Is Uranus an Astrological Planet?

[petosiris]

The only thread that is currently missing.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by petosiris

The only thread that is currently missing.

previously invisible

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

previously invisible

According to waybread, it should be regarded as a faint fixed star - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10760

[waybread]

Petosiris, to be perfectly clear, I didn't say that anyone should regard Uranus as a fixed star if that doesn't work for them.

Obviously Uranus is an actual planet to modern astrologers. There's no way around that.

But a possibility for trads:

There is some scholarship on the strong circumstantial evidence in the Almagest that Ptolemy and probably Hipparchus (whose data Ptolemy used) did observe Uranus, but thought it was a fixed star in the constellation Virgo. See my posts at Skyscript via Petosiris's link.

In 1690 Flamsteed observed Uranus in the constellation Taurus but thought it was a fixed star. Same with the French astronomer Le Monnier in the 18th century. William Herschel in 1781 was not the first to see Uranus, but the first to correctly identify it as a planet.

The magnitude of Uranus is right around the limit of naked-eye visibility. If you Google around, you can find instructions for "backyard" amateur astrologers to see Uranus without a telescope.

Uranus orbits the sun only every 84 years, so it's not surprising that earlier astronomers did not detect its motion.

If you read Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos section on fixed stars, you will see that he (a) identifies 6 of them by name; (b) some according to an unmistakable position, like the points on the horns of the consellation Taurus; (c) and some as "bright stars" in a portion of a constellation. But (d) Ptolemy often simply grouped bright and dim stars together according to a given region of a zodiac constellation. Uranus would have fallen into this latter category.

For the region in Virgo where Uranus seems to have been recorded in the Almagest, Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos said that the stars have the nature of Mercury and Mars. Which some trads might feel are reasonable substitutes for the action of Uranus in a modern horoscope.

[JUPITERASC]

There's controversey re: Ptolemys use of predecessors data

Originally Posted by waybread

Petosiris, to be perfectly clear, I didn't say that anyone should regard Uranus as a fixed star if that doesn't work for them.

Obviously Uranus is an actual planet to modern astrologers. There's no way around that.

But a possibility for trads:

There is some scholarship on the strong circumstantial evidence in the Almagest that Ptolemy and probably Hipparchus (whose data Ptolemy used) did observe Uranus, but thought it was a fixed star in the constellation Virgo. See my posts at Skyscript via Petosiris's link.

In 1690 Flamsteed observed Uranus in the constellation Taurus but thought it was a fixed star. Same with the French astronomer Le Monnier in the 18th century. William Herschel in 1781 was not the first to see Uranus, but the first to correctly identify it as a planet.

The magnitude of Uranus is right around the limit of naked-eye visibility. If you Google around, you can find instructions for "backyard" amateur astrologers to see Uranus without a telescope.

Uranus orbits the sun only every 84 years, so it's not surprising that earlier astronomers did not detect its motion.

If you read Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos section on fixed stars, you will see that he (a) identifies 6 of them by name; (b) some according to an unmistakable position, like the points on the horns of the consellation Taurus; (c) and some as "bright stars" in a portion of a constellation. But (d) Ptolemy often simply grouped bright and dim stars together according to a given region of a zodiac constellation. Uranus would have fallen into this latter category.

For the region in Virgo where Uranus seems to have been recorded in the Almagest, Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos said that the stars have the nature of Mercury and Mars. Which some trads might feel are reasonable substitutes for the action of Uranus in a modern horoscope.

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by waybread

Petosiris, to be perfectly clear, I didn't say that anyone should regard Uranus as a fixed star if that doesn't work for them.

Obviously Uranus is an actual planet to modern astrologers. There's no way around that.

But a possibility for trads:

There is some scholarship on the strong circumstantial evidence in the Almagest that Ptolemy and probably Hipparchus (whose data Ptolemy used) did observe Uranus, but thought it was a fixed star in the constellation Virgo. See my posts at Skyscript via Petosiris's link.

In 1690 Flamsteed observed Uranus in the constellation Taurus but thought it was a fixed star. Same with the French astronomer Le Monnier in the 18th century. William Herschel in 1781 was not the first to see Uranus, but the first to correctly identify it as a planet.

The magnitude of Uranus is right around the limit of naked-eye visibility. If you Google around, you can find instructions for "backyard" amateur astrologers to see Uranus without a telescope.

Uranus orbits the sun only every 84 years, so it's not surprising that earlier astronomers did not detect its motion.

If you read Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos section on fixed stars, you will see that he (a) identifies 6 of them by name; (b) some according to an unmistakable position, like the points on the horns of the consellation Taurus; (c) and some as "bright stars" in a portion of a constellation. But (d) Ptolemy often simply grouped bright and dim stars together according to a given region of a zodiac constellation. Uranus would have fallen into this latter category.

For the region in Virgo where Uranus seems to have been recorded in the Almagest, Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos said that the stars have the nature of Mercury and Mars. Which some trads might feel are reasonable substitutes for the action of Uranus in a modern horoscope.

I am not particularly interested in any fixed star except for say the 50 or so brighter ones, and even then, not that much. There are a just a few hundred fixed stars that are constantly brighter than Uranus at its brightest. But I am sincerely interested in how one can synthesize the outer planets in traditional astrology along with the seven without changing the whole edifice. Bringing the magnitude of Uranus is not going to change minds. You might as well be clamoring that it is a planet and that planets are more important than fixed stars because they are moving, and cosmic motion transmits change in ancient physics. I bet you are going to have more success in conversion. That is a joke, I know you are not doing that.

[petosiris]

Better stick with Herschel in the near future. Can't have an honest discussion otherwise...

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by petosiris

Better stick with Herschel in the near future.
Can't have an honest discussion otherwise...

ours is a kindergarten level allegedly learning forum
so Herschel previously George seems a good option

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

David have you become SCU now?

What's SCU?

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

ours is a kindergarten level allegedly learning forum
so Herschel previously George seems a good option

It is normal for kindergartens such as the members of our forum to find the name of this planet extraordinarily funny.

[david starling]

"Uranus" was a made up word, meant as a joke in the first place. Might as well have some fun with it.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by petosiris

It is normal for kindergartens such as the members of our forum
to find the name of this planet extraordinarily funny.

Originally Posted by david starling

Does it embareass you?

kindergarten level humor is kindergarten level humor

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

kindergarten level humor is kindergarten level humor

Siriassly

[david starling]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

kindergarten level humor is kindergarten level humor

A made-up word is a made-up word. It doesn't deserve respect.

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

A made-up word is a made-up word. It doesn't deserve respect.

It is a name of a greco-roman god.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

It is a name of a greco-roman god.

No it's not.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by david starling

A made-up word is a made-up word. It doesn't deserve respect.

particularly when strictly text only

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

No it's not.

Yes, it is.

[david starling]

Neither is "Zeupiter", although it does have a nice ring to it.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

Yes, it is.

Caelus was the Roman name for Ouranos.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by david starling

Caelus was the Roman name for Ouranos.

yawning.....

[david starling]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

yawning.....

Got a meme for that?

[petosiris]

Back on topic. Is the distant blue ice giant an astrological planet - yes or no and why?

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

Yes, Neptune is an astrological planet. Why wouldn't it be? Yes, no, and why?

Thanks for your feedback that has nothing to do with OP

[david starling]

Okay. For Mods, the answer is yes. is an astrological planet because the telescope is an acceptable astrological tool.

For Trads, the answer is no. is not an astrological planet because it can't be identified as a planet with the naked eye, even though it is visible under the right conditions as a faint star.

For petosirus, the answer is no. is not an astrological planet because it doesn't score high enough on his size/distance ratio scale.