Does Size Matter?

A Puzzling Planetary Problem

by Philip Sedgwick

Note: The content in this article falls under copyright protection laws, the auspices of the Berne Convention and the ICC. No print copies for other than personal use may be produced without expressed written permission. This content may not be electronically reproduced, forwarded in e-mail or used in any form other than as posted on this website. Compliance with these terms is assumed by reading this article.

To obtain usage permission, print copies or a CD version (PDF), please contact: galactic@philipsedgwick.com. Click to purchase copies of this article on CD or in PDF format.

To the reader: Every effort has been made to format plots and text to every variety of browser and screen size. It is advisable to expand your viewing screen to maximum size before reading this article. This article contains a series of graphs and equations to support its conclusions. A conclusion commentary can be found at the end of the article. For those readers interested, the raw data used is provided at the end of this article.

While the first part of this article remains moderately technical, interpretive applications of the concepts can be found toward the end of the document...

When the astonishing astronomical news broke that a distant body larger than Pluto appeared on the photos of a systematic search for Kuiper Belt Objects, the entire view of the solar system went deeper than Pluto’s underworld in a handbasket. Because Pluto did not have a large enough diameter or sufficient mass according to new planetary rules to remain an unadulterated planet, he became part of a new “planetary” category: dwarf planets, and to boot, Pluto became the prototype for dwarf planets with orbital periods greater than 200 years - plutons.

Ultimately four primary factors combine to define a planet’s physical nature: diameter (d), mass (m), density (D) and gravity (g). Yet, when determining a planet’s size/importance only two of these factors come into the mix. Sadly, gravity and density fall outside the realm of consideration, providing a picture than can only reveal half the story. Surely one of those assessing planetary qualities/importance would not eat using only two senses. Maybe a restaurant’s gourmet dinner plate arrives with the food laid out in perfect presentation. The smell of the various portions of dinner titillates one’s olfactory sensibilities. That’s just not enough to complete one’s sensorial experience of supper. What about taste of the perfectly prepared meal? What about the sounds of dinner? Even more stimulating, what about listening to brilliant dinner conversation - perhaps even a dialogue about the nature and status of planets? Why not factor in the texture of the food and the stirring sensation of food in the mouth? Using simple logic extrapolation, why does contemporary astronomical (and astrological) thinking approach planetary physical effects with such a limited physical characteristic palate? And that’s where we come in.

What would happen if enough gravity came along to compress Jupiter into a ball such that his gravity equaled that of Pluto? How big would it be then? That’s a rhetorical question. I’ve been doing all these other calcs and plots and haven’t done the math for that. The point being Jupiter would not be as “big” as he in diameter, though his mass would remain the same. Hmm.

To get a point of perspective let’s poll chocolate addicts. At Easter what would you rather receive in your basket: a.) a hollow chocolate egg in a lovely oval shape (somewhat like an elliptical orbit) that’s ten inches across the short way, or b.) a solid chocolate egg with a breadth of four inches? Solid, as in full and densely packed, eh? That’s what I thought.

Let’s walk through a series of graphs portraying planetary characteristics and see what we can see. First we’ll examine the four basic planetary traits singularly relative to one another.

The first two such plots, diameter and mass, yield no surprises. These characteristics typically determine planetary “size” and thus perceived influence. Jupiter, the broadest and most massive (though gaseous), tops the importance scale and supports the astrological thinking of he’s big and so he’s grand and notable beyond all others. Other than Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, the other planets barely register on the scale in either diameter or mass. “How could they exert any influence at all?” goes the classical argument. Silly, superstitious astrologers.

What about the density of a planet? Reviewing a previous point, if we could compress Jupiter into less space such that it had the density of its dwarf planet neighbor Ceres, how big would he be? Density refers to the quality of being tightly packed, or... dense. It’s compressed, thicker, richer (?) and certainly more intense per unit area. Density is the first factor in which the per capita quality emerges. In the state of Arizona - a desert and mountain topography - there are more boats per capita than other states. There are not more boats in number, mind you, but all things considered equal, there are more boats.

Consider the specific densities of the planets relative to water. Not too surprisingly, the density of terra firma ranks as number one. Close behind the other terrestrial planets come in high on the density relativity scale. Given the composition of these planets of compressed rocky and substantial stuff, one would expect higher ranking. Out at the edge of our solar system, the icy dust and gas collections that make up Charon, Pluto and Eris rank naturally higher than the voluminous gaseous planets. Because frozen gas that comprises their solidity, they are not as dense as the terrestrials.

Curiously, we find Neptune, noted for nebulosity, mistiness and thin illusiveness to be the most dense of the gaseous planets. Actually, there’s a simple logic behind the fact. Being more distant from the Sun that his gas giant companions, Neptune orbits in a colder temperate zone. Matter shrinks more substantially in cold - the molecular structure huddles together as if trying to savor whatever warmth can be found. Should we rethink the assigned quality of Neptune’s nebulosity? He is the most dense gas giant. He is the only planet discovered on paper with hard core math calculations; that seems more concrete than abstract, or so it appears, even when considering how the speculating mathematicians, John Adams and Urbain Le Verrier, made up initial arithmetic assumptions.

Curiously, as we see in the following graph, Saturn is the least dense of all the planets. If fact, if Saturn were introduced to a body of water large enough, he would float with a third of his surface above water - more than the average medically unaltered human form! When we think of Saturn’s hard line reputation for compression of time and the temporal squeeze on tasks to get done, it does not come from the planet’s density. Maybe Saturn suggests more of a “go with the flow” approach, as in don’t let life heavy up on you. After all, Saturn can float and bob along in any Taoist river of life. As a point of perspective, imagine if you will, an astrology mentor on Saturn lamenting the hopeless density of planet Earth and its most unfortunate inhabitants.

The next of the four basic physical attributes to examine is gravity. Gravity is a measure of a planet’s gravitational exertion at its equator.

In gravity’s dimension, Jupiter and his gaseous planet entourage top the list. Venus and Earth similarly receive high marks in gravitational influence. Ceres groups with Charon, Pluto and Eris with the lowest gravitational pulls in the solar system.

The preceding considerations are all fine and good, but what about the relationship of combining the various physical attributes of the planets in simple mathematical relationships? If we refer to a human as a heavy weight and focused, wouldn’t that symbolically render the same combined variables as referring to the person’s gravity and density? Why not combine planetary variables for added perspective of the influence of planets?

The next series of plots define simple arithmetic relationships (ratios) of two planetary characteristics. These ratios result from the simple division of one quantity by another. The notation format x/y is used, meaning that quantity x is divided by quantity y, which can be stated as x over y, division implied. At this point, all numerical references on the axes of the charts become relative and arbitrary.

The first plot of this series of eight is mass/diameter (m/d), which is the planet’s mass divided by its diameter. Here there are no surprises. Considering the facts that Jupiter and his entourage of gaseous giant planets top the charts in mass and diameter, this ratio, involving both of the most substantial characteristics for this planetary grouping, intends to reinforce the expected pattern. Other than the gas giants, the other planetary influences appear barely notable.

However, when dividing diameter by mass, the inverse pattern might be expected. As we see below, the inverse appears mathematically true to expected form.

Our first interesting proportionate notation appears in the diameter/mass plot. The chart indicates that in the per capita way, the dwarf planets possess the unique attribute of a disproportionately high relationship ratio in d/m. Relative to the diameter of the planet, the massiveness of the dwarf planet family becomes significant. Charon stands out as the most extreme. However, to be fair, we should reassess these plots once the New Horizons Probe arrives at the edge of our solar system and offers more accurate data for the distant dwarf bodies. Similarly, we should also consider the data of Eris as well, to be in the ballpark, but not spot on accurate.

In tracking the ratios of mass/Density and Density/mass, we find the relationships in the diameter/mass and mass/diameter plots virtually replicated.

A graphic examination of gravity/density realms presents no planetary surprises. When considering density/gravity, however, the dwarf planets strut their potency yet again. This time, Ceres tops the list, followed by Charon, Eris and Pluto. Does this imply the unprecedented deference rendered to Ceres by all other gods, Jupiter included, especially when she was enraged?

Following in the plots of gravity/diameter and diameter gravity, the dwarf planets hold their own. If considered as a subgroup, the pluton bodies prevail in midrange for both categories. These two plots portray the mirror imaging expected with the inverse plotting of each other. Once again, no extraordinary surprise appears.

Given that gravity and mass bear a causal relationship, we expect the larger planets to prevail in potency

The inverse gravity/mass relationship once again verifies the unprecedented strength of the dwarf planets. Notably, Mercury is the only classical planet showing any impact in this category.

The diameter/Density relationship typifies standard planetary perceptions.

Now we discover perhaps the most intriguing plot of all, Density/diameter. The results of this plot reveal a gathering of planets that should be perhaps termed the underworld collection. Mercury, who had a free pass in and out of the underworld, and who typically bore messages of Jupiter’s will, joins Ceres, Pluto, Charon and Eris ins notable significance! Of course, Mercury got in the middle of the Ceres/Core underworld debacle.

One of the arguments posed by opponents of astrology brings into question the relationship of distance. The opposing views assume that with the vast distances of the planets from Earth, the physical effects of gravity must be negligible. It has been argued that an attending room physician exerts more gravitational influence on a new born than Jupiter. Actually, if one uses the equation for the universal gravitation, that presupposition can be shot down successfully. Following this treatise is a set of calculations and the disproof of this claim.

Meanwhile the next four plots portray the physical characteristics of the planets plotted versus the distance of the planets from Earth. Those who studied the distance factors in the data table preceding these graphs would note that the distance does not agree with the distance of planet from the Sun. To the semi-major axis (the diameter of a planetary orbit the long way), one astronomical unit was subtracted from each value. The purpose of this mathematical accommodation seeks to determine the potential exerted influences on Earth of the other planets through their relative distances from Earth.

The equation used to determine another planet’s distance from Earth is:

s = | a - 1 AU |

where s = distance and a = semi-major axis

Or the distance value is calculated to be the absolute value of the semi-major axis of the planet in consideration minus the semi-major axis of the Earth (1 AU). Following are the plots of physical characteristics as a function of distance (plotted versus distance).

In diameter vs. distance, as expected, Jupiter and Saturn prevail.

In the category of mass versus distance, Jupiter clearly trumps all other contenders; absolutely his massiveness influences us most strongly - in traditional thinking, at least.

Gravitationally speaking, Jupiter again outweighs all other planets in terms of his ability to capture and influence.

Interestingly, when it comes to density or the intent of influence and the tightness and compactness of the planetary message, Mercury wins on the axis of density. Eris, relative to her extreme distance and density out influences Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune Charon, Pluto and Ceres. Note that the other terrestrial planets, Mercury, Venus and Mars, pack the most punch.

Those versed in physical sciences and familiar with the laws of gravitational (and light) influence probably wonder why the comparison of planetary effects with regard to distance was given any consideration. After all, according to the inverse square law, the influence of gravity (and light) varies with the square of the distance.

Assume a body stands one unit away from another and is noted to exert one unit of gravitational force. If the body were moved to a distance of two, it’s gravitational force would be reduced by the square of the distance. The new gravitational influence would be one-fourth of what it was before. If the body were moved to a distance of three, it’s influence would be one-ninth ( the inverse of 3²) and if moved to five units away, the influence would be one-twenty-fifth (the inverse of 5²). Conversely, if the distance between the bodies was reduced by 50%, the gravitational influence would increase by four times.

The universal gravitational constant between bodies is defined by the equation:

where:

g = gravitational force
G = universal gravitational constant
m₁ = mass of first object
m₂ = mass of second object
s = distance between bodies

The next series of planetary plots address planetary qualities as a function of the inverse square law consideration of distance squared, arguably more true to the physical laws of Newtonian Physics and more certainly to appease skeptics of the scientific methods applied by those of astrological persuasion. Immediately following, we’ll see the four basic physical characteristics relative to the square of the planetary distances from Earth.

In the plots of diameter, mass and gravity vs. distance squared, there are no surprises. The more massive and diameter dominant planets influence the solar system’s nature with proportionate significance.

It’s not until we approach density vs. the square of distance that anomalies appear. An interesting effect appears in that the square of density of Mercury, Venus and Mars appear to be strongest and the relative density of Eris might be semi-notable but on this plot’s scale, little of conclusive value can be determined.

As revealed by the next series of plots, a relatively useless clustering of planets appears in diameter and mass ratio categories.

In the diameter/gravity ratio, Saturn’s influence exceeds that of all other planets. It’s compelling nature receives verification for his sense of inescapability regarding the planet’s domain and life’s heavy tasks.

Regarding gravity/diameter, our neighboring terrestrials assume a position of relative influence. Notably, the dwarf planets yield great punch that the gas giants.

The ratio of mass/Density holds no mysteries. Saturn and Jupiter by far out influence any other planet. In fact, all other planetary influences appear insignificant.

Density/mass relationships tell a remarkably different tale. Here all the dwarf planets exert notable influences and the classical planets demonstrate virtually no significance.

In the category of gravity/Density, the gaseous giants make a showing with Venus and Mars inching toward minimal recognition.

Applying the inverse function, Density/gravity, again the dwarf planets dominate the category.

As seen in the preceding plots involving the square of the distance, the extremes of the scales prevent deriving meaningful data. Though these plots provided no definitive analysis, they were included for perspective purposes and useful in prompting the next question: What’s a graphic plotter to do?

The answer is as easy as rolling off a log(arithm). Logarithms apply a unique mathematical slant to numbers wherein multiplication becomes like addition, division becomes subtractive in nature and exponential functions appear linear, and as a result, often indicate unobvious numeric relationships. The inverse of an exponential factor, logs assist the comparison of large numeric quantities to small numeric quantities, thus perfect for our applications here.

When looking at the log (diameter) vs. log (square of distance), the gaseous giants dominate yet again. Interestingly, the gas giants cluster together as do the plutons and generously, the terrestrials, including Ceres. When examining log (mass) vs. log (square of distance) the same pattern of clustering applies.

In the following two representations of log (mass) vs. log (square of distance) and log (gravity) vs. log (square of distance), Venus takes a curious migration toward the gaseous giant’s domain of influence, but like Ceres, she doesn’t quite fit in with either grouping. Out at the edge of the solar system the plutons congregate.

The log (Density) vs. log (square of distance) bonds Neptune with the Trans-Neptunian bodies, with Uranus (and Venus) not clearly fitting in either grouping. One might wonder with the Neptune clustering with the Kuiper Belt bodies Pluto Charon and Eris if Neptune demarcates entry into the outer realm solar system instead of Uranus as previous perceived. After all, Uranus, as do the other classical planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, share the trait of visibility to the human eye - something not possible with Neptune and beyond.

Similarly, if a negatively sloping line were drawn slightly above and right of Mars, Ceres, Jupiter and Saturn, those planets as well as Mercury, Venus and Uranus could be loosely claimed to be in some relationship with one another.

Given the shift to logarithmic plots and to complete a previously established trend, the next four plots ignore the inverse square law as applied to gravity and light and compare the four basic planetary qualities to distance from Earth on a log to log basis.

The next two plots involving the log (diameter) and log (mass) to the log (distance) replicate previously seen patterns, implying some sort of solar system natural order. With some generosity assumed regarding the range of influence, the terrestrials, gaseous giants and plutons cluster into a semblance of familial grouping.

The logs of gravity plotted against distance again yields the anomaly of Venus attempting to engage with the gaseous giants.

The logs of Density vs. distance offers a quasi-linear spread of the planets Mercury through Uranus, with the oddly inclined planet seeking inclusion with Neptune and his Trans-Neptunian colleagues.

Now we return to a comparison of intrinsic planetary ratios by log to the square of the distance by log. While only a few of these plots offer revelatory insights (and those are good ones). Below in the log (diameter/mass) vs. log (distance squared) the pluton dwarf planets dominate relative to both axes and Ceres renders relative impact.

In the log of diameter/gravity vs. the log of distance squared, Saturn again takes a position as top of the chart, consistent with his interpretive role as task master. This is partly about gravity’s heaviness.

Below in log (gravity/diameter) to the log of distance squared the more distant bodies and terrestrials weigh in with stronger influences. Here, the largest gaseous planets, Jupiter and Saturn wield minimal influence.

Another look at mass/Density reveals standard presumptions of planetary impact, however...

This glimpse of Density/mass affords domination to Pluto-Charon-Eris, as anyone every enjoyed transiting influence of those dwarf bodies so clearly understands.

Again, a portrayal of the consensus reality of our planetary partners.

Notably, in the following plot involving Density and gravity, Eris, Pluto and Charon issue strong influences regardless of distance factors. Are they really as potent as indicated? Ceres, too, is not to be ignored.

Following we shift plot strategy, applying one planetary quality in linear format to another in logarithmic format. In diameter vs. log (mass) we see a rather tidy exponential curve appearing predictably along expected lines given the relative bigness of planetary diameter and mass.

Diameter vs. log gravity provides a relatively linear relationship between all the planets except Jupiter who seeks to stand alone.

A new interesting cluster appears with diameter vs. log (Density). The terrestrials and gaseous giants congregate as seen before. Now, however, Ceres affiliates with the other dwarf planets in the solar system. When one thinks mythologically of Ceres’ indirect involvement with the realm of Pluto (and Charon) while attempting to negotiate her daughter’s freedom, it might raise a mythological eyebrow or two.

Mass versus the log (diameter) affords another smooth exponential curve, Jupiter leading the way.

The mass versus log gravity plot could be argued as nearly linear or slightly exponential.

Mass versus log (Density) reveals two effects. One, a nearly linear relationship results between the clustering dwarf planets and the terrestrials. And the gaseous giants gang up together.

The following two gravitationally driven plots, form exponential curves. Typically, Jupiter dominating for maximum influence.

Gravity relative to the log of Density renders another affiliation of Ceres with plutons.

Density versus the log of mass gives Saturn and Jupiter stand alone status while bunching everything from Uranus on out in virtual proximity. Here we see everything change-based, transformative and rich in soulful rendering, attending the same picnic.

Above we see clustering like we’ve seen before. A klatch of terrestrials, dwarf planets (including Ceres) and the gas giants, with Jupiter declaring his superiority and independence.

For perspective, the planetary inclination and eccentricities are plotted. In the next two plots, the dwarf planets 136108 and 136472 are included. With eccentricity, the lower the number the rounder the orbit.

The following four plots involving planetary eccentricity and inclination appear only as a point of curiosity. While not revealing any breakthrough insights, these factors are presented just as information.

Conclusions:

In the realm of diameter and mass, the importance of planetary influence goes to Jupiter and Saturn.

When factoring combined planetary qualities, the terrestrials - Mercury, Venus, Mars and often Ceres exert notable influence when including density, gravity as exerted through shorter distances from Earth.

In terms of gravity and density and relationships involving gravity and density with other planetary factors, the dwarf planets demonstrate unprecedented, undeniable influence. This indicates their phenomenal potency and in some instances, irrespective of distance.

While data for Eris (and maybe Pluto and Charon) could be considered preliminary, trends that can be expected to be revealed shall be revised with the arrival of data from the new horizons space probe.

Data for 136108 (2003 EL₆₁) and 136472 (2005 FY₉) will be added as the planets receive names and confirmation of dwarf planet status (though such status appears relatively certain for both). 136108 is more solid than any other known Kuiper Belt object due to an evident collision at the edge of our solar system a long time ago. This body may soar off the charts in terms of density related matters. 136472 likely shall track along the lines of Pluto and Eris, with moderately less influence in mass and diameter. For gravity and density, we’ll have to wait and see.

Is it fair to consider the density-gravity considerations of the planets in equal measure to diameter and mass? While that may be a rhetorical question, any answer other than “yes” indicates a clear bias and the application of an exclusionary vision to the entire realm of physical possibility. Realizing the sensitivity of the planet, Eris to being snubbed or excluded, such a bias-based approach may not be the most wise.

A clear and unique pattern of new planetary archetypes emerges within this analysis. As previously understood and stated ad nauseam, the classical planets impact a person in the frameworks of diameter, mass and some cases density and gravitational influence. The dwarf planets impact Earth, those inhabiting the planet and the horoscopes of those inhabitants largely through density and gravity.

While the circumstantial nature of life, the roadblocks presented and the crossroads correspond with the classically known planets, Mercury through Neptune, sans the former asteroid Ceres. Ceres, Pluto, Charon and Eris (while Sedna applies, her vast distances require a substantial suspension of belief for most pragmatic folks) reflect the manner in which a person deals with circumstances, roadblocks and crossroads. The nature of the spirit appears in density and gravity. The ability of an individual to focus (density) one’s influence in life (gravity) causes transformational renderings above and beyond those previously known. Intent, determination and soulful drive correlate with the dwarf planets. Should one be interested in evolution, spirituality, transmigratory souls or any superlatives that render themselves to consciousness, the dwarf planets offer the insight, methods and procedures for actualization.

Gravity requires a recollection of scattered energy. The gravitational process requires that a person relearn the ability to attract one’s creativity, skill sets and innovativeness back to the core of one’s being, creating a new center of gravity in the body. Such gathering increases one’s influence and likely requires resetting one’s perception of the center of being. While many rely upon raw gut level reactions and others prefer to lead with the heart, gravity insists that if a being desires the grace of the gazelle when making forward leaps in life, the core be assigned to the midpoint of the emotional centers and noted for its residence in the solar plexus or third chakra, viewing bottom to top. This re-centering implies no loss of emotional reaction or heartfelt feelings, on the contrary.

Density focuses the nature of the soul into a compaction of atomic matter such that an internal nuclear process begins. Here’s where we come to understand what is written in the DNA and impacts cellular memory. Here is where an individual undergoes a transformation the likes of which become indelible there ever after and eradicate emotional trauma, learned behavior and human habituation. This is where true transformation and shifts of consciousness take place.

There is an astronomical notation that solar system bodies in orbits beyond the plutino 3:2 resonance ( two Pluto orbits match in time to three Neptune orbits) must bear the names of resurrection or creation deity. What a refreshing agenda, which by the way, includes Eris.

Let’s revise our perception of the known dwarf planets. First, Ceres, enraged by the “abduction” of her daughter, became mad as a hornet, or more appropriately, mad as Hell. In this rage, she demanded of Zeus/Jupiter that Hell be dealt with promptly and to her liking. Ceres reveals the first symbolic step in the process of transformation is to be agitated or activated to the point where hellacious circumstances will no longer be tolerated. Instead of issuing an ultimatum, though, perhaps a reverent approach to the gates of Hell might serve a soul best. According to classic Greco-Roman mythology, all judgment after death occurred upon the real estate of the Underworld. To enter, one had to contend with the piper, Charon, and that ragged miser demanded to be paid (or insisted upon proper propitiation). Then and only then could the Underworld be embraced.

The implications of Eris’ discord work impeccably well in fleshing out a transformational model. To transform, one cannot tweak upon superficial details of life. Absolutely not, transformation and evolution require a process of reversing the order of the Heavens such that perspective can be restored and the disarray of dysfunctionality upset beyond the point of recovery. To make sincere change, one’s well-intended density must be applied and life as it has been known must be uprooted. This discord far exceeds the “revolutionary” efforts of Uranus. Often revolution leads to a recreation of that which was overturned. As they say, history repeats, the wheel gets reinvented and the beat goes on. Not so with the distending influences of gravity and density. Life and the consciousness applied to life undergo warping revisions that prevent recreation of the past. Again the question arises: Why would anyone disavow the importance of the dwarf planets? How dense is that?

Soon, hopefully within the calendric time of 2008, two new dwarf planets will receive names, 136108 (2003 EL₆₁) and 136472 (2005 FY₉). Of these, 136472 should be a name of resurrection and emergence. According to our revised solar system model, transformation becomes secondary. It’s what a person does with their transformation that counts. These two archetypes shall require immediate and attentive installation into an ever enhanced model of evolution. It keeps getting better, so say these planets.

Astrologers should know Eris is not the end of the matter. In fact she might be only the beginning of the true nature of changing consciousness and the tantalizing transformations that accompany that journey.

As a point of perspective the following minor planets are in consideration for dwarf planet status:

Vesta, Hygeia, Pallas, Varuna, Ixion, Quaoar, Orcus,

2005_RN43, 2002_MS4, 2003_MW12, 2002_TC302, 2003_AZ84, 2004_GV9, 2003_OP32, 2001_UR163, 2003_VS2, 2002_KX14, 2005_RM43, 2004_SB60,

2003_QW90, 2004_TY364, 2004_XR190, 1996_TO66, 2007_UK126, 2004_PR107, 2002_KW14, 2001_QF298, 1999_DE9, 1995_SM55, 1998_WH24, 2003_QX113,

1999_TC36, 2002_XV93, 2000_YW134, 2000_CN105, 2003_FY128, 1999_CD158, 1997_CS29, 2002_CY248, 2002_WC19.

To add meaning to these conclusions, the following keywords and other assessments provide delineation keys.

Planetary Qualities

Diameter – breadth, reach, wide-ranging influence, perimeter, boundaries

            planetary quality (feeling): Jupiter

Mass – weight, influence, feeling of responsibility, life issues to shoulder, burdens.

            planetary quality (feeling): Jupiter, Saturn

Gravity – inescapable forces, pull, influence exerted upon or felt from others, grasp, irresistible

            planetary quality (feeling): Saturn, Pluto

Density – tightly packed, compression, pressure, intensity, intention

            planetary quality (feeling): Pluto, Eris, Sedna, 2003 EL₆₁

Planetary Physical Influences

Mercury: gravity, Density, g/D, D/d
Venus: gravity, Density, g/D
Earth: gravity, Density, g/D
Mars: Density, g/D
Ceres: Density, d/m, D/g, g/D, g/m, D/d
Jupiter: diameter, mass, gravity, m/d, D/g
Saturn: diameter, mass, gravity, m/d, D/g
Uranus: diameter, mass, gravity, m/d, D/g
Neptune: diameter, mass, gravity, most dense of gaseous giants, m/d, D/g, g/D
Pluto: Density, d/m, D/g, g/D, g/m. D/d
Charon: Density, d/m, D/g, g/D, g/m. D/d
Eris: Density, d/m, D/g, g/D, g/m. D/d

Planetary Group Physical Influences

Terrestrials: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars
Forces exerted through minimum distances. Density of Earth most extreme. Gravity and Density and relationship of g/D

Gaseous Giants: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
Strong in diameter, mass gravity and relationships of m/d, D/g. m/g, d/D

Dwarf Planets ~ Underworld Guides: Ceres, Charon, Pluto, Eris
Strong in Density, modest in gravity and strong in relationships of d/m, D/g, g/D, g/m and D/d with Mercury included.

Planetary Extremes

Greatest Diameter: Jupiter
Smallest Diameter: Charon

Greatest Mass: Jupiter
Smallest Mass: Charon

Greatest Gravity: Jupiter
Least Gravity: Eris

Greatest Density: Earth
Least Density: Saturn

Most extreme ratio of diameter/mass: Charon (hard core, uncompromising)
Most extreme ratio of mass/diameter: Jupiter (bombastic, hyperbolizing)
Most extreme ratio of diameter/gravity: Saturn (tough to grasp, box too large to lift or mail)
Most extreme ratio of gravity/diameter: Earth (heavy, makes Atlas give up, Sisyphus spirit)
Most extreme ratio of mass/Density: Jupiter (large, extensive)
Most extreme ratio of Density/mass: Charon (intent and intense, unyielding and focused)
Most extreme ratio of gravity/Density: Jupiter (captivating and irresistible)
Most extreme ratio of Density/gravity: Ceres (influential, exerting a strong pull, meddlesome)
Most extreme ratio of mass/gravity: Jupiter (pompous, arrogant, can throw weight around)
Most extreme ratio of gravity/mass: Charon (proper propitiation precedes all transformation)
Most extreme ratio of diameter/Density: Saturn (bang for buck principle, value, best deal per)
Most extreme ratio of Density/diameter: Ceres (hell hath no fury like Ceres scorned)

Jupiter vs. The Good Doctor

Astrology can’t be real. An attending physician at birth exerts more gravitational influence on a newborn child than does Jupiter. Really? Have you done the math?? Let’s review this casually offered arguments so frequently issued by skeptics. Using the equation for gravitational influence previously noted:

Let’s define some new parameters. We are going to compare several factors including:

m_ju = mass of Jupiter

m_AP = mass of attending physician

m_NB = mass of newborn

s₁ = distance of Jupiter from newborn

s₂ = distance of attending physician from newborn

G = the universal gravitational constant (6.67300 × 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2)

 

Since the following calculations are for comparative purposes only and to simplify the mathematical process, I have invoked the liberty of leaving out the value of G in the calculations.

Adding numbers:

m_ju = 1.898 X 10²⁷ kg

            m_AP =

Assume a physician’s weight of 175 pounds.

This equals 79.379 kg or 79.379 X 10⁰ kg

            m_NB

Assume a newborn’s weight of 8 pounds.

This equals 3.629 kg or 3.629 X 10⁰ kg

            s₁

Jupiter is 5.203 AU from the Sun; Earth orbits the Sun at 1 AU. We’ll assume the Jupiter distance to Earth to be:

5.203 AU - 1 AU = 4.203 AU

1 AU equals 149,597,870.691 kilometers or 1.496 X 10⁸ km

4.230 AU equals 628,759,850.514 kilometers or 6.289 X 10⁸ km

            s₂

If we assume an attending room physician to maintain a standard distance of one foot, body to body, at delivery:

Then one foot = 0.0003048 kilometer or 3.048 X 10^-4 km

For the gravitational influence of Jupiter on a newborn, we have:

For the gravitational influence of an attending physician on a new born, we have:

Comparatively, the influence of Jupiter upon the newborn is by powers of ten, 17 times stronger! Next time you hear the “delivering doctor versus Jupiter” argument, feel free to challenge the challenger to a gravitational math bee.

Notes on Data appearing in the following table.

diameter (d) km

mass (m) X 10²⁴ kg

gravity (g) m s^-2

Density (D) (g cm^-3)

s = mean distance of planet from Earth

            s = |a – 1 AU|

            where a = semi major axis, AU = distance of Earth from Sun

Data for Eris, while preliminary, is expected to be close to actual.

Data for 2003 EL₆₁ and 2005 FY₉ is still being compiled. Both are Dwarf Planets.

Other major Dwarf Planet contenders include: Vesta, Hygeia, Pallas, Varuna, Ixion, Orcus, 55565 (2002 AW₁₉₇) and 55636 (2002 TX₃₀₀). Status will be considered on a case by case basis, largely hinged upon the body’s hydrostatic equilibrium (roundness).