Some astronomers and astrologers, myself included, believe there may be at least three more major planetary bodies beyond Pluto which they commonly refer to as planets X, Y, and Z. Xena/Eris, discovered/announced in 2005 may indeed be planet X as NASA officially declared then retracted. Y and Z, further out, have yet to be discovered or disclosed.

There is a controversial personage on the internet by the name of Greenstone Lobo, a revolutionary Vedic astrologer, who claims to have identified planets X, Y, and Z by researching the thousands of unamed bodies on the official NASA minor planet website. He has narrowed his choices to three centaurs, namely 2007 RH283 as planet X and true ruler of Taurus, 1999 JV 127 as planet Y and true ruler of Virgo, and 2008 FC76 as planet Z and true ruler of Leo. He bases his conclusions on the study many charts of famous people, especially sports figures.

2007 RH283 is approximately 51 kilometers in size with a highly elliptical orbit of 63.79 yrs and encompassing the planets from Jupiter to Neptune. 1999 JV127 is somewhere between 22 and 50 kilometers in size with a highllly elliptical orbit of 68.45 years and encompassing the planets from Jupiter to Neptune. 2008 FC 76 is approximately 58 kilometers in size with a highly elliptical orbit of 56.4 years and encompassing the planets from Jupiter to Neptune.

Greenstone is different in that unlike his Vedic compatriot astrologers, he includes the planetoid Chiron, the three modern planets of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, and three more bodies known by ancient Vedics which he interprets to mean the three centaurs named earlier. These, plus the traditional seven planets and the nodes amount to his "sixteen planet astrology". Sixteen is indeed a key number which even astrologer Charles Jayne in his book The Unknown Planets refers to, and may be the actual number of planetary bodies to be taken into account when studying a birth chart.

While I applaud Greenstone's inclusion of Chiron and the three modern planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, as well as the nodes Rahu and Ketu(which he himself admits are not really planets), I am not at all convinced about his choices for planet X, Y, and Z. Rather than centaurs, which bridge the orbits of the outer planets, I am inclined to believe that X(Eris?) Y and Z are all beyond Pluto. Also, unlike Greenstone Lobo and Linda Goodman to which he references, I believe X to be the primary ruler of Libra with Taurus as secondary or substitute ruler. Y is Virgo/Gemini and Z is Cancer/Leo.

Nor do I practice or propone sidereal astrology which bases its positions on the stars or constellations rather than the seasons or equinoxes. I present here, however, sign tables for his X, Y, and Z planets for your interest and study. If anything else, they will be valid for those three centaurs. Positions are in the tropical zodiac and were obtained from the Horizons(Jet Propulsion) website. Also, I recommend using whole sign astrology, which is also what the Vedics practice.

Note: If you were born on the first or last day of the dates given below you will need more precise calculations to ascertain the sign position.

If Eris is X, where are Y and Z? Even further out of course. Y is likely to have a 1000+ year orbit. and my guess is it's in tropical Sagittarius. Z is much further out and may be a brown dwarf with an orbit in the many thousands of years. No real clue as to where it might be. Could it be Pickering's Q situated in early tropical Cancer as discussed by Charles A. Jayne in His book The Unknown Planets?

X as the ruler of Libra/Taurus, Y as the ruler of Virgo/Gemini, and Z as the ruler Cancer/Leo would form a natural sequence after Pluto ruler of Scorpio/Aries. Planetary orbits are not haphazard. They follow a logical astrological sequence. Sun is Leo, Moon is Cancer, Mercury is Gemini/Virgo, Venus is Taurus/Libra, Mars is Aries/Scorpio, Jupiter is Sagittarius/Pisces, Saturn is Capricorn/Aquarius, Uranus is Aquarius/Capricorn, Neptune is Pisces/Sagittarius, and so on, and it's not necessarily astronomical in nature.

Why do I include two signs per planet? Because one is the primary ruler and the other is the secondary or substitute or day/night ruler. In times when humanity degrades or viewing conditions are hindered(such as is now) we lose many of our higher spiritual or psychic functions and are unable to see the more distant planets beyond Saturn. The distant or "invisible" planets themselves still retain dual rulership as a back up should one or more of the inner planets be damaged or destroyed. Pluto, for example, discovered in 1930, had a noticeable Mars or Aries effect during the World Wars, only on a vaster or grander scale. This Mars effect can also be seen in the Pluto position of individuals. It is also possible that the orbital circuits of both planets are interchangeable so that Pluto may once have been where Mars currently is and Mars where Pluto currently is.

Earth is not a planet or globe but a plane or realm from which we observe the planetary wanderers, and the luminaries. In astrology, the Earth or Terra works via the Ascendant or Rising sign and sets up the houses. Five planets are visible to us(Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) and the other five are invisible(Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, X(Eris?), and Y. Z is more of a sun than a planet. Here is a diagram showing the relationships between the inner visible five planets and the outer invisible five planets...

There is an unbroken sign chain link when using the double rulership scheme with centaur Chiron dividing the visible planets from the invisible. The bracketed signs are the secondary rulers. The Sun and Moon, rulers of Leo and Cancer, can go on either end when using dual rulerships. Z may replace the Moon someday as a more fitting ruler for Cancer.

back to table
back to home