects orbiting the sun that are exactly like Pluto.
Some of these, like Eris, are bigger that Pluto.
There are objects that are more like planets than Pluto is
and if we were to include Pluto as a planet
then we would have to include the 50 other insignificant hunks of rock floating around our sun.
There is literally nothing separating Pluto from the 50 other ‘planets’ that we have discovered.
And that would be assigning equal weight to their importance.
Because as harsh as it is, there is not much that is interesting about these dwarf planets.
They are just lumps of rock and ice that are indistinguishable from their moons of rock and ice.....'


Quote:
nearly 100 objects like QB1 have been found. They are thought to be similar to Pluto in composition
and like Pluto, many orbit the sun in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune.
This swarm of Pluto-like objects beyond Neptune is known as the Kuiper Belt
after Gerard Kuiper, who first proposed that such a belt existed and served as a source of short period comets.
Astronomers estimate that there are at least 35,000 Kuiper Belt objects
greater than 100 km in diameter
which is several hundred times the number (and mass) of similar sized objects in the main asteroid belt.


if we are using pluto we should be using those planets too

stars are classified in groups of " brilliance ".
Stars of 1st magnitude are the most brilliant ones,
For example Spica, Sirius
are twice and a half times more brilliant than the group 2 stars,
the latter being themselves twice and a half times more brilliant than the group 3, and so forth.
To the naked eye, it is possible to see them up to the group 6 only.
As a matter of rule, the more brilliant the star, the more active it is in astrology.
However, there are exceptions, for instance in the case of nebulas which shine dimly.

Given that dwarf planet pluto's alleged 'brilliance' is a mere 13.6 - 14th magnitude
unsurprisingly then:

'.....that even under the best of circumstances, finding Pluto isn’t easy.


Pluto never shows a resolvable disk in even the largest backyard telescope,


and instead, always appears like a tiny star-like point.

When opposition occurs near perihelion — as it last did in 1989 —
Pluto can reach a maximum “brilliancy” of magnitude +13.6.
However, Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit ranging from 30 to 49 Astronomical Units (A.U.s) from the Sun.
In 2014, Pluto has dropped below +14th magnitude at opposition
as it heads back out towards aphelion in another century in 2114.....'

waybread said:

How nice that planets affect plant growth.

Click to expand...

Indeed. mirabile dictu

waybread said:

None of us is a plant,

Click to expand...

that's good news.

waybread said:

and these studies have nothing to do with the type of western traditional astrology you support.

Click to expand...

On the contrary

FOR EXAMPLE

Of the SUN, his general and particular Significations Adapted from TRADITIONAL ASTROLOGER William Lilly's 17th century text Christian Astrology,

QUOTE

Herbs, Plants and Trees: The plants subject to the Sun smell pleasantly, are of good flavour, their flowers are yellow or reddish, are in growth of majestical form, they love open and sunny places, their principal virtue is to strengthen the heart and comfort the vitals, to clear the eyesight, resist poison, or to dissolve any witchery, or malignant planetary influences; and they are: saffron, the laurel, the vine, enula campana, Saint John's wort, amber, musk, ginger, herbgrace, balm, marigold, rosemary, cinnamon, celandine, eyebright, peony, barley, cinquefoil,

TREES SUBJECT TO THE SUN include the Ash, palm, laurel tree, the myrrh tree, frankincense, the cane tree or plant, the cedar, heliotrope
the orange tree, the lemon tree


ANOTHER EXAMPLE


Of the planet MARS, and his several Significations

Adapted from TRADITIONAL ASTROLOGER William Lilly's 17th century text Christian Astrology

HERBS PLANTS AND TREES:

Those that are red in colour, whose leaves are pointed and sharp, whose taste is caustic and burning; that love to grow in dry places, are corrosive and penetrate the flesh and bones with a subtle heat.

They are as follows:
The nettle, all manner or thistles , white and red brambles, lingwort , onion , garlic , mustard-seed, pepper, ginger, leeks , hoarhound , hemlock , tamarinds, all herbs attracting or drawing choler by sympathy such as radish.
All trees that are prickly, such as the thorn or chestnut.

Jupiter Ascendant, in all of your years of carping at modern astrology you have never explained why "naked eye" observations should matter. Even in Hellenistic times, astrologers shifted from watching the sky to using an ephemeris. Astrologers haven't been sky-watchers for about 2000 years, with the exception of astro-meteorology.

So first of all, there is no rational reason why naked-eye observation even matters., in this day and age. We're not living back in Sumer.

As mentioned earlier, amateur astronomers who live in places affected by light pollution love to travel to "dark sky" sites. These may be as near as open fields beyond the edge of town. "Dark sky" tourism is on the rise, in communities and parks that are beyond the polluted sites.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/

A decent "starter" telescope can be purchased ($US) for a few hundred dollars.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-equipment/best-starter-telescopes/

Given that few of us care whether or not we see Pluto with photographs and an expensive backyard telescope, I don 't see your point. I am delighted to see the recent NASA photos of Pluto from New Horizons.

Moreover, many traditional western astrologers of the past lived in places (like England) where the sky is often overcast, had to rely on an ephemeris, not direct observation, to know where the planets were. After astrologers switched from constellations to signs and from the sidereal to the tropical zodiac, they couldn't just eyeball a planet and assign it a degree.

This isn't to say that you can never view the night sky. Of course you can. For that matter, if you live in a place with bad light and atmospheric pollution, good luck seeing Saturn or Mercury.

The rest of your posts have nothing to do with the OP, which is about asteroid aspects.

Suffice it to say, if you don't care for the solar system as it is, but as it was understood 1000 years ago, that's fine. But naked-eye astronomy isn't an argument for deleting asteroids and the trans-Saturnians from modern astrology. We're happy with telescopes, computers, digital imagery, photographic plates, satellites, space probes and all kinds of other technologies that help us to understand our marvelous solar system.

Waybread, it's pretty simple really. The underlying philosophical statement behind traditional astrology is 'let there be light'.

It's also why people who follow traditional techniques tend to put an emphasis on sect, whether a chart is a day chart or night chart.

Now, if light doesn't matter, you can add in anything you want to a chart. If it does, there are some fairly strict cut-offs.

E.g., you might be able to make an argument that Uranus and Vesta can play a small part in things once in a while, because once in a while, they can be seen. But not often. And they'd never be important enough to really rock the boat.

If, on the other hand, light (in the classical sense) matters not to you, then add in everything you like. Though I admit I'm flummoxed on asteroids, and meaning derived by asteroid name. Are the IAU naming conventions taken to be divinely inspired, or is it a case of happy coincidence?

Oddity, you seem to be making the same "naked eye" argument that JA has so often made. I just don't buy it, because it's merely a question of lenses and magnification. We use lenses and magnification in so many areas of our lives without qualm. I wear eyeglasses. Birdwatchers use binoculars. Photographers use telephoto lenses. It's no big deal. Yet somehow strict traditionalists want to make an anti-magnification, anti-lens exceptionalist argument for astrology.

The planets and asteroids that you can't see with the naked eye of course reflect the sun's light the same as the traditional planets do. This is how they were discovered with telescopes and photographic plates. (Today, digital imaging.)

So I could argue that light matters, too, in modern astrology. We just accept inventions like telescopes that enhance our abilities to see things. As did the great Renaissance astronomers.

Moreover, traditional astrologers use house cusps, signs, and Arabian parts (lots) where no light is involved at all. These don't even exist up in the sky.

I think we live in a holistic universe, Oddity. Astrology examines the inner sky.

waybread said:

Moreover, traditional astrologers use house cusps, signs, and Arabian parts (lots) where no light is involved at all. These don't even exist up in the sky.

Click to expand...

No, those are mathematically determined points, ways of measuring the sky. Measurement of the sky is important and the first thing astrologers had to learn to predict is where the planets were going to be, but it is not the same thing as planets and stars, so I'm a bit confused by your argument.

Even when I practised modern astrology, a distinction was made between measurement techniques and planets. No more?

Is it also important whether or not the day when someone was born was overcast or not?

Classical astrology may be based off of light, but isn't modern life only possible when you accept that you are affected by forces that cannot be directly observed with the naked eye? I mean, germ theory, electricity... working with stuff that can't be seen with the naked eye seems to be working pretty well for us humans!