Pluto no longer a planet - anybody concerned?

Well they voted to demote Pluto to a lesser status, a "dwarf" planet or plutonian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5282440.stm

Thus there are only 8 "classic" planets now, and for the foreseeable future.

Does this change anything for anybody? Not for me. Neptune is secret enough.

I'm not much into astrology, so I don't know the ramifications, if there are any, on an astrological scale. Whether they call it a planet or dwarf planet or whatever else they want to call it, I wouldn't think it would or should have any affect. It's still the same mass in the solar system, it still has the same orbit, it's still in the same place it has been for millions of years.

A rose by any other name...

I will still use Pluto. It works in my charts and the ephemeris (the ones I have anyway) will always have it. Astrology is part art and part science, and to take too seriously, the opinion of a bunch of scientists trying to define away in technological terms, one of our points of interpretation, would just give them a reason to point a finger and laugh at us.

RubyRuby said:

I'm not much into astrology, so I don't know the ramifications, if there are any, on an astrological scale. Whether they call it a planet or dwarf planet or whatever else they want to call it, I wouldn't think it would or should have any affect. It's still the same mass in the solar system, it still has the same orbit, it's still in the same place it has been for millions of years.

A rose by any other name...

Click to expand...

I fully concur.

For astrologers to use it, they have to empirically observe it first. They also have to have a theory of how it might work in the psyche.

Most astrologers, I think, don't think that the physical characteristics of the planets mean anything. Most I know take a mystical approach, or a Jungian, "archetypal" or "synchronistic" approach; the planets just somehow mirror the soul, and can characterize and predict things in the life of an entity (a state, organization, enterprise or individual) by virtue of that synchronistic quality.

For me, the solar system is a web of magnetic and gravitational influence, and everything in it is influenced to a greater or lesser degree by everything else in it. The Sun is of course by far the most important thing; for Earth, the Moon is next (and the Earth itself of course!). But celestial bodies also affect us with their energy. Except for the Sun and Moon, the planets are subtle but persistent forces in nature and our lives. It doesn't matter that Jupiter's energy doesn't knock you over, or overtly "cause" anything - it is persistent and constant and measurable force; astronomy quantifies the force, but what astrology tries to do is *qualify* the effects of that force.

I don't think Pluto - or any of the asteroids like Ceres - can be shown to have much effect electromagnetically or gravitationally on earth, or the Sun (as the other planets do). All together, they make up quite a weight, but except for a few chance encounters, Earth is pretty much unaffected by them.

The other planets are like anchors of the solar system - if any one of them were destroyed, we would notice it to a greater or lesser extent.

It's just a word.

stardancer said:

I will still use Pluto. It works in my charts and the ephemeris (the ones I have anyway) will always have it. Astrology is part art and part science, and to take too seriously, the opinion of a bunch of scientists trying to define away in technological terms, one of our points of interpretation, would just give them a reason to point a finger and laugh at us.

Click to expand...

I agree that astrologers shouldn't depend on the taxonomies of astronomers to decide how to interpret a chart.

But the fact is that Pluto has been shown to be only one of many similar objects - some larger than Pluto - in a belt around the inner 8 planets. It's like the asteroid belt, but much further out. And further than that, there's the "Oort cloud", where comets come from and go to.

Close to the Sun, the Sun is so heavy as to "flatten" out the orbits of everything around it - this is where the classic 8 planets are. But further out, it starts getting uneven and things orbiting the Sun come in at extreme angles. Pluto is at an extreme angle - like the other bodies in its area, the Kuiper Belt. So Pluto and those far objects don't influence the Sun, and aren't influenced by the Sun, nearly as much as we and the other classic planets are. Similarly, our lives should not be influenced by these planets, which are so much smaller and further away than our big neighbors.

And Pluto's status as a planet had always been controversial. But whatever an astrologer thinks of it, it is not astronomical definitions but astrologic practice that matters. If an astrologer finds Pluto, 2003UB313 ("Xena") and Ceres and other asteroids to be helpful, then it is of no importance how "planet" is defined.

But does it not upset the nice little theory that there are supposed to be 12 planets for each sign of the zodiac? If pluto isnt a planet then does it still make it the ruler of Scorpio?
Or are we now going to interpret the word 'planet' to have both astrological and astronomical associations - so for astrologers it is still a planet that is charted and see as a ruler etc. In that case wouldnt asteriods be planets? Chiron become a planet rather than a planetoid or centaur?

lol I have no idea when it comes to these things, just adding fuel to the fire.

Sezo
x

inanna_tarot said:

But does it not upset the nice little theory that there are supposed to be 12 planets for each sign of the zodiac? If pluto isnt a planet then does it still make it the ruler of Scorpio?
Or are we now going to interpret the word 'planet' to have both astrological and astronomical associations - so for astrologers it is still a planet that is charted and see as a ruler etc. In that case wouldnt asteriods be planets? Chiron become a planet rather than a planetoid or centaur?

lol I have no idea when it comes to these things, just adding fuel to the fire.

Sezo
x

Click to expand...

I'm not much of an astrologer, but isn't it possible that there are many more planets out there and one of them is actually the ruler of Scorpio?

I thought pluto wasn't discovered till about 1930 - surely astrology was around before that?

Sun and moon aren't planets either.
It's like debatin weather swords 'are' fire or air, east or west.

Until now the astrological system that used Pluto worked fine for me, and I'll go on using it.

Reality is beyond any systems.

Silver_Skye said:

I'm not much of an astrologer, but isn't it possible that there are many more planets out there and one of them is actually the ruler of Scorpio?

I thought pluto wasn't discovered till about 1930 - surely astrology was around before that?

Click to expand...

Yes there is a planet out there and it is the ruler of Scorpio. It's called Mars and it has had that honour for 2500 years at least.

No there is no theory in Astrology that says that there must be 12 planets because their are 12 signs. All the signs had rulers before the telescope was invented and their rulerships were dictated according to a clear and sound system. The Sun and Moon (the two luminaries) ruled the two signs where the light was at it's peak (in the Northern Hemisphere that's Leo and Cancer) and the other planets ruled two signs each in their order from the Sun/Moon (Leo/Cancer) starting with Mercury ruling Gemini and Virgo and ending with Saturn ruling Aquarius and Capricorn. Each planet ruled a diurnal sign and a nocturnal sign and the rulerships were also in aspect to the Sun or Moon. Thus Gemini sextiles Leo and Virgo sextiles Cancer, ending with Aquairus in Opposition to Leo and Capricorn in Opposition to Cancer. The rulerships are systematic and rational.

As for Pluto, it's very sad for Psychological Astrologers who have heaped all their fears and complexes on Pluto but Astrology can function perfectly well without either Pluto or the complexes and did do for over 3000 years