Conference hydra::dejavu

	I remember reading that astronomers at one time believed that they had 
discovered an new planet inside the orbit of Mercury. That planet was named 
Vulcan.

Pete

    
    	As I remember it, the planet 'Vulcan' that was sighted inside
    Mercury's orbit, has been sighted twice.   Some people believe it
    has not been sighted more often because it is so close to the
    sun, where observation is difficult.   With such a small number
    of sightings, it is possible that there has been a mistake.
    I believe it is quite possible that a small planetoid does exist
    in an orbit very near the sun.
    
    	In legend, there has been the idea that there was a planet
    'Vulcan' on the other side of the Sun from the Earth.  I think
    this was just a fantasy.   Did the astronauts ever look over there
    when they were on the moon?   They probably didn't waste their time.
    These ideas may have begun from observations of optical phenomena
    seen near the sun.  (sundogs?)
    
    	There are also legends and theories that there is a tenth planet
    out beyond Pluto's orbit.   There is some hard evidence for this, since
    the orbits of Uranus and Neptune show evidence of some large body,
    who's gravitation seems to be altering the path of the planets,
    although it has not been sighted yet.   Recently some scientists
    have mentioned that Pluto is smaller than previously believed, thus
    the influence of the hypothesized planet must be greater than was
    previously assumed.   This body could be a planet, or a 'dark star',
    like a neutron star or small black hole.   It has not been sighted
    yet, but there are people looking, armed with the calculations of
    discrepancies in the orbits of the outer planets.
    
    	The hypothesized tenth planet is sometimes referred to as
    "Tiamat" or "Marduk", from Babylonian or other old legends.   
    Zecharia Sitchin has written a strange little series of books 
    which reinterprets some old Sumerian and Babylonian texts, in 
    which he claims there is a tenth planet (See the book 
    _The_Twelfth_Planet_  [the 12 include the sun + moon])
    that has an eccentric orbit of around 3500 years.   He says that
    every 3500 years this planet passes through the solar system,
    going through the area of the asteroid belt, causing geological
    disturbances and severe meteor showers.  He says it's due again
    soon, of course.    Readers of Velikovsky will note that Sitchin
    reinterprets the same legends as Velikovsky, yet comes to utterly
    different conclusions, thus illustrating the difficulty of basing
    science theories on mythological stories.

    							Alan.

    Re .0 (Joanne):
    
    When the planet Neptune was discovered, it was because a couple
    of astronomers had observed perturbations in Uranus' orbit (that
    is, normally it would have behaved differently, but something was
    influencing its orbit).  The perturbations turned out to be the
    gravitational influence of Neptune; on the basis of how Uranus accelerated
    and decelerated from its theoretical behavior, it was possible to
    determine the approximate position of Neptune.   Neptune's own orbital
    perturbations led to the discovery of the platet Pluto, though from
    the mass determined for Pluto-Charon, that discovery might have
    been accidental, and there may yet be another more massive body
    beyond it.
    
    When observing the orbit of Mercury, astronomers discovered equivalent
    perturbations.  Using Newtonian physics, they felt that the only
    thing that could be causing such perturbations would be a planet
    inside the orbot of Mercury.  They were so sure of that that they
    named it Vulcan and began a serious search for it.  Several times,
    some astronomers thought they'd spotted it, but those observationms
    turned out to be errors (e.g., a very round sunspot for the silhouette
    of a small planet, a star during a solar eclipse that was close
    to the sun's [occulted] limb).  After Einsteion had developed his
    theory of relativity, it appears that the shifting of Mercury's
    orbit is a consequence of the differences in its speed and the
    solar gravitational gradient.  No inner planet is necessary; indeed,
    such a planet would _upset_ the relativistic model.
    
    Thus, no Solar planet called Vulcan.  The name, FWIW, was chosen
    because Vulcan [Haephestos] was the GraecoRoman god involved with
    blacksmithing, and was thus alwasys near heat.  The planet being
    closest to the sun would also be "closest to the heat"; the heat,
    in thios case, being the Sun.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

       The planet Vulcan is home to a race of beings with pointed ears
    and green blood and who are highly intelligent but posess no emotions.
    Sorry, couldn't resist.
    
       Dave the Trekkie.
    

    Re .2
    
    The planet alleged to be on the far side of the Sun from Earth came
    from Pythagorean numerology.  You see, to the Pythagoreans, 10 was
    the perfect number.  However, there were only eight cosmic bodies
    in evidence for them:
    
    	1. Earth
    	2. Moon
    	3. Sun
    	4. Mercury
    	5. Venus
    	6. Mars
    	7. Jupiter
    	8. Saturn
    
    So they made up two more to fill out to ten and make their model
    of the universe "perfect" by their lights.  The two were the "Central
    Fire" and "Antichthon" or (in English) "Counter-Earth."
    
    The Central Fire was supposed to be the true source of heat and
    light in the universe; all other bodies including the Sun AND the
    Earth revolved around it; the Sun, like the Moon, planets, and stars,
    shone with reflected light from the Central Fire.  On this theory,
    the Earth always kept the same face toward the Central Fire and
    we all lived on the OUTSIDE face, where it would be perpetually
    dark except for the Sun whizzing by once a day.
    
    Counter-Earth orbited inside our own orbit, closer to the Central
    Fire, and thus was never visible from our hemisphere.
    
    A couple of millenia later, Counter-Earth still hangs around as
    a half-remembered legend of astronomy.  Now, of course, it is supposed
    to share Earth's orbit, but always keeping the Sun between us and
    it.  (You couldn't see it from the Moon.)  No astronomer believes
    in it -- the position is gravitationally unstable, and Counter-Earth
    would float into view in a few years, if it were actually there.
    But it is believed in by some group of occultists, whose name I
    forget.  They have called the place "Clarion" and make it the source
    of UFOs.
    
    Perhaps more fruitfully, Counter-Earth has been used in fiction.
    It is the planet Gor, scene of an endless, blood-and-thunder adventure
    series.  It also featured in a B-movie called "Journey to the Far
    Side of the Sun," in which Earth and Counter-Earth are supposed
    to be perfect mirror images of each other, down to mirror twins
    of every living person.
    
    				-=+=-
    
    For the rest of the astronomical mythonomy, the proposed tenth planet
    has had several names in scinece fiction.  "Persephone" and
    "Proserpina" are common, these being names of the wife of Pluto.
    There was also a reported moon of Venus, never verified and unlikely
    to exist on grounds of celestial mechanics.  I believe it was named
    "Eros" before that name was given to an asteroid.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re.5     
    
    Earl,
    
    Since you mentioned 'Clarion', do you know what 'Clarion Call' means?
    It's from that Simon and Garfunkel song.
    
    There's also a new magazine out by this same name (anybody else
    get on their free mailing list?)
    
    Cindy

re: .0

Vulcan will, at some point, be seen as "ruling" Virgo, and Taurus as 
well.  Some relatively advanced esoteric astrologers are already using 
this planet in the development of charts and applying its energies in 
their interpretations.  However, it is not considered to have much 
effect on the "average man"; it is generally only being applied to 
people who are consciously "on the path".  This, esoterically, is the 
reason it has not yet been "discovered".  It will be discovered when 
there is a sufficient number of people on the planet who are affected by 
its influence.  

In the broad scheme of things, this time is really already at hand.  We 
should see the scientific community announce the discovery of this 
planet within our lifetimes; a good guesstimate would be 10 to 20 years.
It will be discovered "on the other side" of Mercury from the viewpoint 
of Earth, and closer to the Sun than Mercury.

This planet will be seen, astrologically, to carry a type of energy not 
represented by the currently known planets.  The moon will, at about the 
same time, begin to be dropped from use altogether as an astrological 
influence.  Only the planets will be seen as having any significant 
effect.  Depending on the situation, energies which have been attributed 
to the moon will be associated with one of three planets: Vulcan, 
Neptune, or Uranus.  At this point astrologers should become thoroughly 
confused. :-)  For now, we just wait and see...

Jeff

    
    Re: Planet, Clarion.
    
    From what I have read/heard regarding the planet, Clarion, it is not a
    planet that is "Counter-Earth".  It is suppose to be a planet in
    "a galaxy far-far away", on which extremely-advanced beings from
    all sorts of races reside.  These beings have mastered many of the 
    karmic lessons that we Earthlings are trying to work out.  Apparently,
    this planet is a "Utopia" on which there is no war, hate, illness, etc.
    This planet is suppose to be like a "Master" retreat.
    
    Linda

    Re .8 (Jeff):
    
>............................................This, esoterically, is the 
>reason it has not yet been "discovered".  It will be discovered when 
>there is a sufficient number of people on the planet who are affected by 
>its influence.  
>
>In the broad scheme of things, this time is really already at hand.  We 
>should see the scientific community announce the discovery of this 
>planet within our lifetimes; a good guesstimate would be 10 to 20 years.
>It will be discovered "on the other side" of Mercury from the viewpoint 
>of Earth, and closer to the Sun than Mercury.
 
    Well, there may be an "esoteric" reason it hasn't been discovered,
    but the problem is that _astrophysically_ the planet should have
    been discovered long since if it exists. I'll try to explain this
    as simply as possible:
    
    Planets orbit the Sun by balancing inertial forces (the so-called
    "centrifugal force" [generally called "centripetal acceleration"
    by physicists]) against the pull of gravity.  The orbits may be
    very nearly circular (like the orbit of Venus) or highly elliptical,
    like the orbit of some comets.  By comparison to comets, the orbits
    of the planets are all rather circular; however, the two planets
    with the most elliptical orbits are Pluto and Mercury (Mercury ranges
    from a closest distance to the sun of 28,600,000 miles to a greatest
    distance of 43,400,000 miles).  Mercury's "year" is 88 Earth days long.
    The greater the distance from the Sun, the longer the "year."  Venus'
    year is about 225 Earth days; ours is just over 356 days.  A planet
    between Mercury and the Sun would have an even briefer orbit (what
    it would be would depend on its distance, but in any event shorter
    than 88 days).
    
    How about a planet orbiting in such a way that it was always
    "concealed" by Mercury (i.e., Mercury is always eclipsing it)?
    The dynamics of celestial mechanics make that impossible.  If Mercury
    had a perfectly circular orbit, it is extremely farfetched but
    conceivable  that Mercury could have a companion/satellite that
    "just happened" to rotate with it in such a way that it could be
    concealed, but the high eccentricity (deviation from a circle) of
    Mercury's orbit would make that impossible; it would have been seen
    or detected by radar astronomy.
    
    If one wishes to propose a "planet" that's not made out of matter,
    then "it" can go anywhere; however, if "it" orbits the sun anyway,
    "it" is subject to gravitation and hence will have "its" own
    gravitational field, which should perterb the orbits of Mercury
    and Venus.
    
    In cvate someone wishes to bring up the LaGrange points, please
    note that positions 4 and 5 are stable; the rest are unstable; thus,
    a planet situated in those points would have drifted away from them
    long since (also, the ratio between the L 4/5 body and the planet
    should be 80:1 or better or the system will become unstable, too:
    that would make a co-orbital "Vulcan" a _very_ tiny planet).
    
    In short, from an astronomical standpoint, the presence of a planet
    orbiting within ("below") the orbit of Mercury, while not impossible,
    is so unlikely as to make little difference.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re: .10

>   Well, there may be an "esoteric" reason it hasn't been discovered,
>   but the problem is that _astrophysically_ the planet should have
>   been discovered long since if it exists. 

Agreed... that's partially why it so interesting.    

>   How about a planet orbiting in such a way that it was always
>   "concealed" by Mercury (i.e., Mercury is always eclipsing it)?
>   The dynamics of celestial mechanics make that impossible......
>   ...it is extremely farfetched but conceivable that Mercury could 
>   have a companion/satellite...
    
Note that I didn't say anything about it being concealed by Mercury... I 
do not know all of the *exoteric* reasons for the lack of detection by 
the scientific community.  However, with the *esoteric* reasons, I am 
very confident.

>   In short, from an astronomical standpoint, the presence of a planet
>   orbiting within ("below") the orbit of Mercury, while not impossible,
>   is so unlikely as to make little difference.

We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

Jeff

 
    Re .11 (Jeff):
    
>Note that I didn't say anything about it being concealed by Mercury... I 
>do not know all of the *exoteric* reasons for the lack of detection by 
>the scientific community.
        
    As to "being concealed by Mercury, in .8, you said:

>It will be discovered "on the other side" of Mercury from the viewpoint 
>of Earth, and closer to the Sun than Mercury.         
    
    My discussion was to cover all bets.  If it were in a fully independent
    orbit  that lay "inside" the orbit of Mercury, and it had any
    appreciable mass, its presence would have certain exoteric
    manifestations, such as a noticable effect on the orbits of Mercury
    and Venus; the former more than the latter.  Further, since the
    development of the spectrohelioscope and spectroheliograph, there's
    been enough study of the solar disk so that a transit of the solar
    disk by a planet with as short a "year" as "Vulcan" would have to
    have would almost certainly have been detected by now.
    
    For an "esoteric" reason that a Vulcan might _not_ exist, is that
    it would be in violation of the Bode-Titius law; for the Mercurial
    position, the "n" of the (3*2^n +4)/10 equation is -[infinity].
    That suggests nothing should be closer to the Sun on a mean-distance
    basis.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.