AURA LAYER L=LAYER C=CHAKRA *=BIG
NUMBER NAME PERIOD OP LC H MEANING(NAME)
YR #
(136199) 2003 UB313 (562)15 11-1.2*POWER(ERIS)
2003 QK91 (566)05 11 6.9 HEARING?
2001 OM109 (573)03 12 7.9 LINK
2010 EK139 (572)05 12 3.8*NAME
2006 HX122 (582)02 13 5.9
(160148) 2001 KV76 (593)04 13 7.7 AURA
2003 FH129 (600)04 14 8.2
(126619) 2002 CX154 (607)04 14 7.1 EXPLORE
2007 TA418 (617)02 1 7.2
(229762) 2007 UK126 (641)09 15 3.4*
2005 PT21 (652)03 17 7.4 THINK

(145480) 2005 TB190 (668)04 21 4.7*EMOTION
2003 LA7 (671)04 2 6.4
2000 PF30 (676)03 2 7.9
2000 PH30 (680)03 2 7.6
2004 TF282 (717)03 2 6.
2006 HV122 (743)03 2 6.1

(15874) 1996 TL66 (757)07 31 5.3 MIND
(82155) 2001 FZ173 (807)04 32 6.2
2005 EF304 (813)04 32 7.3
2003 YQ179 (823)05 33 7.1
2008 LP17 (836)02 33 6.4
2003 CF119 (843)04 33 7.3
(307982) 2004 PG115 (869)04 34 4.9*PSYCHIC?
(145474) 2005 SA278 (875)05 35 6.2 PSYCHOLOGY
1999 CY118 (878)03 36 8.7 DREAM?
(145451) 2005 RM43 (886)11 33 4.4*PHOTOMEM?
2006 HQ122 (888)03 36 6.3 MINDREAD
(26181) 1996 GQ21 (889)07 36 5.2 MAN
2005 RP43 (902)02 37 6.2

(118702) 2000 OM67 (987)04 44 6.4 CONNECTIONS
(65489) 2003 FX128 (997)11 4 6.3 AURA WEB(CETO)
(29981) 1999 TD10 (1000)07 4 8.7
2008 ST291(1005)03 4 4.3*FACEBOOK

(91554) 1999 RZ215(1051)06 51 7.8 YEEHA
(184212) 2004 PB112(1153)04 53 7.2 GRAVITY
(303775) 2005 QU182(1185)10 5 3.5*COLOR
1999 CZ118(1281)04 5 7.9 ELECTRICITY?

(181902) 1999 RD215(1356)04 6 7.5 IMAGE DNA
(54520) 2000 PJ30 (1362)04 6 8. PSYCHIC

2003 HB57 (1972)04 7 7.4 PROGRAM1
2010 VZ98 (2007)03 7 5.0 PROGRAM2
2005 PU21 (2319)04 7 6.1 PROGRAM3
2007 VJ305(2748)03 7 6.8 PROGRAM6
2003 SS422(2753)?? 7 7.1 PROGRAM?
2002 GB32 (3097)04 7 7.4
(148209) 2000 CR105(3430)05 7 6.1 ASTRO CHART
(82158) 2001 FP185(3432)06 7 6.1 GENETIC CODE
2004 VN112(6188)04 7 6.4
2009 MS9 (7277)02 7 10.5
2010 BK118(9597)04 7 10.5

Welcome to quantum astrology or 21st century astrology.

Jim

SEDNA LAYER C = CHAKRA
NUMBER NAME PERIOD OP C H MEANING
YR #
(90377) Sedna (11,063)10 11 1.5 REINCARNATION
2007 TG422(13,182)03 1 6.1 MIND LIGHT
(87269) 2000 OO67 (13,410)05 1 9.1 PHI

(14,000) 2 ????

(308933) 2006 SQ372(23,188)05 4 8.1 LOVE

(00,000) 5 ????

2012 DR30 (37,939)06 7 7.1 FORGIVE

james_m wrote:i don't follow some of your ideas in this post, but i am reluctant to ask too many questions! okay - i will ask one - what does '200 in the astronomical zone" refer to? is that in connection with the chart where you show all the different astronomical objects?

I remember neglecting to reference that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... an_objects

Now over 1200 trans-Neptunian objects appear on the Minor Planet Center's List Of Transneptunian Objects.
As of November 2009, two hundred of these have their orbits well-enough determined that they have been given a permanent minor planet designation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt#Resonances

This 2:3 resonance is populated by about 200 known objects

I think the 2:3 reference is meant to cover out to 1:2, so maybe the 2nd reference to 200 is the same as the 1st.

Juan wrote:

All of them have been discovered by means of ground-based telescopes.

Fair enough. My error.

Juan wrote:

Invisible to the naked eye?

Yes. I was simply responding to James point there was no intrinsic difference between a TNO and fixed star. This was a consideration I consider of some significance. Although it is principally an issue for me in regards the distinction between traditional planets and the 'outer planets'.

Juan wrote:

This makes me wonder how the lunar nodes look to the naked eye, or the house cusps, or the sign boundaries. Like the tno's you can know where they are only by means of abstract mathematical manipulations, and unlike the tno's, they don't even physically exist.

Good point. I don?t deny much of astrology relies on symbolism with a tenuous connection to physical reality. For example, both lots and midpoints are points derived from the planets but are not physical objects themselves. Similarly, while Indian astrology does treat the two nodal axis as ?shadow planets? they are simply derived points based on the the position of the Moon in relation to the ecliptic. Still all these points take us back to the planets which they are derived directly from. In the case of lots and midpoints they derive from the position of the planets in ecliptical longitude while the nodes derive from the ecliptical latitude of the Moon.

Juan wrote:

A simple transit, progression, or direction to the radix chart is not only invisible but physically impossible, so they can never be "seen"... and so on with a lot of of traditional horoscopics: most of it is not physically visible, and a lot of it is physically non-existent.
Again I don?t dispute any of this. I think you may have misunderstood my point. I am not advocating a return to some kind of purely ?visual astrology? in the manner of Bernadette Brady or Rumen Kolev.

Naked-eye visibility will take one back to the original Babylonian astrology, but it seems to me that it takes us in the wrong direction towards an understanding of Greek horoscopics --what we usually call "tradition"-- which has little to do with what is physically visible, such as for example working with the ecliptic longitude of a star instead of the star itself.
I agree with you in large point here.

Historically, I think your right that even since the time of the Greeks there was a movement away from a simple naked eye astrology. Examples include the treatment of the lots of Fortune and Spirit in many of the preserved early Greek horoscopes. In many respects these points were treated like planets in their own right. Presumably, because both points derive from the solar-lunar relationship. As you suggest we also see an increasing focus on working with the simple ecliptical longitude of a star rather than its mundane position in a particular locality.

I don?t propose an astrology exclusively derived from visual phenomena in the way Bernadette Brady or Rumen Kolev have. That doesn?t mean I don?t think this distinction between visual and non-visual has no significance. Looking at rulerships for example many astrologers utilise the traditional associations not just because of the historical and philosophical basis for this but also because of the visual dimension of these planets.

There is also the issue of the meaning attributed to these bodies which developed through centuries of visual observation and the corresponding religio-mythical associations they acquired. The same could be said of fixed stars. The same cannot be said of the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), asteroids, centaurs and mostly recently the newer TNO's.

The outer planets, asteroids, centaurs and recent TNO's all acquired their names through the random process of naming by an astronomer after discovery by telescope. Most modernist astrologers like to rationalize this randomness away by claiming the new name is astrologically synchronistic and therefore the name given fits the meaning of the new body perfectly through its mythological associations. This despite the fact that the names are selected on an often arbitrary basis by various astrology hostile astronomers. Is this this really a valid way to determine astrological meaning for a new object? Its a question we should at least be asking ourselves. I feel this is an important distinction between the traditional planets associations and TNOs and other newly discovered objects.

Astrologers used to at least state that newly discovered bodies (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) needed decades of study to gain an insight into their meaning through extensive observation. Not just in nativities but mundane affairs. Nowadays though it seems shortly after a body is discovered an astrologer somewhere is waxing lyrical on a newspaper column, website or putting out a new book informing us exactly how this body effects your life based on its name and associated mythology. I seem to recall the British Sun sign astrologer Jonathan Cainer doing exactly this shortly after the discovery of Sedna. As I see it this modern trend marks a downward spiral in the astrological community which can be traced back to the knee jerk response to the discovery of Chiron in 1977.

I therefore look at this topic as an astrological hierarchy where the 7 visible planets have precedence over all the newly discovered objects which had no place in the original framework of astrology.

That is why those taking a more traditional outlook like myself will not assign these new invisible bodies rulership of any sign. In fact it can be argued that the discovery of these new objects actually strengthens the case for traditional over modern rulerships. Arguably, the discovery of a whole family of 'Plutoids' has made the decision of many 20th century astrologers to assign rulership of Scorpio to Pluto look somewhat misguided.

Still, there is an issue here. On the one hand these bodies are invisible to the naked eye and therefore could be compared to points like the lots or Nodes. Assuming they dont exclude these bodies from consideration altogether this is the way those working traditionally often incorporate the outer planets from Uranus outwards.

However, these bodies are different in that they have a physical reality just like the 7 traditional planets.

So for me at least they have an intermediate status between a traditional planet and a purely mathematically derived point such as a node. I certainly don?t exclude working with these objects astrologically but I don?t see them as synonymous with a traditional planet in influence for the reasons I have given. I suppose there is a connection with the fixed stars too in that we know these points have a physical reality but do not assign them rulership of tropical signs at least.

There is of course a much deeper philosophical issue here around what we are doing in any kind of astrology. For example, if we accept Platonic emanation theory the symbols of astrology are simply the mere shadows of a purer reality. From that perspective I can see an argument being made that the different approaches to astrology are comparable to the different palettes used by each artist to represent reality.

Mark

.

..you can see Eris isn`t quite like Haumea or Makemake, except in it`s Dwarf Planet-ness designation. Quaoar is probably the 3rd I`d list.

For the benefit of anyone struggling to follow the basic distintions being made here:

Classical Kuiper belt-packed full of TNOs. The largest objects appear to be: Haumea, Makemake, Quaoar and Varuna. The classical Kuiper belt is characterized by TNOs that have settled into an orbital sequence with Neptune.

Scattered disc-TNOs here are not in direct orbital sequence with Neptune but they are open to perturbation by Neptune. This can cause objects to migrate into the inner solar system. This is thought to be where the centaurs originated. The major object here is Eris. It seems to have a much wider orbital inclination than objects in the classical Kuiper belt.

Sedna is so far out it has been suggested it actually lies beyond the scattered disc zone and in the inner area of the Oort cloud. Objects here do not come under any influence from Neptune. The Oort cloud is thought to contain trillions of comets. Objects in the outer area of the Oort cloud are more likely to be perturbed by neighbouring stars than our own Sun.

Some information on the orbital inclination of the major TNOs.

Kuiper Belt Objects

Pluto
17.151 394?

Makemake
28.96?

Haumea,
28.22?

Varuna
17.2?

Quaoar
7.996?


Scattered Disc Objects

Eris
43.844?

Inner Oort Cloud Objects

Sedna
11.927?


Mark

ariondys,

thanks for the links with more info on all this..


mark,

one of my pet peeves is the use of algol as a dumping ground for all the bad stuff that happens if a chart happens to engage algol in any way.

algol is quite an interesting star in that there appears to be a few stars as opposed to one. it is called an eclipsing binary. apparently the eclipse is on a 2.68 day cycle. i wonder if all the bad stuff associated with algol has ever been examined in relation to this eclipse cycle that the binary star is on? i can't remember who discussed this last, but i remember it being an interesting and thought provoking conversation. it is one of the most notorious stars in astrological lore..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algol

James_M wrote:

one of my pet peeves is the use of algol as a dumping ground for all the bad stuff that happens if a chart happens to engage algol in any way.

Hi James,

I always find it fascinating to discuss fixed stars. However, I would rather not take the thread off into this kind of tangent here and prefer to stay with the thread topic of TNOs.

Of course you could open a new thread on this. Possibly on another forum. We had an epic thread on the subject of Algol on the traditional forum some years ago but I think it may have dropped off the board by now. Below are a couple of more recent threads and a series of articles and links on the subject. You might find my response in the 2nd Skyscript forum link interesting in the light of your comments above. Although, my views have altered a bit since I posted those comments.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 8bb172b4b9

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 16beb6b805

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/algol.html

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.artic ... algol.html

http://ye-stars.com/WP/medusas-head

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/st ... _order.htm

http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/Algol.html

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thefixedstars/message/145

http://alextrenoweth.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... algol.html

http://darkstarastrology.com/algol-medusas-head/

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/perseus.html

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/sh ... hp?t=12224

Mark

An interesting website speculating on the astrological associations of Makemake and Haumea.

http://www.lunarplanner.com/asteroids-d ... aumea.html

Mark

I don`t like being so dependant on wiki for my facts, I would like to be, but it`s not guaranteed stuff.

So here we have 2013 fact - 1521 TNOs with 225 of those being numbered.

JPL Small-Body Database Search Engine
[ Refine Search ] Results: 1521 matching objects
Constraints: orbital class (TNO)

225 of those have numbers
those with names follow:

Thanks Ariondys,

I'm sure your JPL data is far more reliable. Although there is a lot of information being learned about these objects and we should expect a lot of provisional data to be updated. Especially, in regards precise size and composition of the TNOs.

Interesting this puts Sedna's orbital period even longer at 12600 years. Roughly, a 1000 years a sign although I imagine the orbital quirks will mean much longer in some signs than others. Eris is an extreme case.

I do find this body Orcus interesting. Described as an 'anti-pluto' due to being in almost constant opposition to Pluto with a very similar orbital period. Plus any TNO with a connection to Lord of the Rings deserves a better look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90482_Orcus

Mark

hi mark,

i thought you would want to keep the conversation focused on the thread title...
thanks for the links. i liked what you said on the 2nd thread.

hi ariondys,

2013 fact - 1521 TNOs

humm...

how many fixed stars are their? the fixed star crowd work with how many?

i figure the degree of subjectivity that astrologers express is in direct relation to the number of TNO's, fixed stars, arabic points, midpoints and etc. etc. they use.. the more one uses the more subjective one becomes.

martha lang-wescott uses a zillion asteriods.. she writes books on them.. she also uses midpoints - 90 degree dial and etc. etc. i don't know how she does it. i don't know how much is based on a subjective viewpoint or not.. it is a complete mystery to me, as is other astrologers work who include different astronomical positions that i haven't even considered.. to go back to the thread title - want to stay on topic even if this is the philosophy section, lol - what does anyone here know about any of these 3 bodies - eris, haumea and makemake? i know nothing..