A New Planet(s)?

December 28, 2009

This past week a new entry appeared on the Minor Planet Center’s (MPC) public posting of Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNO): 2009 YE7. It’s not the only new discovery revealed from the batch of 2009 discoveries. To date in 2009, astronomers have released information of the discovery of eight Scattered Disk Objects (SDO) of which four fit the centaur criteria, making them cousins of Chiron. Five “standard” Trans-Neptunian Objects, including the aforementioned 2009 YE7 top the TNO discovery list. Notable about 2009 YE7 is the body’s absolute magnitude. This brightness factor is part of what astronomers use to reckon an object’s size. According to the rules of thumb – around which there are possible special circumstances – this new body weighs in somewhat smaller than Orcus and minimally smaller than Quaoar – both of which are assumed to be dwarf planets by many in astronomical circles according to the ultra-ill definition of planet criteria. A few astrologers now apply Orcus with gusto and consideration of the “other Pluto” as a planet. As well, 2009 YE7 appears to be larger than Varuna and Ixion – both of which appear to be likely dwarf planets.

It gets worse. Two bodies recently received orbital refinement: 2003 AZ84, now minor solar system body 208996 and 2005 UQ513, now 202421. Both these Trans-Neptunian Objects seemingly fall into the same size category of Varuna and Ixion and are likely smaller than 2009 YE7.

This means astrologers not only have existing delineations challenged by that thing that’s not really named, Snow White, as a most definite dwarf planet in the category of Pluto, Charon, Eris, Makemake, Haumea and Sedna, but 2009 YE7 in the realm of Orcus and Quaoar, who are most definitely probably planets. How’s an astrologer going to keep up if the Kuiper Belt continues to introduce significant bodies that a properly delineating astrologer cannot afford to ignore? I’m working on a model for this… it’s not quite there yet, but it’s close (and you’ll have to tune into to my Galactic Times, published through my official website – visit about me on this blog and you can get there from here).

Meanwhile, most astrologers do not include the full package of “no doubters” in the dwarf planet smorgasbord: Pluto, Charon, Eris, Makemake, Haumea and Sedna, let alone the most likely ones – Orcus and Quaoar. They certainly fail to include the “probably planets” 2009 YE7 – which just came to collective attention – or Varuna or Ixion.

Back to this new body. The orbital data is rough as of yet and it is risky to form definitive conclusions about it until the body receives a minor solar system body number, indicating astronomers believe they have the orbital elements pegged. What we do know is that it now travels through 25 Taurus 35 (as of January 1, 2010) and its north node crosses the ecliptic at 18 Leo 48. Significantly, another Kuiper Belt Object appears with one of its two ecliptically measured orbital factors in a sign that promotes self discovery, confidence, certainty in the soul, creative aspiration and all the benefits and merits of a conscious existence. Evidently, the Kuiper Belt seeks to reaffirm previously diminished personality traits in the interest of shoring up souls and spirits weakened by participation in the relatively rough existence of life on Earth. If the current orbital data is more or less spot on, 2009 YE9 will be determined to come closest to the Sun while in the sign of Scorpio as does Pluto.

No doubt the Pluto in Leo generation folks will come to embrace this body more than other recent Pluto generations. Accused of being the most solipsism rich of all Pluto signs, those of the Leo generation of this underworld body love to ponder the meaning of one’s existence and the splash one can make on the planet. The multitude of new found dwarf planets with orbital elements in Aries and Leo seem to agree. Figure out who you are, what you’ve got and get on with giving to the world in a good way. Of course the Pluto in Cancer generation wonders what went wrong with the idea of devotion to family, culture, heritage and country. The Pluto in Virgo generation stands amazed at the lack of modesty – false or otherwise – displayed by those full of themselves sporting Pluto in Leo. Pluto in Libra folks travel in packs and create cooperative ventures as to not stand out too much or draw attention to personal individuality. Pluto in Scorpio wants to give everyone what they’ve got whether others want it or agree with it or not. Pluto in Sag folks, the earliest ones of this generation now reaching into adulthood seeking their place, have it figured out or so it seems to them. Yes, each Pluto generation carries its ego-healing bear to cross.

All of these generations (except the very early portion of Pluto in Cancer) share Eris in Aries. This commonality inspires each and every person to find their optimal, personal niche and remain true to it. No matter what sign they traveled in a person’s nativity, Haumea, Makemake and Sedna sport agendas of personal development, the awakening of the soul and the fulfillment of one’s dharma.

Why not embrace these new planets? They impact your horoscope and support transformational effects that appear along the path of life. They ask the questions: What does one do after “seeing the light,” transforming about the restrictions of the mundane and diving deep into the underworld returning to the surface for the first breath of air as an awakened being?

Simple. Awaken to the skill sets now available upline in the heavens above courtesy of the new planets.


Does Size Matter… for Planets, That Is?

August 26, 2009
Relative Planetary Size
Relative Planetary Size ~ Image Courtesy Dr. Michael Brown

Does size matter for planetary status? Again, that depends.

It seems that when the astronomical community considers bodies in space, a large part of their thinking goes to planetary diameter and mass. Mass affects the bodies gravitational influence, which in turns allows a planet to “control” or “clear” its orbital neighborhood. Obviously, a large diameter makes an object more important as it becomes harder to miss.

Actually, it makes sense to some degree. Astronomer Mike Brown and co-discoverer of Sedna, Eris, Makemake, Haumea and Snow White (yet to be named), declares that the dwarf planets are so small, it’s absurd to consider them planets. During the International Astronomical Union’s meeting in Rio earlier this month, Dr. Gonzalo Tancredi suggested a diameter of greater than 450 km. as the lower limit diameter for a dwarf planet. Tancredi’s speculation now grants 14 dwarf planets, 8 probable dwarf planets and 19 of unclear categorization. While this helps to determine dwarf planets, no useful minimum diameter standard for planet has yet been proposed of which I am aware. Seems unfair somehow.

But let’s consider what the astronomers are seeing. Above is one of three diagrams from Mike Brown in his recent blog Planetary Placements: (http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2009/08/planetary-placemats.html) While he and I disagree on some planetary terms, we’re in alignment on the impact of celestial discovery. I strongly recommend his blogs for understanding the astronomy of what we interpret. So anyway, check this out!

At the upper left the smaller spheres, left to right, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and a sprinkling of larger asteroids. The larger spheres below are, left to right, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Those dots on Neptune are the larger Kuiper Belt Objects. The largest is Eris and Pluto is second. Since this diagram is to scale, the first glance notes that asteroids and dwarf planets are virtual chicken scratch when considered by diameter and mass and relative to the terrestrial and gaseous giant planets. This is why it is hard for an astronomer to reconcile a planetary status for Pluto… which of course would mean that Eris would also be a planet and likely Haumea, Makemake, Sedna and Snow White.

Actually astrologers tend to ignore two size factors regarding Pluto and other solar system objects. Astrologers know, and I am one of them, that Pluto works with staggering planetary potency in a chart. It simply doesn’t matter how big it is. However, if size matters, why do astrologers ignore Eris, who is larger than Pluto? Again (ad nauseam), Eris is larger than Pluto. Similarly, while many astrologers declare the potency of the centaur, Chiron, and again I agree, why do they ignore the centaur, Chariklo, who is notably larger than Chiron and is Chiron’s wife?

I get the astronomers’ claims based upon the diameter criteria. What I don’t get is why astronomers do not consider other aspects of a planet’s physicality, for instance, density and relative gravity. Are these not potential measures of a planet’s potency? Gravity represents a planet’s drawing power, or its ability to attract and capture the attention of other bodies. Sure small planets have less gravitational influence, but could there be a per capita consideration. Per capita, Arizona has more boats than most states. Arizona doesn’t have more boats; Arizona has more boats relative to the population base. Density addresses how tightly packed a planet is. I often wonder how big Jupiter would be if packed to the relative density of Pluto or Ceres. Density symbolically represents qualities of concentration, focus and intention.

It occurs to me that there’s a bias against gravity and density as planetary physical factors. To me it seems this is like intentionally excluding two of the five physical senses. Certainly while enjoying a great meal, it would be silly to ignore the texture of food and the scent of a fabulously prepared dinner. Why shun the delectable attributes of the intriguing dwarf planets?

But then again, I know Pluto’s potency through years of working with the horoscopes of events and individuals. Let’s not even go into the current transit of Pluto to my natal Mars. Further, my research involving the other dwarf planets has not disappointed either. Every single day a new insight arrives that confirms the potency of these intriguing, important and spiritually significant bodies. Does size matter? Not in my book. But what do I know? I’m a guy.

If you’d like to see my entire case for does size matter, please visit my website www.philipsedgwick.com and click on the Does Size Matter hyperlink. Prowl around the site to sign up for my Galactic Times newsletter (free) and more. And keep coming back here often. That way you’ll stay aligned with what’s new out there.


July 29, 2009

Last night I enjoyed Mike Brown’s blog about Pluto books including one on Planet X: The Hunt for Planet X: New Worlds and the Fate of Pluto by Govert Schillng. “I’ll have to get that,” I thought as I watched the Space Shuttle Endeavor lead the International Space Station across the sky, slipping under Arcturus and the moon in Scorpio last night. The two bodies tracking overhead disappeared just about the time they reached the western most stars in the constellation Scorpio. Of course, then I thought of the recent anniversary of the lunar landing and how, true to Scorpio’s reputation for secrecy, there exist two camps of conspiracy about facts that have not been told. One camp contends we never landed on the Moon and it was a Hollywood production with flaws a script supervisor should have caught. The other contends we found things on the Moon that have never been reported. And along that line there is the mysterious missing tape of an astronaut reporting, “they’re watching us.” Then I thought about the innate stubbornness of the sign of Scorpio, skeptics and conspiracy theorists. Hell, you can show a “birther” a valid birth certificate and copy of a newspaper notice announcing a birth but you can’t make them believe it’s real.

A few blogs ago I mentioned the free galactic insight available from the Galactic Center. It’s true. Insight is there and usable by those savvy enough to set down their Me-Phone (a phrase touted by former baseball player and sometimes broadcaster, Matt Williams, which of course refers to the I-Phone) long enough to capture and apply the information. Then there’s the polarity. Despite the presence of insight and information guaranteed to urge humankind along toward enlightenment, there’s always resistance in the face of truth. There are those that despite facts and evidence to the contrary believe that solar flares during the next solar max will knock Earth off its axis. There are those who persist in believing in the catastrophic effects of Planet X. There are those contending that Y2K did annihilate the functionality of computers and we are all living in a frail adjacent parallel reality in which collective consciousness barely holds operating systems functional. There are those who believe that Pluto is a planet (today Pluto is a dwarf planet). There are those who believe Pluto is no planet whatsoever – a scrapheap of a planet, according to a docent at the Lowell Observatory where Pluto first came to our attention. There are those who believe that despite growing evidence to the contrary, Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Haumea and the Galactic Center for that matter, hold no influence in astrology.

For years I have contended that an undesirable effect of the Galactic Center is ignorance, or more precisely: ignore-ance. Unlike ignorance, which is the lack of knowledge, ignore-ance is the act of ignoring available insight, information and consciousness building concepts because they are inconvenient, require discipline, upset the status quo, or make a person feel wrong. According to pure Sagittarius precepts, ignoring valid information constitutes missing the mark (sin). Sagittarius, of course, is the zodiacal home of the Galactic Center, whether measured tropically or sidereally.

The sins against the Galactic Center by humankind spread with contagious and rabid abandon. Despite no evidence to support it, proponents of Planet X and its intended catastrophes continue to fan the fires of fear. The same goes for the Lazarus-like Photo-Belt resurrected from its grave every time someone chooses to pile on possible reasons for the end of the world. Worse, ignore-ance is used to reject perfectly valid concepts that have the ability to shift consciousness and alter the course of the planet to a more favorable and ever-evolving fate.

In my mind perhaps the worst ignorant trend is the blatant rejection of Eris by modern astrologers. She is larger than Pluto, if that matters to one’s planetary selection criteria. She continually amazes astrologers using her with her applications to manifestations in society at large and the horoscopes of individuals. In fact, she is the goddess of snub. She cannot stand being excluded and will wreak havoc on those who disavow her presence. Sounds like a goddess demanding that astrologers reckon with her.

In her day, Eris was not invited to the wedding of the millennium. She appeared anyway and showed those who failed to recognize her presence a thing or three. Given her feelings about wedding ceremonies, consider the horoscopes of people with a vivid disregard for marriage vows. Check out the charts of Governor John Sanford and Senator John Ensign (and there are many others) for instance. Those using Eris will find that she makes potent contacts to personal planets of these politicians who blatantly engage in chaos-inducing activities outside their vows of marriage, invoking the double standard doctrine.

The dwarf planet Haumea symbolizes travel with an entourage; one must have a clan with whom one can clamor. Eris desires inclusion. Given that these bodies were discovered at the time that social networking sites, online friends and foes, and all the “I matter,” “please include me” phenomena appeared in society, how easy would it be to understand the recent explosion of narcissism in the past few years?

Recently I compiled a pdf ephemeris for the outer planets: Jupiter through Sedna, including Chiron, Eris, Makemake, Haumea and Sedna with the gaseous giants from 1700 – 2050. Here an astrologer can observe previously unknown generational influences and fill in missing clues as to what caused humankind to move in the direction it did. I must say, I am shocked by the lack of response from astrologers. Could it possibly be true that today’s astrologers simply do not give a damn about what’s newly discovered in our solar system and beyond?

Nah, I’m sure it’s just the fact that I’ve not signed up (and won’t and will delete any invite) on social networking sites. Certainly, it’s not about ignore-ance at all. Every astrologer is tracking the new, weird and innovative courtesy of the potent Uranus to Galactic Center square. Right?

If you enjoy these cosmic blogs, remember to check back frequently. There will be more. And when done here, please visit my website and sign up for the Galactic Times where you’ll receive free e-zine posts of current trends, galactic events and all the latest in solar system discoveries. Please visit my “about” page for the website URL.

No Place for Weird

May 27, 2009

When amateur astronomer William Herschel discovered Uranus with his home-conjured reflective surfaces, he upset the solar system apple cart. Herschel’s discovery blew open the lid holding the status quo of centuries of solar system perception in place. The scientific, cultural, astrological and theological perceptions of the local universe shifted into a wider and more inclusive view. Or did it?

Uranus immediately assumed astrological keywords based upon current events, prevailing archetypes and recent discoveries. Naturally, a rebellious, overturning nature attached itself to Uranus stimulated by the recent world’s revolutions in France and the United States. Truly, Uranus stood out as a weird planet. With his extreme tilt and revolution around the Sun, he demonstrated atypical planetary characteristics. And he generated a huge debate surrounding his rightful name. The Brits wanted to name him for the king – probably to keep money flowing into the coffers of the Royal Observatory. Some astronomers wanted him named Herschel and those of the time contended that would enable personal naming protocols and would start a planetary naming narcissistic trend. Slowly a consensus evolved that the name should remain consistent to the existing Greco-Roman mythology protocol. The French weighed in, proposing that Uranus should be named Neptune. Can you imagine how astrology would be different had that happened, if at all? Finally, after some finagling, Uranus became the consensus name, though hard liners persisted in calling the planet whatever they pleased for quite some time.

The new, highly inclined planet quickly inherited those “revolutionary” terms and assumed an individualistic nature consistent with an elderly god who could not be bothered. Other than the eunuch or asexual associations applied to Uranus and the sign he rules, Aquarius, the mythology seems largely lacking in the interpretive archetypes. Instead, words like detached, aloof, fiercely independent and weird went the way of Uranus – possibly the nature of the planet’s discovery and orbit instead of mythical associations.

So he inherited keywords based upon his previously unknown status, but why so weird given that he was now part of the planetary club? Why not linear and logical assessments? For instance, Saturn, the previous outermost planet in the solar system, held dominion over limits, boundaries and as far as one can practically go. Should not this set of attributes belong to the new, outermost planet in the solar system? Uranus assumed none of this.

Should an astrologer consider the heliocentric degrees of a planet’s north node and perihelion, a clear picture of the planet’s dharma and its sense of urgent priorities gracefully appear. For Uranus he holds perihelion in Virgo and ascending heliocentric node in Gemini – as does the dwarf planet Ceres. These planets share a not so curious common denominator based upon orbital dynamics. Both planets’ ecliptically measured hot spots lie in mental signs. When either Ceres or Uranus experiences a log jam of facts that impact intended agendas or personal preferences a most cranky and contentious behavior riddles the landscape, seeking to restore fulfillment of the bodies’ desires. While disruptive and chaotic, these reactions in the case of Uranus, do not match with the individuality, weird, aloof profile assigned the planet.

Now, Eris, goddess of discord, assumes some of the characteristics of Uranus. Her counter culture ways, her fierce independence and her tendency to create and love of upheaval and mayhem previously and incorrectly given to Uranus are being reassigned.

Does this make previous astrological assessments wrong? No and yes. The placement of trends that had no home upon Uranus was a natural reaction to the first planet coming to light since sky watchers first observed the sky. Curiously, this assignment effect did not occur with Neptune and Pluto. True, the Kuiper Belt Object, possible dwarf planet, Orcus takes on Plutonian keywords, but through his own mythic archetypes, not those of Pluto and not requiring reassignment of Plutonian keywords. Orcus offers a kinder, gentler Pluto, especially given the recent introduction of his moon, Vanth.

Is Eris taking over the tasks of Uranus? Not at all. Simply, disruptive discordant concepts naturally applied to the first body known to change the consensus reality model. Now that Eris can do it for real, Uranus is losing some of his disruptive spark.

Eris gets what it means to be weird. It’s weird not to want to fit in with everyone else on the planet. It’s weird to abandon material agendas as gospel. It’s totally off-kilter to release addictions to status and success. But at the end of the day (and not the Mayan Calendar), it is totally naturally, graceful and spiritually fulfilling to pursue only agendas that meet the needs of the soul. Welcome Eris and find your personal measure of weird – you know, that soulful part of you that fits no other agenda nor seeks inclusion in any activity or with any person that does not further.

Dwarf Planets vs Gaseous Giants

March 12, 2009

When presented with the influence of multiple dwarf planets, astrologers often take on the demeanor of astronomers by asking, “How can that tiny distant thing influence us so greatly?” Despite the dismissive willingness of many astrologers to disregard the new dwarf planets, any astrologer who has endured a Pluto transit knows that it was real, potent and life-altering. The same stands true of Eris, Sedna, Haumea and Makemake. And let us not ignore the influence of the dwarf planet Ceres.

When assessing planetary potency, astronomers tend to go into a discrimination mode regarding physical attributes. It becomes all about the diameter of a body and its mass, ignoring the important qualities of relative gravitational influence and density. This is similar to enjoying a meal based only upon plate presentation and smell, ignoring taste and texture. How silly.

Without dwelling upon the technicalities of such assessments and without factoring the commonly used gravitational rejection factor of distance (which is discussed in detail on my website in the “Does Size Matter?” article), let me just present a couple of images to ponder. Sit with them and take some time to consider the magnitude of what we might be missing. As well, consider what might be missed in developing consciousness without the influence of these bodies.

The following diagrams do not include the data for Makemake, Haumea and Sedna. The data for these bodies is quite new and subject to change. It is likely a reasonable assumption that Makemake and Haumea will track closely with Eris. Note also, that while not widely discussed, Charon – the thing that used to be Pluto’s moon, is actually a dwarf planet.

The following graphs indicate the relationship of a body’s density to its mass (D/m) and density to gravity (D/g). Note the influences of the “dwarfs” to the “giants.” Of course, taking an inverse effect g/D or m/D, these plots would be reversed.

Notice the amazingly strong influence of Ceres. No wonder the other gods and goddesses deferred to her as they did.

More data is to come. While arguments can be posed against these suppositions, equally valid points can be made about these observations.

It’s not just how “big” it is. It’s also about how densely packed (intentional) a body is and how much attractive influence it exerts in its own relative realm.density2dg1dm1