posted October 07, 2016 12:50 PM            

The moon is 26000x less massive than Jupiter. I don't know if any of you experienced the moon progressing when it actually was (I have) and been able to compare it to a different planet progressing (like jupiter).

If you want me to give them my honest rating of strength to compare to each other, The moon would be around 40 and jupiter would have been like 2. As a comparison.

Now I know it would sound weird to say it was gravititational pull that determined the strength of the planets. I don't know what it is, but it could be a force that is exerted hand in hand with the gravitational force.

Anyway the gravitational pull from the moon to jupiter is 200 times greater.

But here is a clue. The moon is 1560x closer, but 26000 times less massive. Which is saying that if jupiter was twice as big but twice as far away, well the distance would make it much more weaker. The further away, the more exponentially weak. Because the moon is much much smaller than jupiter.

So from this we can get an idea. If the moon really was metaphysically felt in our psyche pertaining to astrological forces as being 40 times stronger, then that would indicate:
26000/1560= 17. For every time the distance is 17 times greater an influence than the mass, but time's that by 40. The moon is felt 40 times stronger meaning jupiters mass would have to be multiplied by 40 to equal to the moon from where it is. To have the same influence. Therefore the distance factor is 17x40=666 times stronger.

26000 x40= 1560Y
104000 = 1560Y. divide both sides by 1560
666 = 1Y.

For every time the distance of an object is twice the distance of another, it would have to have 666 times the mass of the closer object to be equal in strength.

That doesn't really sound right, but I guessed that the moon's force was 40 times stronger, it might actually just be 200x stronger, which would be the actual amount of gravitational strength that it is stronger. It's hard to compare forces because we are even sensitive to pluto which is millions of times weaker than the sun or jupiter yet we feel it.

So obviously from comparing the moon to jupiter we can know that the bigger the distance something is will be more determining than mass.

So if anyone wants to apply a little bit of logic, as long as you do believe that the moon's strength on us is around 40-200 times stronger than any of the planets, than you can apply a similar estimation of proccessing of strengths to each object in our solar system.

Ceres is very close to us compared to pluto (30 Au, Ceres=2 AU)

I did the calculation before and Ceres actually has 100x the gravitational pull of Pluto. Vesta even has 10x the pull. I think pluto's energy is a bit differently defined though because it is 10x more massive than Ceres. The more massive something the more complex and unique the force and defined.

Pluto's gravity would still be two times stronger than the 4th strongest asteroid to us, number 31. So pluto would be the first most powerful object after Vesta. But actually that isn't true because there are several powerful stars that have equal gravitional force to Vesta.

Anyway. Even our Sun is the most powerful thing in the chart. Obviously mass matters. And obviously distance matters or else stars in other parts of the galaxy would be just as strong as our sun. Therefore using an asteroid like Eros which is about 20 km wide it is next to nothing.

If there are truly astrological energy then you won't find any when looking at Eros or very little. Even if it is closer to Earth than others it is still a thousand times weaker than Vesta. Just because someone gave it a funny name doesn't make it's influence in our life in that direction any greater.

Mercury is 6000x less massive than Jupiter. But the gravitational formula says that any amount of distance is squared. Since jupiter is 4x further away than Mercury, that distance gets squared (=16) and then divided from the mass. So Jupiter is 360x stronger.

Mercury is 360x more massive than Ceres, but ceres is twice as far on average. So Ceres is 1200x weaker. Vesta would be 4000x weaker.

Now you can see why the planets are so defining and the asteroids are more subtle things in our life, but as the planets are so incredibly powerful on us, we still are largely influenced by even smaller asteroids like 704. Even Ceres is like a massive pulsating boulder in our psyche. It is very strong and defining of our motivations and feelings. It's a very strong force.

Mars is 10x less massive than Venus.
Saturn 2x Venus. Jupiter 22x Saturn.
Mercury 1/2 of Mars. Uranus/Neptune 1/5th or even equal to mercury depending on whether mercury is close or far to the Earth. Ceres is 1/1000th of this.

Actually I just found out that Uranus/neptune could be equal.

Pluto is 6000x less massive than them so you could only think it would be 6000x less powerful. But still very powerful.

So yeah basing all of this off of your own interpretation of the strength of the moon, as well with the sun, and even distant stars, and also Jupiter, just to show the correlation of strength between Mass, and distance to us.

Everything in this universe is a science. Everything is happening for a scientific reason or from a law in existence.

You won't get an asteroid, if there are honest astrological effects, (not talking about collective conciousness or synchronisity, which will never over ride literal strong forces in existence) You know you might get a feeling to look up your name asteroid and find that it conjuncts someone sun because of synchronisity making you do that. But that is all.

Nothing else.

posted October 07, 2016 01:14 PM            

The gravitational force alone would be destinctive. But obviously it's not the ''physical pulling'' that we sense, i mean it's not the physical part, it's something metaphysical, which is seemingly at a similar level of influence to comparing the gravitational energy. Gravity might be something metaphysical as well as physical. I don't know.

Also Ceres is 4 times bigger than Vesta, and 47x more influencial than Hygiea because Hygiea is 2 times further (=4x weaker).

Anyway based off my first equation saying that for every time something was double the distance to us it would have to have 666x the mass to be equal, which is how it would equate out for the moon to be 40x stronger than Jupiter, then Hygiea would be 7000x weaker than Ceres. It doesn't really seem right, and the gravitional formula seems more like a realistic thing.

Cause I did calculate it correctly about the 666 formula.

If we used my primitive 666 formula to compare the moon to the sun, the moon is 400x closer, and the sun is 27 million times greater, therefore, 27 million/666 = 40000x stronger of an astrological influence on us. With the gravity formula, it would be 200x more influencial than the moon.

posted October 07, 2016 06:17 PM            

The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

In your example, you consider the strength of the moon against the strength of Jupiter. Would the ratio change if you considered the product of moon and earth against the product of jupiter and earth?