Skyscript Astrology Forum

Questions for Linchi and Zachariel

When Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet in 2006, did it change your view on it?
Besides the 8 TNOs in the Kuiper Belt, do you think that there are more objects that could be used for reading a chart?
I subscribe to the website of Alex Miller's Asteroid Astrology. Any comments on his approach?
https://alexasteroidastrology.com/

Thank you,
Ouranos

Hi,Ouranos

Ouranos wrote:When Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet in 2006, did it change your view on it?

I am not even interested in what earlier astrologers said about planets or planetary pictures. That is why I do my own research. I don't spend time on theoretical considerations, too. If anything works in practice with my method I take, if not I leave out.

Besides the 8 TNOs in the Kuiper Belt, do you think that there are more objects that could be used for reading a chart?
I subscribe to the website of Alex Miller's Asteroid Astrology. Any comments on his approach?
https://alexasteroidastrology.com/

For me it is important to find for certain events certain planetary pictures always and everywhere valid and only with certain harmonics. But if you add many astroids and all possible aspects for an event, once qudrat, once sextile and once something else, it is for me only speculation that many astrologers do today. They can always find something, whether it's true or not is very questionable.

If I claim my work for cancer that MA/SA = NE/PL , NE/PL = SU, it must apply to all and forever. And I have given for it over 300 examples. Can one with same astroids and same aspect for a certain event give 300 examples ?
If not, then one can forget it.

One must not compare and equate the astroids with the transneptunians of the hamburg school. The transneptunians of Hamburg school have been studied for almost a hundred years by many astrologers and many many cases have been confirmed correct, whether we see them or not does not matter.

An astrologer should work with as less planets as possible, so that he/she doesn't lose sight of the forest because of all the trees.When I see here The horoscope with the many astroids, I get dizzy, I would not deal with astrology, if i had to work with all astroids.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=45

Hi Ouranos,

Ouranos wrote:

When Pluto was demoted to a dwarf planet in 2006, did it change your view on it?

No, it didn't change my view on it. Pluto is still an important astrological factor despite his degradation by astronomers.

Besides the 8 TNOs in the Kuiper Belt, do you think that there are more objects that could be used for reading a chart?

I totally agree with linchi's view that an astrologer should work with as less planets as possible. And linchi is right when he states that we must not equate the transneptunians that Witte and Sieggrün had found with those celestial bodies from the Kuiper Belt.

To this day the eight transneptunians of the Hamburg School of Astrology (Uranian Astrology) have not been proven to be actual celestial bodies. But there exists an overwhelming body of astrological evidence by astrologers practicing every day Uranian Astrology which confirm that these transneptunians of the Hamburg School of Astrology actually matter.

James Neely (=a pseudonym), a late american scientist, published an article in "The Orbits of the Transneptunians", Journal of Geocosmic Research, vol.2, no.2, 1978 where he confirmed that the TNP-Ephemeris of Witte and Sieggrün proved to be consistent with the Newtonian laws of physical bodies. James Neely had examined these transneptunians according to scientific standards. I refer here to an article written by Michael Feist in "Hamburger Hefte" no. 180, September 2019, page 37-46 where he does address Neely's work in detail, among other publications.

I subscribe to the website of Alex Miller's Asteroid Astrology. Any comments on his approach?
https://alexasteroidastrology.com/

The content of this homepage is new for me. Thank you for this information.

Thank you both for your insights!

Ouranos