skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Eris, Haumea, and Makemake
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bjorkstrand



Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 12
Location: canada

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Think about this list.

Jim

HORMONE LAYER
NUMBER NAME PERIOD OP C H MEANING
YR # #
(119951) 2002 KX14 (243)08 1 4.5 WORK?
(120348) 2004 TY364(244)06 1 4.3 IQ
(175113) 2004 PF115(245)07 1 4.2 ?
2003 UZ413(245)10 1 4.3 LIGHTNING
(144897) 2004 UX10 (245)15 1 4.5
(90482) Orcus (245)15 1 2.3 DEATH
(84922) 2003 VS2 (247)08 1 4.2 SURRENDER
(208996) 2003 AZ84 (247)07 1 3.8 FANATIC
(38628) Huya (247)07 1 4.7 NASTY?
2002 XV93 (248)10 1 4.9 ?
2007 JH43 (249)07 1 4.7 ?
(47171) 1999 TC36 (250)06 1 4.7 ?
(28978) Ixion (250)12 1 3.2 TO DIE FOR
(134340) Pluto (251)78 1 -0.7 POWER & SEX

(145452) 2005 RN43 (267)13 21 3.9 DOCTOR
2008 AP129(270)06 22 4.5 ?
2002 MS4 (270)12 22 3.7 JOKER
(24835) 1995 SM55 (273)10 24 4.8 LOVE
(90568) 2004 GV9 (274)06 24 4.0 CREATION
(120347) Salacia (275)11 25 4.3 MEDIA

(55637) 2002 UX25 (281)09 31 3.6 ORDER
(145453) 2005 RR43 (282)07 31 4.0 NERVE
(120178) 2003 OP32 (283)06 32 4.1 OPTIC
(55636) 2002 TX300(284)07 35 3.3 AUDIO
(20000) Varuna (284)13 36 3.6 MATERIALISM
(308193) 2005 CB79 (284)07 36 4.7 ?
(50000) Quaoar (285)16 33 2.5 EUREKA
(202421) 2005 UQ513(285)09 37 3.4 E CONDUCTOR
(136108) Haumea (285)12 37 0.2 SYNAPSE(IQ)
2010 VK201(286)03 37 4.6 davinci
(19308) 1996TO66 (287)09 37 4.5
2004 NT33 (289)11 37 4.4 DNA?

2009 YE7 (297)03 4 4.4 FACEBOOK
2000 CN105(300)09 4 5.0 ?
(174567) 2003 MW12 (309)12 4 3.4 LOVE
(136472) Makemake (309)09 4 -0.3 TIME
(19521) Chaos (309)11 4 4.8 LIMITS+
2010 KZ39 (310)02 4 3.9 ?
2007 XV50 (314)04 4 4.9 ?
2002 CY248(316)07 4 4.9 ?
2010 FX86 (319)02 4 4.3 KARMA
(230965) 2004 XA192(321)04 4 4.0 PEOPLE

(55565) 2002 AW197(327)07 5 3.3 MUSIC
(278361) 2007 JJ43 (332)05 5 3.2 SOUND
(119979) 2002 WC19 (334)09 5 4.9 ?
2010 RF43 (348)02 5 4.1 REFLEXOLOGY
2003 QX113(349)06 5 4.7 ?
(42301) 2001 UR163(368)06 5 4.2 IQ

(84522) 2002 TC302(410)06 6 3.9 LIGHT
(26375) 1999 DE9 (418)10 6 4.7 ?
2004 XR190(438)05 6 4.4 FAITH
(82075) 2000 YW134(445)08 6 4.8 ?

2010 TJ (504)03 7 5.0 PREDICTION
2010 RE64 (510)02 7 4.3 REINCARNATION?
(225088)2007 OR10 (553)06 7 1.9 FEAR OF DEATH
2006 QH181(557)02 7 3.8 PARANOIA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the myths are a hazard for a serious researcher, I would say. But the story surrounding the naming should be known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)#Name
Quote:
Due to uncertainty over whether the object would be classified as a planet or a minor planet, because different nomenclature procedures apply to these different classes of objects,[30] the decision on what to name the object had to wait until after the August 24, 2006, IAU ruling.[28] As a result, for a time the object became known to the wider public as Xena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea_(dwarf_planet)#Name
Quote:
Until it was given a permanent name, the Caltech discovery team used the nickname "Santa" among themselves, as they had discovered Haumea on December 28, 2004, just after Christmas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_(dwarf_planet)#Name
Quote:
The provisional designation 2005 FY9 was given to Makemake when the discovery was made public. Before that, the discovery team used the codename "Easterbunny" for the object, because of its discovery shortly after Easter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bjorkstrand wrote:
Think about this list.

not sure what to think about it. A short story regarding its origins might put it into context.

I recognize names and even some provisional designations, so it`s not nearly so much a block of data to me, but to most people it would.

I would suggest a format that encourages concepts beyond single words for them. for example AW197 - Top down vs Bottom up, Tectonic forces, the complexity of design. And a a proposal towards naming it Tekton.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bjorkstrand



Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 12
Location: canada

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Picky. Picky. Do your own research.
Have you ever heard the words "thank you"

Jim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bjorkstrand wrote:
Quote:
Picky. Picky. Do your own research.
Have you ever heard the words "thank you"


There is no need for this kind of petulant response here. As you offered no explanation or reasoning in your post above many members will have regarded it as just a cryptic download of data. I think Ariondys was just simply reflecting the reaction of many of us. Do bear in mind that many members here will not be able to relate much to stand alone numerical data.

Moreover, none of us have an entitlement to uncritical responses here. If others find our contribution useful thats great but we dont share our ideas here expecting uncritical gratitude. As this is the philosophy forum we should all expect critical examination and discussion of any ideas we put out here. I think we all benefit from the process of enquiry and debate that takes place here.

I do hope you will return here soon to offer us a more wordy and detailed explanation of what you were offering us above and how you reached the conclusions you did.

Thanks

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re: 'we can't figure it out so we have to look at something else'

Sort of I guess... I get what you mean. I`m not attempting to attribute everything to Saturn the traditional gatekeeper or Pluto the modern gatekeeper. Which I think requires too much imagination to get results.

For the most part -- don`t know where they are, who they are, what they do, when, etc

perhaps 200 in the astronomical zone I`m thinking of - becomes a sort of wild card.

Ixion, for example
http://www.zanestein.com/keywords.html#Ixion
Wheel of Fortune as in the Tarot Deck

That they become the *wild* card. A whole deck of wild cards.

see Deck of Many Things if the additional analogy helps anyone
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dmt/dmt.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm
Quote:
These effects can be either beneficial or baneful.


unpredictable(less so if you know the cards/TNO beforehand) and powerful.

I`m probably drawing an arbitrary line between TNO and Centaurs and between the kind of TNO(KBO vs SDO, resonance not fitting the 2:3 paradigm)


Eris and Pluto, followed by Makemake and Haumea should catch attention because they are described as the largest (and brightest)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object
Quote:
The largest known trans-Neptunian objects are Eris and Pluto, followed by Makemake and Haumea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)
Quote:
In 2005, the adaptive optics team at the Keck telescopes in Hawaii carried out observations of the four brightest TNOs (Pluto, Makemake, Haumea, and Eris), using the newly commissioned laser guide star adaptive optics system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattered_disc#Subdivisions_of_trans-Neptunian_space
Quote:
Known trans-Neptunian objects are often divided into two subpopulations: the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc.

The Kuiper belt is a relatively thick torus (or "doughnut") of space, extending from about 30 to 50 AU[18] comprising two main populations of Kuiper belt objects (KBOs): the classical Kuiper-belt objects (or "cubewanos"), which lie in orbits untouched by Neptune, and the resonant Kuiper-belt objects; those which Neptune has locked into a precise orbital ratio such as 3:2

The MPC also makes a clear distinction between the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc; separating those objects in stable orbits (the Kuiper belt) from those in scattered orbits (the scattered disc and the centaurs).


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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Kuiper_belt_object
the zoom into where Quaoar and such orbit.


Last edited by Ariondys on Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2707
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ariondys wrote:
james quote - Re: '''we can't figure it out so we have to look at something else'''

Sort of I guess... I get what you mean. I`m not attempting to attribute everything to Saturn the traditional gatekeeper or Pluto the modern gatekeeper. Which I think requires too much imagination to get results.



hi ariondys,

i would direct this statement 'can't figure it out so we have to look at something else' at myself and my use of midpoints or 16th harmonics as well..

i was reading earlier today the '''traditional astro rationale''' for certain aspects of orson welles life.. i see these folks doing the very same thing.. when you can't immediately explain something away astrologically in hindsight the general movement is to search for yet another technique to explain it away... see the thread from today where tom posts orson welles chart..http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7579 or, go back and notice the quandary the traditional camp have with combustion.. to be combust or not, that is the question, LOL... meanwhile note the very close 16th harmonic from welles dignified jupiter at 20 pisces 46 which is 22 degrees and 28 minutes from the midheaven, or what i refer to as a 16th harmonic aspect.. take yer pick as there is plenty of astro ideas to choose from!

astrologers have plenty of pet theories, or ancient theories to pull from and they come out most obviously when the chart is not easily explained with all the more common ways astrologers have to explain a chart!

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?

as for tarot and zane stein - that is another door into another zone that i haven't expressed the inclination towards.. is that what ixion is? or is that another relative of chirons? i waver in using chiron.. i had a personal experience which couldn't be explained any other way then thru chiron, or my limited understanding of astrology, so i tend to want to include chiron..

fwiw my sun is within a 1 degree conjunction of eris, so you or anyone else can factor that into their case studies if they are interested in following eris, LOL..

hi bjorkstrand

i agree with mark! i find it really hard to follow your posts and what you are wanting to share.. i would find some sort of explanation a lot more engaging..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bjorkstrand



Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 12
Location: canada

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no research done by any of you all. You are copying stein.

I repeat do your own. I did.

Jim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bjorkstrand



Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 12
Location: canada

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bjorkstrand



Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 12
Location: canada

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome to quantum astrology or 21st century astrology.

Jim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bjorkstrand



Joined: 29 May 2013
Posts: 12
Location: canada

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ariondys



Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 191
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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_trans-Neptunian_objects
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan wrote:
Quote:
All of them have been discovered by means of ground-based telescopes.


Fair enough. My error.

Juan wrote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.
Quote:
..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
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated