ON THE URANIAN PLANETS
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 08:47:34 -0600
Subject: trans-Neptunian planets and the Uranians
[from the Solar Fire documentation:]
The planet Vulcan, the Transneptunian planets
and TransPluto are not officially discovered planets, but are important
in esoteric and Uranian astrology. They should be treated as experimental.
They should be treated for what they are:
1- they are completely idealized points moving in perfect circles around
the sun without any physical acceleration except the Sun's, i.e.
2- they are subject only to the influence of the Sun and are not affected
by the gravitational interactions of other large bodies.
Therefore, this is what a scientist would say about the Uranian planets:
"They are mathematically derived points based on assumed circular orbits
extrapolated from the time when Witte and Siegrun made their empirical
observations. At present, more than 230 objects have been found at the
distances where they are supposed to be, but almost all of them have orbital
characteristics similar to Cupido only. The small number that share the
same mean solar distance as the other 7 Uranians all have highly eccentric
orbits that are the polar opposite of what has been assumed. However, most
astrologers ignore the existence of these 230 bodies and cling to the idealized
and physically impossible but empirically effective extrapolations of Witte's
and Siegrun's observations".
At present there are about 230 trans-Neptunians identified, and their
orbits are readily available and updated at the Minor Planet Center on
a daily basis. A few months ago Albert Timashev made available an update
to his freeware "Phaethon" 1.0 Demo that allowed to have the zodiacal positions
of all the tnp's available at that time (a dozen more have been found in
the last months and many orbits have been updated ever since), and with
my freeware "Riyal" you can get the positions of the 4 that can be considered
most important. The orbits of some of them are very well known and there's
no reason not to start searching for their meaning.
Many of them are similar to the Uranian "Cupido": same mean solar distance
and very circular orbits, but those with distances similar to the other
Uranians show very eccentric orbits, unlike the Uranian hypotheticals which
are perfect circles. Here is the mean solar distance of the 8 Uranian planets:
Siegrun and Witte derived their positions from empirical observations
over a short time-span. Since they move so slowly, it is probable that
a circle could account for their empirically-derived positions. But this
would mean that the Uranians were "true" objects only at that time, and
are "fake" planets now or in the past centuries --as far as astronomy is
That is the only thing acceptable physically speaking, since they are
moving in flat and perfectly circular orbits completely "immune" to planetary
perturbations. If their positions represented something real, it could
have been possible only then, not now.
I must add that since they move so slowly, there is a chance that the
difference between a perfect circle and the true eccentric motion is not
too large over the 80 years or so that separate us from the time of Siegrun
Let's make an experiment:
1996TL66 has about the same mean solar distance as Poseidon (85 AU).
At 1-1-1900, its position was 11,27 Capricorn. Calculated the Uranian way
(no eccentricity, no perturbations, no inclination) its position at that
same date would be 12,00 Aquarius.
The mean solar distance of Cupido and Hades more or less mark the limits
of the cubewanos. Let's take as example 1996TO66, the largest of them all
so far, at a distance of 43 AU and with almost zero eccentricity, like
the Uranians. Its position 1-1-1900 was 8,21 Scorpio. Calculated the Uranian
way it would be 15,52 Pisces.
[following section on how
their orbits are derived in Spanish]
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:19:47 -0600
Subject: Re: [astro_club] TNP x Revilla
Las actualizaciones de los "transneptunianos" que realizo periódicamente
en Riyal no tienen nada que ver con los planetas hipotéticos de
la astrología Uraniana. Cuando me refiero a "tnp", se trata de la
banda de Kuiper, compuesta por plutinos, cubewanos y "objetos del disco
esparcido". Estos son objetos reales.
Los planetas hipotéticos Uranianos no se actualizan nunca, puesto
que son órbitas cuasi-simbólicas físicamente imposibles.
Constituyen círculos perfectos, sin inclinación orbital (co-planares),
sin eccentricidad, afectadas exclusivamente por la fuerza gravitacional
del Sol (no se toman en cuenta perturbaciones planetarias), sin aceleración,
etc. (una corrección posterior realizada por James Neely hace 2
décadas añade una pequeñaa inclinación y eccentricidad
a los primeros 4 de ellos, pero ésto no cambia en nada su naturaleza).
Sobre cómo es que pueden calcularse órbitas hipotéticas,
pues en realidad no es tan difícil, especialmente ahora en la época
de las computadoras. Existen programas freeware en la Web que calculan
una órbita a partir de 3 o más observaciones, de manera que
lo único que se necesita para calcular una órbita es una
tabla de observaciones, sean reales o hipotéticas.
La ley de Titius-Bode no tiene nada que ver con esto. Una orbita consiste
de 6 elementos:
1- el semieje mayor (distancia solar media)
2- la eccentricidad
3- la longitud del perihelio
4- la inclinación
5- la longitud del nodo ascendente
6- su longitud media o anomalía media.
Como las órbitas de los planetas Uranianos son circulares (eccentricidad=0)
no hay perihelio, y como son co-planares (inclinación=0), no hay
nodo ascendente. Por lo tanto el problema es muy sencillo, pues los elementos
se reducen a sólo 2: distancia solar media y su posición
en un momento dado.
La distancia solar media se deriva mediante una fórmula aplicada
a su movimiento aparente en el cielo, que corresponde a la tercera ley
de Kepler. Por ejemplo: el planeta hipotetico "Nibiru" completa una órbita
en 3600 anos (="P"); ésto significa que, por fuerza, de acuerdo
con la tercera ley de Kepler (a^3 = P^2), su distancia media ("a") del
sol es 234.892 AU.
El movimiento medio y su posición en un momento dado son cantidades
empíricas. Simplemente se hace una lista de los lugares donde uno
cree que el planeta imaginario "debería" estar en diferentes momentos
del tiempo. En el caso de los Uranianos, puesto que se mueven muy lento
(==> muy lejos del sol), no hay gran diferencia entre el cálculo
geocentrico y el heliocentrico, por lo tanto dicha lista y la fórmula
anterior es todo lo que se necesita.
Las cantidades propiamente dichas se pueden encontrar en el código
fuente de Astrolog y de las Swiss Ephemeris.
[added June 2001]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:18:03 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Russian Hypotheticals
With the sole exception of Cupido and perhaps
Hades, the Uranians are far beyond the Kuiper belt, which is considered
the outer limit of the solar system to this day. Those Uranians move in
the region of the scattered disk objects, which are objects of very high
eccentricity. A nearly-circular orbit in this very remote region is not
likely to be found with present-day instrumentation because it would not
be possible to observe such an object, in addition to being very improbable
in view of the structure of the Kuiper belt as it is known today.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the more asteroids
you put into the equation, the more likely you will find one that resembles
in its motion the orbit at least of Cupido. There will be not one Cupido
but many "Cupidos", because that's what the laws of chance dictate.
The very small eccentricity sometimes used ***for
the first four only*** doesn't modify the position of the object but for
a few arcminutes, and doesn't change the virtual circularity of the orbit,
so, in practical terms, they are all circular. If they were not, allowing
for eccentricity would significantly change the position, which is not
They are circles or practically perfect circles.
If they are not, then the positions calculated for them at the present
time --with an insignificant eccentricity or with 0 eccentricity-- are
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:37:09 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Russian Hypot
... confirming the Uranian planets' efficacy does
not have anything to do with the fact that they are in many ways astronomical
and physical absurdities. It has to do with the nature of Astrology, with
the fact that --in my opinion, of course-- things in Astrology work very
well even though they do not or cannot physically exist.
The more transneptunian bodies are found, the
more it becomes questionable --astronomically and physically speaking--
to speak of them as physically feasible while ignoring or refusing to investigate
those that are REALLY there. This has nothing to do with whether they work
or not. Astrologically, I think they make a lot of sense, and are one very
good example of how and why Astrology works, and of how and why Astrology
is not a mapping of the heavens but a mapping of the human imagination.
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:41:30 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Imaginary and hypothetical
The inventors themselves are muddling things up
because they assume a physical existence and then carry out absurd calculations,
such as perfect circles and perfectly coplanar orbits which are not subject
to planetary perturbations, as in the case of the Uranian planets. This
is the equivalent of something that cannot exist physically.
In other words, what people like Siegrun and Witte
were doing was:
1- Let us assume that there is a planet here,
and ignore the fact that it could very well (at least) be in the opposite
point 180 degrees away.
2- Let's assume that the inferred positions have
been found in a completely objective way in which the subjective interpretations
of the observer have not intervened in the conclusions, i.e., thinking
that there is a planet there with such and such characteristics.
3- Let's make a table of these assumed but perfectly
objective inferred positions.
4- Let's calculate a fictitious circular and coplanar
orbit, such as none exist in the solar system, that satisfies these assumed
positions in the period of the samples.
5- Let's make the orbit subject to the gravitational
pull of the Sun only, ignoring planetary perturbations and accelerations,
in a way that is physically impossible in the solar system.
6- Let's call this a "hypothetical planet" and
let's think of it as if really exists physically.
7- Let's systematize the meaning of these points,
categorizing them, and include them within a complete and complex method
of analysis. Let's publish the results and let many others use the system
with these invented points and confirm the system's consistency and accuracy.
PHASE TWO (James Neely)
1- Let's use modern computer facilities to slightly
refine the orbits of 4 of the 8 Hamburg School planets, adding some tiny
eccentricities and inclinations to the otherwise circular and coplanar
orbits that have been used for 60 years, in order to better satisfy the
completely objective, error-free, extremely accurate imaginary positions
visualized by the imagination and methods of Siegrun and Witte.
2- Let's publish the revised positions, which
differ from the old ones by a few arcminutes only.
PHASE THREE (now)
1- Let's ignore the existence of more than 500
real transneptunian planets that have been found and whose positions have
been consistently observed, photographed, and constantly refined with sophisticated
physical models, but who nobody knows what they really mean, and instead
stick to the old hypothesized but physically impossible Uranian planets
whose meaning has been empirically tested, confirmed, and refined over
many decades by thousands of practitioners.
2- Let's proclaim that, if none of the Uranians
has been found yet, it is because there are many real transneptunians yet
to be found some of which will prove to be the 8 Hamburg planets. This
is a very safe bet, since when they are about 5000 a few years from now,
there will be an average of 1 transneptunian asteroid every 0,04' of the
circunferente (about 14 objects per degree of the zodiac), so by necessity
one of them will be one of the Uranians.
3- When by chance one of them coincides with the
position of Cupido (the only actual possibility because it has an orbit
similar to the bulk of the Kuiper belt objects), let's proclaim that its
existence has been confirmed, and let's ignore the fact that the large
eccentricity of all the other orbits at distances similar to the remaining
7 Uranians will make such a match impossible for them...
... Since one of them has been found, it is only
a matter of time until the others are found too!
Rigorously, the only thing you can say is:
1- There is a transneptunian object here, whose
zodiacal position at present coincides with the position of one of the
hypothetical Uranian planets.
==> this is the easiest requisite. The more tnp's,
the more likely you will MANY that satisfy this condition.
2- When examining the orbit it is close to 0 eccentricity
and 0 inclination
==> This is the case of many tnp's, specifically
those of the Kuiper belt. This means that, judging from what is known today
of the physical structure of the Kuiper belt, ONLY CUPIDO and perhaps Hades
could be a candidate for this type of match.
3- The positions of the real tnp match that has
been found agrees with those at the time of Witte, with the positions that
he imagined or assumed "were there"
==> This last step is the most improbable, if
not impossible, because Uranians are artificially calculated without planetary
perturbations. I have already given concrete calculated examples of this.
Let's do it again for the Cupido case. Sample
position with Neely's refinement = 3, 53' 06"
position with planetary perturbations = 3, 14'
error in the position = 0, 39' 01"
traditional position = 3, 55' 17" Sagitario
position with planetary perturbations = 3, 16'
error in position = 0, 38' 56"
The differences here are relatively small because
the eccentricity is very small and the time interval between epoch (1900)
and date (2000) is relatively short. We can see also that the difference
between the traditional positions and Neely's refinement is small. (The
error caused by ignoring planetary perturbations is more significant in
These errors are cumulative. If we do the same
thing for 1700, we obtain (1-1-1700):
position with Neely's refinement = 8, 49' 45"
position with planetary perturbations = 10, 14'
error in the position = 1, 24' 35"
traditional position = 8, 55' 04" Sagitario
position with planetary perturbations = 10, 21'
error in position = 1, 26' 34"
However, all this is the idealized world of the
Uranian planets. The real world is different, because to begin with only
Cupido (and perhaps Hades) --with the present-day knowledge about the STRUCTURE
of the Kuiper belt-- has any chance of being paired with a real object.
There are about 50 (fifty!) well-known KBO's so
far that are in the same distance and velocity range (40-42 AU) of Cupido,
but not one of them so far has such a small eccentricity. The smallest
eccentricity is 0.0135. This would produce a position of 2,22 Sagittarius
in the real world instead of 3,53 Sagittarius as with the Uranian method.
IN THE REAL WORLD
Cupido is right now in 4,32 Sagittarius. If we
calculate the positions of ALL 465 slow asteroid orbits, we obtain the
following around this position:
2000 KK4 241.6
1998 HM151 241.9
2000 KL4 242.8
1995 GY7 245.9
1995 FB21 246.2
1994 JS 248.4
To be eligible as a match for Cupido, any of these
would have to be close to the position of Cupido 1-1-1900:
Cupido = 15,17 Cancer (Neely)
Cupido = 14,42 Cancer (traditional)
KK4 = 4,35 Cancer
HM151 = 5,47 Leo
KL4 = 13,21 Cancer
GY7 = 29,03 Gemini
FB21 = 9,26 Leo
1994 JS= 3,57 Leo
This means that 2000KL4 --for example-- has a
good chance of being matched with Cupido... Who is going to investigate?
What are the characteristic of 2000KL4? Is it valid to assume that KL4
has the characteristics of the Uranian Cupido without investigating the
The match is not exact, but serves to illustrate
(in the case of Cupido only) the following:
-the chance of finding a match or many matches
increases rapidly as the number of tnp's goes up.
-does anybody care if there is a match with the
real world or not? Is someone investigating this? Why not?
-what is the process of establishing the characteristic
of a (presumed) object? Do the asteroids (centaurs, tnp's... ) have their
own characteristics or we invent them? Do we interpret reality and a chart
the same way that de-Witte did in 1915? Will we arrive at the same meanings?
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:15:19 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] is 2000KL4 Cupido?
I calculated the positions of the Uranian Cupido
(James Neely version and traditional version), and those of 2000KL4, and
compared them. The comparison was made with 3680 positions separated by
10 days from 1900 to 2000.
They are never apart more than 3 degrees, and
much less than that most of the time.
Is 2000KL4 Cupido? If it is not, it may well be
his twin or "double", in terms of its geocentric/heliocentric motion during
1900-2000 at least. In the graph 1900-2000, Cupido and 2000KL4 appear almost
About the use of hypotheticals
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:13:23 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Vulcan parameters
Astrology works with abstract coordinate
points, almost never with real objects in the sky. This is why
hypothetical points with little or no grounding on physical reality
(like the Uranian planets, the Dark Moons, Vulcans, Transplutos,
etc.) can work so well.
I consider the use of hypotheticals a subjective choice, much like the
choice of house system. I choose to reject them for the same reason I
reject working with many other things in Astrology (see my answer to
your second point below)
People usually do not know how they are calculated or how they were
invented. I think that if they knew, they would understand better why
using them is so absurd or why some people reject them.
"Absurd" here does not mean "invalid". I think all these invented
points, if you tune to them, can work wonderfully. But knowledge of the
subjective, arbitrary, methodologically careless process of inventing
them and the "absurd" --though mathematically valid-- way in which they
are calculated, could help people make their personal/subjective choice
of accepting them or rejecting them.
It is the same with houses. Some systems, such as, Koch and
Alchabitius, are based on geometrical absurdities (Koch more than
Alchabitius). Yet mathematically, the Koch and the Alchabitius
algorithms are quite elegant. People not aware of or unable to
understand the underlying absurdity use them effectively and consider
them accurate, a judgement which I have no reason to contradict or
The accuracy is not related to whether they are mathematically or
geometrically sound or not. It is related to the nature of Astrology,
to how Astrology works. Astrology does not need its "planets" to
"really exist" in order for them to "work" effectively. And in turn,
the effectiveness of hypothetical, astronomically absurd points shows
that Astrology is something much more complex, or totally different,
from the usual ideas people have about it.
If something exists in Astrology, it is because there is a convention
about it. The difference is the level of the convention. For example,
the ecliptic, the point where a solar or lunar eclipse occurred, the
position of Mars or of 1998BU48 at any point in time, are "hard"
conventions that belong to an "objective" reality socially accepted by
everybody. Their main characteristic is that they are grounded on
something that exists physically, that can be measured, tested, and
confirmed by anybody in any part of the world.
This is the only level which I accept in my approach to Astrology.
However, it would be extremely foolish to pretend (or actually
"dictate") that this is where Astrology ends. Traditionally, Astrology
includes a lot of ancient inherited cultural "lore". At "Level 2", you
have things like the figure of a Bull in the sky or concepts that
equate the tropical sign Aries with Spring, that are an inheritance
from Near Eastern and Hellenistic cultures. These are invalidated by
the physical (the seasons) and cultural (the astronomical lore) reality
of other cultures. Traditional Astrology is highly culturally biased.
Then there are "level 3" conventions, like the 8 Uranian (Hamburg)
planets. Their positions 100 years away from the time when the original
highly questionable deductions that led to their invention were made,
are mathematical "fakes" because no astronomical object moves in the
real world without its orbit being physically accelerated by the
gravitational pull of other planets in the system. Yet their proposed
motion --like that of every other hypothetical point used in
Astrology-- is by definition unperturbed.
But this doesn't matter to those who use them because the convention is
that their positions are not based on physical observations or
measurements. This convention, however, is not shared by everybody in
the world, only by those belonging to a community called "the Hamburg
School", "Uranian", or whatever. They have a highly developed and
elaborate canon where the 8 hypotheticals are used indistinctively of
the "real" physical planets. The Uranian canon is applied successfully
by a well-defined, self-consistent astrological community, a
sub-culture inside the Western astrological tradition.
Then there are "level 4" conventions, where things like the "dark Moon
Lilith", "Vulcan", "Transpluto", "White Moon", like the Uranians based
on absurd calculations that violate the laws of physics, are used
without following any particular standard. They are like the Uranians,
but there is no canon here: their meanings are the result of the work
of very few individuals, and are not incorporated into a higher system.
The Sabian Symbols belong to level 2. They are strongly
American-biased; there are other sets of symbols, such as the Italian
"La Volasfera", which reflect my cultural heritage much better.
Why do I reject levels 2, 3 and 4, and accept only level 1? Why do
people accept levels 2, 3 or 4? Where does someone in particular stop
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:45:49 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Vulcan parameters
... My choice is with regards to physical principles and realities,
which, as you say, have the most universal recognition. Hypothetical
planets are calculated in violation or disregard of the laws of physics.
In Astrology, we always violate the laws of physics, manipulating units
of time by means of metaphor and analogy (transits to a radix,
progressions...), but the stuff or material we manipulate are
measurements or models of natural realities or principles. Signs,
houses, and planets/asteroids, as used in Astrology, are mathematical,
simplified representations of the natural world: the ecliptic
(signs), the diurnal motion (houses), the planetary orbits and mass
The manipulation is done through highly symbolized cultural codes
(aspects, numerology, meanings), but there is always this interaction
or reflection of the natural or physical world. However abstract or
"away from nature" the astrological mapping may be, it is always the
result of a codification of the natural world.
An astrological chart or model is therefore a dialog between Man
(codifier) and the World (nature). This gives to the chart a "grounded"
quality. When reading a chart, I am using elements of the physical
world to represent human "life" or experience, which are totally
subjective realities. This is to me the main value of Astrology:
through it we can "monitor" our subjectivity, or rather, the
interaction between objective and the subjective in our lives.
Some people do not care for or do not need such "grounding". I recently
expressed this need when writing about the different ways of
calculating the Black Moon:
<<One wonders, with so many options available, if the Black Moon
has meaning at all. Astrology is full of cases like this (e.g., house
division, asteroids...). There is no easy answer. However, I think this
question disappears when astrologers realize that Astrology is what
astrologers do: work with more or less fancy and abstract mathematical
points in the imagination. Astrology has very little or nothing to do
with our relationship with "the sky out there" or with "the cosmos". If
you realize this then the efficacy of imaginary points comes to light
under a different perspective, one which has to do with cognitive
patterns and structures in the human brain and not with astronomical
events. It becomes a matter of individual idiosyncrasy the tools you
choose to work with, and there is no fear or prejudice against tools
that have no solid astronomical basis. Some people simply do not need
that basis... however, I do, and I think this basis is important in
order to keep Astrology (or astrologers' minds) disciplined and "down
to earth", i.e., to keep Astrology healthy.>>