Planets close and far

David Cochrane pointed out in his declinations video that we’re not really doing 3D astrology unless we’re taking into account distance. Good point, and something I’ve neglected. (We’re assuming of course the 4th dimension of time). This is important, because given all things being time-equal (such as the freeze frame of a birth chart and the imprint it has upon us), the closer the planet the stronger the influence generally is.

So let’s do a rundown of this:

The Moon is the closest body to Earth and when in close (especially closest) aspect with Asc or Midheaven can become the strongest influence of any by far. The Moon is Earth’s satellite and averages around only 238,000 miles from us (383,000 km). This is only 0.0025603564424354 Astronomical Unites (AU).

· Venus is much further averaging around 0.28 AU from Earth
· Mars, 0.52 AU
· Mercury, 0.61 AU
· Jupiter, 4.20 AU
· Saturn, 8.54 AU
· Uranus, 18.14 AU
· Neptune, 29.06 AU
· Pluto, 29 – 49 AU (a more elliptical orbit)

All things being equal across the planet in terms of human and biological life, this list is a ranking of the influence planets have on us. Slow speed, however, can make up for such longer distances given a long enough lifetime and (trans-)personal development.

There are also times when any body’s influence is stronger than usual because its orbit moves it closer to the Earth.

Links:
http://www.reference.com/science/other-planets-distances-earth-7e843e5d29782d6c
http://www.universetoday.com/13891/distance-to-pluto/
http://www.convertunits.com/from/miles/to/astronomical+unit

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Planets close and far

  1. Hi Kannon,

    Absolutely love David Cochrane and his original and interesting material! However, I am not sure if I completely understand your post. Traditional 2d , flat paper , birth chart astrology also disregards distance . Longitudinal aspects are given the same consideration regardless of distance . A square from Pluto ( very far way) or a square from Mars ( much closer ) are not necessarily differentiated. If a planet or point is on the same declination ( or longitude) it is on the same Plane and therefore connected geometrically. Or at least that is my thinking. I sincerely applaud your shining a much needed light on declinations and your efforts to promote 3D thought to astrology. It seems to me that close aspect might trump relative distance. And/or maybe distance is an additional “aspect” ( i.e. relative conjunction ) that hasn’t been given full consideration. Thoughts?

    Yes, we need to look at the the whole sky ! Not just the ecliptic and longitude . Kudos to Bernadette Brady, David, yourself and any other like minded thinkers in this regard.

    Really enjoy your work and I wish you the Best,

    Brian

    • All good points, Brian. I was mostly thinking out loud right after watching David Cochrane’s video on declinations. Just saying I’d neglected to keep this perspective in mind. It can be very challenging to maintain a full spectrum visual sense of the sky when our astrological way of representing it is so bland and off. I always think like a rectifier. So in terms of someone’s natal chart, closer bodies would have an even stronger influence, the Moon for example if Parallel one’s Asc would be stronger than Mars Parallel it.

      I think a post like this may need chart illustrations, or even more investigation. Just thinking out loud on this one. Thanks for stopping by.

    • Yes , good points . I as well was just talking out loud . Thank you for listening and commenting . I think it is cool that you have an interest and specialization in rectification.

Comments are closed.