Conference hydra::dejavu

    The Globe had a piece on this also.  The moon of Pluto is
    believed to be large, 20-30% as massive as Pluto(?).  This data
    is based on analysis of a series of eclipses of Pluto by its
    moon which have occurred over the last few years.  Additional
    analysis is taking place

    thanks
    dave pierson

    
    
    Astrology is already having to think about this issue of 
    sign rulership.  The discovery of the minor planet Chiron
    in 1977 has already started this thinking process.  There
    is one school of thought that has Chiron ruling Virgo,
    which currently shares Mercury with Gemini.  Taurus and
    Libra share Venus.  Also being considered are the major
    asteroids Ceres, Juno, Pallas Athene, and Vesta and how
    they fit into the newly forming picture, as well as the
    possibility of undiscovered planets existing.
    
    As humanity evolves and becomes aware of new dynamics of
    the human psyche and its spiritual source, so to do the symbols 
    encompassing these archetypes of the psyche become available  
    for our study and use.

    
    Carole
    

    It isn't so much as a brand new discovery, as someone proposing
    that we've had enough evidence now for a while to indicate that
    there may be a better way of describing the Pluto/Charon system
    than as a planet and satelite.
    
    Two observations are relevant:
    
    It appears that Charon is large enough relative to Pluto so that
    their common center of gravity about which they rotate is above
    the surface of Pluto.  Although its a brand new definition, it seems
    reasonable to place the distinction between a planet-moon combination
    and a double planet combination at that division point.
    
    The second is that the "atmosphere" of Pluto has recently been
    observed and it is detectable out *further* than Charon.  In a sense
    their atmospheres are shared.  This really says less than it sounds
    like though.  Atmospheres don't stop abruptly, but rather tail off.
    In principle if we had sensitive enough instruments we could
    demonstrate that all the solar planets "share" an atmosphere.
    Certainly the area around the Earth/Moon system shows a higher
    density of gas than surrounding space, so, in a sense the Earth
    and the Moon also share an atmosphere.  The sharing between Pluto
    and Charon is pretty high relative to their atmospheres, but both
    atmospheres are rather tenuous by planetary standards.
    
    The first was suspected virtually from the time Charon was discovered,
    though nobody thought of it in double-planet terms, and it has become
    more certain as more data has been collected.  The second is relatively
    recent, I would say I first saw it mentioned (nice cover picture
    demonstrating a picture of the "shared" atmosphere in Science News)
    about 5 or 6 months ago.
    
    					Topher

    So is Chiron the mysterious 10th planet?

    	No, Chiron just happens to be a relatively large (400 miles
    in diameter) planetoid (asteroid) which orbits Sol between the 
    true planets Saturn and Uranus.  The largest planetoid known, 
    Ceres - which orbits Sol between the planets Mars and Jupiter, 
    where most planetoids dwell in our Solar System - is roughly 600 
    miles in diameter, and even it is not considered to be a full-fledged 
    planet.
    
    	An alleged tenth planet, which supposedly lies beyond Pluto,
    has yet to be discovered. 
                   
    	Incidentally, in recent years, new studies on Pluto have made
    some astronomers claim that Pluto is not a "true" planet, but rather
    a very large planetoid (or even a comet!).  Roughly 1,800 miles
    in diameter, it is smaller than the true planet Mercury (3,100 miles)
    and even many moons, including Earth's moon, Luna (2,160 miles)!
    If this idea is accepted by the astronomical community, it would 
    effectively make Pluto's moon, Charon (600 miles), a planetoid as 
    well, thereby making Pluto and Charon the first known double planetoids.
                                                               
    	Larry
    

    
    
    	What's the difference between a planet and a planetoid???
    
    					Carla
    

    Re .6 (Carla):
    
    What's the difference between a minicomputer and a microcomputer?
    In Digital's case, it seems to be "a microcomputer has a Q-bus;
    a minicomputer doesn't."  Likewise, the difference between a planet
    and a planetoid is definitional.
    
    Luna (Earth's moon) is 2,100 miles in diameter; that's a hefty size;
    but it's a  moon.  Titan, one of Saturn's moons, is bigger than
    Mercury, but it's a moon.  Pluto is smalkl, but it's the biggest
    chunk of matter in its orbit.  So why isn't it a planet?  I say
    it is; because it's been defined as a planet.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    	To be a bit more distinct, a planet is usually defined as a
    nonluminous celestial body which orbits a star.  Now I realize that
    planetoids and moons orbit Sol as well, but moons are defined as
    such when they orbit a world which is larger than themselves -
    Jupiter's Galilean moons are large enough to be planets in their
    own right, but because they orbit Jupiter (which is much larger
    than them), they are designated as moons.
    
    	For planetoids it is mostly a matter of size, plus the fact
    that there are so many of them (roughly 5,000 at the latest count),
    which keeps them from having full-planet status.  At the present
    time, any celestial object smaller than Pluto (1,800 miles) is
    considered to be a planetoid, and Pluto itself may one day be
    designated as a planetoid.
                              
    	Larry
    

    Some confusion may have crept in for some readers since we have
    been talking about two different objects with very similar names.
    
    One is *Charon* the relatively recently discovered companion to
    Pluto (more discussion of that in a moment).  Charon is named, quite
    appropriately after the mythical fairyman who transported the souls
    of the dead into Hades, Pluto's domain.
    
    The other is *Chiron* a rather large asteroid.  Chiron is named
    after the centaur who trained Hercules, Jason and Achilles, among
    others in Clasical mythology.  It is a completely different chunk
    of rock.
    
    The "10th planet" refers to a new, as yet undiscovered, planet
    beyond the orbit of Pluto.  Certain anomalies in the orbits of
    comets and of the other planets might indicate that there is such
    a planet (or it might indicate some subtle flaw in the chain of
    assumptions being used -- the error is very, very small).
    
    The proposal that Pluto/Charon be considered a double planet is
    a little more terminologically far-reaching than is at first obvious.
    A spot of light was discovered in the 30's and was dubbed Pluto.
    We now know that that spot of light came from two distinct bodies
    in orbit around each other.  Most of the light came from the larger
    body, but a signigicant portion comes from the smaller.  Following
    the traditional planet/moon dichotomy it was natural to take the
    larger body as the planet already dubbed Pluto, and the smaller
    body as its moon newly dubbed Charon.
    
    The double planet proposal, in effect, says that Pluto/Charon
    *together* should be considered "the" planet with two components Pluto
    and Charon.  These will probably end up also being called "planets"
    but it seems to me that it would actually make sense to call them
    both moons -- of each other.
    
    					Topher

    
    Re -.9, a bit of nit-picking:
    
    Charon poled the ferry that took dead souls across the River Styx,
    and is therefore a ferryman...the practice of putting a coin with
    the body of the deceased (often under the tongue) was to provide
    the fare for the trip across the waters.
    
    Gloria
    
    

RE: .9
    
    Sorry, spelling is not my strongpoint.
    
    	       			Topher				

    The base note had the question What does this mean for Scorpios?
    I've had these musings.
    
    Two years ago I finally bought Jeff Green's compelling book titled
    _Pluto: The Evolutionary Journey of the Soul_.  One of his major
    theses is that our desire nature is dualistic.  We have a desire
    to be separate, and a desire for union (he refers specifically to a
    union with God or Creator--whatever term you prefer).  He believes
    that the interaction of these dual desires, and our actions that
    spring from them, are the main fuel for our karma.  And he believes
    that Pluto is the planet that represents this duality and the karmic
    struggle in our birth charts.
    
    I stretched a bit at first in the beginning to imagine the idea.
    But as I began to read more and more astronomical speculations that
    the "planet" Pluto is actually a dual system of moons/planets/
    planetoids/comets/whatever, the dualistic desire nature idea began
    make more metaphysical sense.  Even though astrology is only a model,
    that model has its springboard based in physical reality.  Following
    this line of reasoning, many astrologers of my acquaintance believe
    that the physical properties of the planets give hints as to their
    metaphysical meanings.  If "Pluto" is, in fact, two hunks of rock
    orbiting each other, perhaps Jeff's thesis about it being
    representative of a dualistic desire nature is quite correct.
    
    Musing on all this, doesn't it feel like the sign Scorpio has
    a very deep esoteric meaning?  Most of the bad press I've heard
    about Scorpios runs along the lines of "obsessed, secretive, dark,
    too intense, controlling, overly concerned with sex, death, and
    money, greedy, jealous."  Even those who praise Scorpios are somewhat
    guarded; much of what I've read is along the lines of "Well, you
    Scorpios are certainly dealing with Important Issues, but you're
    just Not All That Nice, and you should really Clean Up Your Act
    or you'll end up being a Really Rotten Person and Destroying Everything."
    
    If the Scorpios out there have heard too much of this and believe
    it is worth noting that none of the great villians of the 20th Century
    (Hitler, etc.) were/are Scorpios (although I admit I don't know
    about the Ayatollah).
    
    So it seems to me that if Jeff Green is correct, Scorpios have chosen
    a mission in this incarnation (for those of you who believe that
    way) to deal directly with resolving issues that concern this
    separation/union conflict.  Not all the difficulty you may experience
    is your fault; societal training is pretty pitiful when it comes to
    teaching anyone, not just Scorpios, how to deal with the desire
    nature, and the dual drive for separation/union.
    
    One astrologer of my acquaintance also believes that Scorpio and
    Pluto are about energy exchange and transformation on a cosmic level.
    All the things that Scorpio is about make sense viewed that way.
    Sex is the energy of physical desire exchanged; the transformative
    result may be just emotional and physical union or it may be new
    life.  Money is given its considerable power only when it is exchanged
    for something.  Death is the energy of animation leaving the body
    for somewhere else; the body is transformed back to its earthly
    elements, and the soul?  who knows?
    
    Two bodies, rotating around a common center, symbolise to me a lovely
    dance of true equality that is necessary for true exchange to take
    place.  For Scorpios, it may be quite important that in all efforts
    of life, especially with other people, that you "box your own weight".
    It is important to make the effort to ensure that both parties bring
    everything to the table, uncover the hidden agendas, and deal with
    each other as if both of you mattered equally, arrange exchanges
    fluidly, instead of trying to make them rigid.  It is when this
    delicate balance gets out of whack that the "power games" and "control
    issues" surface.  Scorpio people may be on a mission this time 
    out to deal directly with these types of issues.  Again, societal
    training is pitifully inadequate in helping anyone learn to do this
    well.
    
    Yours truly,
    
    Ole Pluto Eyes

    
         Remember that scorpios (nor any other sign) aren't the bad
    guys. Each of the 12 signs represents a distinct, necessary phase
    in the complete cycle of existence. Each individual under a par-
    ticular sign has evolving, evolved, and unevolved qualities uniquely
    characteristic of that sign. In other words "bad" scorpios exhibit
    one group of qualities while, say, "bad" leos have their very own
    unique group of qualities. In each case, "bad" just translates to
    unevolved.
    
    
    Roy
    (who_once_thought_he_was_a_scorpio_but_is_really_on_the_cusp_
     between_scorpio_and_saggitarius)
    

    I was just hit with a thought pertaining to this topic.
    
    Pluto rules Scorpio; nuclear power.
    
    Nuclear power is generated by  *splitting atoms*.
    
    (Twilight Zone music here)
    
    Meredith (with_three_planets_in_Scorpio)

    It seems that most people I spend time with, at work and out, are
    Scorpios.  I haven't consciously chosen these associates always,
    frequently the've been assigned.  I first noticed this when my
    wife threw a surprise keg party for my 25th.  It turned out that
    most of my close friends were born in early November.  Every Nov.
    after that someone had a generic Scorpio party, some of them
    lasted 3 days.  Last Nov. I disocvered that the 2 technicians I've
    worked with (as lead engineer) are also Scorpios.  Whenever I work
    at a task with others of this Ilk, there seems to be very rapid
    understanding of technical points, which are later hard to explain
    to others............................................MWR
    

    Well, even from the land down under - guess what -
    
    early November Scorpio.... :*)
    
    ...dale