Pluto is still a planet . . . hopefully

[KEishin]

On August 25th, International Astronomical Union will concluded its General Assembly to determine, if Pluto (and several other bodies) is a planet.

Over the years there have been many debates, but the problem has been nobody seems to agree on what a planet is anyway.

From the IAU press release http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0601/iau0601_release.html
The part of "IAU Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI" that describes the planet definition, states "A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." Member of the Planet Definition Committee, Richard Binzel says: "Our goal was to find a scientific basis for a new definition of planet and we chose gravity as the determining factor. Nature decides whether or not an object is a planet." In English, in order to be a planet it must be a) round and b) orbiting around a star, but not a star. So the Earth 's moon couldn't be a planet because it orbits the Earth, while Pluto could be a planet because it orbits the Sun, albeit off the plane of the ecliptic.

If this proposal is approved there will now be TWELVE planets in our solar system. They would be: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres (currently called an asteroid), Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon (currently considered Pluto's Moon) and 2003 UB313 (a provisional name until a real one is assigned.)

Astrologers are mostly gleeful (12 planets, 12 signs, we TOLD you so!) But don't expect us to know what they all mean in one's chart just yet. All the others (Mercury, et al) were determined after years of study. So stay tuned for future developments.

[Theres]

In English, in order to be a planet it must be a) round and b) orbiting around a star, but not a star. So the Earth 's moon couldn't be a planet because it orbits the Earth, while Pluto could be a planets becuase it orbits the Earth, albeit off the plane of the ecliptic.
i'm no scientist, but i would add a third criteria... the ability to support an atmoshere. this is something that none of these proposed "planets" (ie; rocks) can do.

i saw an astrophysicist a few weeks ago claim that if Pluto was in Earth's orbit it would grow a tail and be classified as a comet.

i know this throws off that wonderful symmetry which is so appealing, but then the Universe rarely works out so nice and neat.

imo.

[TheWomanMonster]

Even if they do tell us that it could not be classified as a true planet, you cannot doubt the powerful influence this tiny space rock has had on people past and present...

Monster

[WokeUpDead]

In English, in order to be a planet it must be a) round and b) orbiting around a star, but not a star. So the Earth 's moon couldn't be a planet because it orbits the Earth, while Pluto could be a planets becuase it orbits the Earth, albeit off the plane of the ecliptic.
You mean sun right?
i'm no scientist, but i would add a third criteria... the ability to support an atmoshere. this is something that none of these proposed "planets" (ie; rocks) can do.

i saw an astrophysicist a few weeks ago claim that if Pluto was in Earth's orbit it would grow a tail and be classified as a comet.

i know this throws off that wonderful symmetry which is so appealing, but then the Universe rarely works out so nice and neat.

imo.
Doesn't Mercury not have an atmosphere?

[Zurtok]

Yeah, as I remember from High School Physics, Mercury lacks an atmosphere, which is probably due to it's proximity to the sun.

And, I'm not sure if Pluto has an atmosphere either. Even so, I don't think that that's a suitable criterion for a planet, as they seem to be attempting to determine what a planet is based largely on size (at a certain critical mass a chuck of rock will draw it's self into a ball), even if that's not what they're saying.

[mickal555]

Why does it matter if it's technicly called a planet or not, and if it is and we get some more, doesn't it make all the past predictions wonky?

[KEishin]

i'm no scientist, but i would add a third criteria... the ability to support an atmoshere. this is something that none of these proposed "planets" (ie; rocks) can do.
But do all the other acknowledged planets really have atmospheres? Mercury doesn't have one; being so close to the Sun if any existed is was blown away by the solar wind. (If you want to be super-technical you can say it has an exosphere, having captured a bunch of random elemental atoms.)

i saw an astrophysicist a few weeks ago claim that if Pluto was in Earth's orbit it would grow a tail and be classified as a comet.i know this throws off that wonderful symmetry which is so appealing, but then the Universe rarely works out so nice and neat.
:D I agree, based on what I know of Pluto - it has all this ice (methane I believe?) on it, so if exposed to the solar radiation it would have a tail. But I'm no astronomer, just a simple astrologer who gets laughed at by the astronomy types. :lol:

And yes, it WOULD be nice if the symmetry worked out so neatly, but *personally* I'm not expecting much. We can't even agree if Pluto should be dignified in Scorpio and it's been known about since 1930! And forget the whole sidereal versus tropical! :hahugh:

[KEishin]

You mean sun right?
Yes that WAS supposed to be the *SUN* not Earth.
Blame the squirmy bundle of kitty fur on my lap who thought that the keyboard was an enemy to be pounced upon while I was typing last night. I'm gonna spend a week getting all the fur out of there. :lol:

[KEishin]

Why does it matter if it's technicly called a planet or not,
The reason, astrologically, is that planets have more of an influence on us than asteroids, comets, etc. We can add other asteroids or stars into the chart if we want. However, for simplicity, it's best to stick with the planets in our solar system.

and if it is and we get some more, doesn't it make all the past predictions wonky?
Well, if that's how it's working I guess I'll just contact all my clients, recall their horoscopes, and redo their readings. :lol: (I'm not picking on you - I've been asked this question A LOT recently so I'm silly.)

If we do get Charon, Ceres and 2003-UB313/Xena as planets it doesn't invalidate what has already happened. (We sort of discussed this earlier here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=136718).) I'll stick to science similies here: Does the discovery of a new element invalidate all the ones previously discovered? Does the discovery of quantum physics mean Newton got hit in the head really hard with that apple and was making it all up out of delerium? What if doctors discover a cure for cancer in the next decade - does that mean chemotherapy and radiation treatments didn't work to cure cancer previous to that point? (My grandfather would be rather surprised to hear that he died from cancer several years ago because chemo "doesn't work".) Just because something is missing from the whole picture doesn't make the rest a piece of crap.

[business voodoo]

Pluto could be a planets becuase it orbits the Earth

... or the sun depending on your perspective!

and i think that is where the decision went wrong ... this earth perspective is so limited

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7l2G2a6js

... i'm not the only one ... enjoy the video, very funny stuff.

[Xander67]

Even if they do tell us that it could not be classified as a true planet, you cannot doubt the powerful influence this tiny space rock has had on people past and present...

Monster

I dont see them re-writing the astrology books anytime soon...lol

we need pluto to keep us on our toes..

yeah, when pluto is on the move things are pretty scary but we always land on our feet. That is pluto's job.. to turn our world inside out and facilitate change.

[LostSheep]

As someone who's at least partly Scorpio I must say I'm rather relieved by this. It's confusing enough being shunted from planet to planet just as soon as any new one's discovered.

[business voodoo]

If we do get Charon, Ceres and 2003-UB313/Xena as planets

i'm particularly excited about "upping" Charon to equal standing as dual planets orbiting the sun together ... as i delved into the astrological history of the discussion, dialogue and argument of pluto/minerva ... both sides were both so amazingly valid ... and now, well, we may know truly why ... rather than the moon, it was a co-energy or perhaps a singluar energy of a dual nature.

the renaming things as 'planets' doesn't seem to be very important ... i know for me, when looking at a chart, yes while all the planets are in play, some planets play 'little' roles in the dynamics or energy of a person and an 'asteroid' or fixed star or some other thing like those 'calculated' points have a greater impact than one of the 'original' planets ... we are morphing and changing so much, the relevance, accuracy and information are for the time we are living in ... the whole debate is a part of our evolution, and hence not throwing everything we know into turmoil or chaos, but it is infusing us (perhaps with some of that dark particle matter ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060822/sc_nm/science_darkmatter_dc) to find a different and new place to exist in our minds, hearts and within the universe.

[mickal555]

The reason, astrologically, is that planets have more of an influence on us than asteroids, comets, etc. We can add other asteroids or stars into the chart if we want. However, for simplicity, it's best to stick with the planets in our solar system.


Well, if that's how it's working I guess I'll just contact all my clients, recall their horoscopes, and redo their readings. :lol: (I'm not picking on you - I've been asked this question A LOT recently so I'm silly.)

If we do get Charon, Ceres and 2003-UB313/Xena as planets it doesn't invalidate what has already happened. (We sort of discussed this earlier here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=136718).)

I'll stick to science similies here: Does the discovery of a new element invalidate all the ones previously discovered?
Doesn't invalidate the exsistance of the actual element, but any assumptions and inferences of the chemical makeup of compounds, that are related to the new discovery, will be called into question.

And If there is no noticible change or past problems while there are a different number of planets, shows that it's not the planets that makes astrology "work".

Unless the planets only start influencing us when a group of seven astronomers have a meeting and come up with a definituon.


Does the discovery of quantum physics mean Newton got hit in the head really hard with that apple and was making it all up out of delerium? What if doctors discover a cure for cancer in the next decade - does that mean chemotherapy and radiation treatments didn't work to cure cancer previous to that point? (My grandfather would be rather surprised to hear that he died from cancer several years ago because chemo "doesn't work".)Just because something is missing from the whole picture doesn't make the rest a piece of crap.

Shouldn't you be able to detect that something is missing though?

[KEishin]

Doesn't invalidate the exsistance of the actual element, but any assumptions and inferences of the chemical makeup of compounds, that are related to the new discovery, will be called into question.

And If there is no noticible change or past problems while there are a different number of planets, shows that it's not the planets that makes astrology "work".

Unless the planets only start influencing us when a group of seven astronomers have a meeting and come up with a definituon.
I'm no chemist so I won't attempt to argue the exact application of a new discovery on the periodic table or other compounds. But while the existence of the new isn't invalidated the existence of the *old* isn't either, unless they're totally different paradigms. Usually what happens in the case of the former is that they are subsumed, or absorbed into the old. It must be mentioned that a paradigm, though generally accepted as the best answer, isn't necessarily "the truth". For example, when Neptune was discovered observations were conducted based on what was happening when historical Neptune was at different points of the zodiac. Those observations led to the theory that Neptune ruled a certain sign of the zodiac which previous had been ruled by another planet. It's open to interpretation, and it still is in some circles, simply because we haven't had enough years (or centuries) of observation to be certain. But it's our best hypothesis at the moment. Rationality requires that you come to the best explanation of the facts available to you at the time. New paradigms can't keep on forever. Eventually we reach the right one, the one that best describes reality; by definition a better paradigm must be a more accurate description of reality. Reality doesn't move, but we get closer and closer to the truth with each new discovery. A paradigm which is fundamentally right cannot be shifted, *only refined*, as reality cannot contradict it.

Shouldn't you be able to detect that something is missing though?
It would be nice!
I suppose you are thinking of Mendeleev (I think that's spelled right?) and his derivation of the periodic table based on progressive atomic weights - missing elements would leave "gaps" in the progressions so he was able to show were missing information was even if he didn't know what it was.

This not creationism, with its fixed body of knowledge, that refuses to accept evolution. (Though there are a few astrologers that make me wonder . . . aAn irrational resistance to change.) Astrology is evolving, like it always has. We may have started with observations from millenia ago, but it is hardly unchanged since then. New ways of thinking about the old are always evolving. As that happens it *adds to* what we already know. Sometimes it creates anomalies - serious ones require we relook at what we accept as truth. Astrology is not a hypothesis nor an experiment. We may not be certain why it works, but it falls into the category of what my father the engineer calls "currently unprovable probabilities." (He thinks astrology is odd but can't argue my results.) Another astrologer/observer will never replicate the results of another astrologer - that's not how it works. We may agree that people who have Mars square Sun will have problems with authority, but each will put their own spin on it. This is a much less structured study than chemistry, which requires reptition to "prove" anything. In other words, this situation isn't like what Thomas Kuhn called "normal science." Astrologers do not work to explain and clarify established theories. We find it necessary to adopt a multiplicity of views and approaches, because people are individuals. As paradigms change, so should, and will we.

[business voodoo]

Unless the planets only start influencing us when a group of seven astronomers have a meeting and come up with a definituon.

Shouldn't you be able to detect that something is missing though?


I don't think any decent astrologer would ever say that the planets (or a cosmic thing, however its defined) influence anything ... they are just the thermometer ... e.g., its hot outside, the thermometer says 101F, that's a symbol for the measurement of heat (including all of the elements that comprise ... in this example, air, no matter the actual elemental definition make up of the air quality) ... it didn't influence how how it was, it just was what it is ... the thermometer is totally ambivalent if it was 99F or 104F ...

pluto would be the same way ... just because its in the sky and, from earth, is aligned in a conjunction with mars with the back drop of stars being the constellation of scorpio, doesn't mean anything except that the symbol would mean something to one looking at the 'astrological thermometer' which would probably read "very intense time of transformation or revelation" (or something similar). whether a planet or just a 'really big icy object that does this in our solar system" ... the symbols are not attached to the definition, but by the characteristics it actually reveals.

and, yes, i do believe we 'detect' something is missing ... which is why like just plain astronomers, astrologers are constantly searching the universe for meaning, more symbols that are missing from their life expeiences ... astrologers philip sedgwick and dane rudhyard are two modern astrologers who i feel focused on that aspect of the science of astrology.

[Fluffmeister]

Doesn't invalidate the exsistance of the actual element, but any assumptions and inferences of the chemical makeup of compounds, that are related to the new discovery, will be called into question.



When I started school, there were 103 elements (Lawrencium being the final one). By the time I'd finished, there were 105 elements (Hahnium being the final one).

The school curriculum was still offering both chemistry and physics, neither of which had changed significantly as a result.

My Pluto is still squaring my Sun right now. The fact that Xena is applying to an opposition to my Moon may or may not be significant - if it is, it adds something to my chart. It doesn't subtract.

[Keith Dragon]

In the beginning, I was against Pluto being demoted, but as I studied the science behind the planets, more and more I felt that Pluto was not a planet. Pluto always seemed an odd ball. Then, as the many Kuiper Belt Objects were being discovered, Pluto's place began to make sense. Pluto was not a planet, but the first of something NEW.

I know this could be emotional for many having to demote Pluto, but are we actually demoting Pluto, or like in TRADITIONAL mythology, is Pluto going to be King of his own Domain.

Pluto, as a God, was the God of the Underworld, and spent most of his time separated from all the other God's.

Pluto will not lose his influence on us. We just need to realize that he was in the Underworld, or in this case, the Outer world to begin with.

For you Scorpio's out there, do not fret, you will benefit the most out of all of this because you will have direct contact to this new domain as if it were your own. I know you will all love that concept. :-)

Don't try to see what you think is there, but actually is. This open a whole new level to astrology, a new domain.

Pluto, rather than being the small-dwarf odd ball that orbits as if he has drunk too much ambrosia, now is a King like he should be.

[KEishin]

I know this could be emotional for many having to demote Pluto, but are we actually demoting Pluto, or like in TRADITIONAL mythology, is Pluto going to be King of his own Domain.

Pluto, as a God, was the God of the Underworld, and spent most of his time separated from all the other God's.
That is an excellent way of thinking of the situation! :)

[Cassie]

Great Post KD! Although maybe I'm still going to think of Pluto as a planet... I always felt that Charon was rather ignored. Even if we are not supposed to use the 'P' word anymore, the fact that we have a double planet system out there has been one of the cinderella wonders of our solar system.

[RedRose]

Yahoo! Pluto gets demoted and Ceres is promoted! On this wonderful day of victory for the Mother Goddess I notice that Ceres is conjunct Neptune and opposite Venus/Saturn/Mercury! A triumph for the Godess Shakti!!

Hey, Chiron is in Aquarius giving us it's last natal square!

RedRose

[KEishin]

I should clarify for those reading - Ceres was not promoted to a planet, but was promoted from "asteroid" to "dwarf planet." :)

Carry on with the merriment! :D

[Xander67]

please forgive my crosspost, but I feel we shouldnt all just adjust our charts just because someone says pluto is not a planet..

Reguardless of what 300 people think, (those are the ones who actually voted out of the 2500 who showed up for the meeting) I sincerely Doubt that the AMAFA will make any changes to its policy on pluto just because a few people dicided to change the deffinition of what a planet is...

I feel it would be a shame to let the scientific community start dictating mystical teaching.

just because someone says pluto is or is not a planet doesnt make its imapct in our lives all of a sudden dissapear...

Reguardless, I intend to continue my astrology work and my work in the metaphsyical as I learned it...

To simply shift Scorpio into another planet would make the astrologers look like fools...

what right do these people have to tell us astrologers who to cast our charts?? are we expected to simply igore the powerfull influence Pluto has when it is on the move???

Im sorry, I will not take this one lying down, I shall not conform!:rant:

[WiccanGoddess]

please forgive my crosspost, but I feel we shouldnt all just adjust our charts just because someone says pluto is not a planet..

Reguardless of what 300 people think, (those are the ones who actually voted out of the 2500 who showed up for the meeting) I sincerely Doubt that the AMAFA will make any changes to its policy on pluto just because a few people dicided to change the deffinition of what a planet is...

I feel it would be a shame to let the scientific community start dictating mystical teaching.

just because someone says pluto is or is not a planet doesnt make its imapct in our lives all of a sudden dissapear...

Reguardless, I intend to continue my astrology work and my work in the metaphsyical as I learned it...

To simply shift Scorpio into another planet would make the astrologers look like fools...

what right do these people have to tell us astrologers who to cast our charts?? are we expected to simply igore the powerfull influence Pluto has when it is on the move???

Im sorry, I will not take this one lying down, I shall not conform!:rant:

I agree with you, 110%.

[RedRose]

Hi Xander67,

For me astrology keeps building through the centuries, and like a dream new symbols arise and fall. 3D life is a dream as well as a reality. We are but one species of many, on an outback planet, circling a average star, in an ordinary galaxy within infinitude. We know that now.

But from the beginnings of human awareness there has been the Sun and the Moon. Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn can also be seen unaided from Earth and they too remain stable down through the history of astrology.

That said, it is fun to watch the newcomers arrive and see where they lead us. Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, Chiron are all very recent. Chiron hasn't even had his first Chiron Return since his discovery.

I have joked in the past that Pluto might just swing around the Sun (as it has been doing in our lifetimes) and then fly off into space! Personally I thought it would be great if Pluto just left the Solar System. Not that I would see this happy event in my lifetime, of course.

Now it turns out that Pluto and Ceres are both dwarfs planets. Go Ceres, aka Demeter and put a sock in it. Lord Hades aka Pluto! I have never liked the Greco-Roman pantheon much but Western astrology is based on it. Pluto abducted poor Persephone and raped her and frankly, with visions of WW3 haunting us, demoting Pluto sounds like a good thing to me.

And Pluto still rules Scorpio. Pluto is just not as cool and powerful as he thought he was, and Scorpios will just have to eat it! :)

RedRose