Comments | vakkotaur: Kicked out of the club. Welcome to the club.

vakkotaur

Kicked out of the club. Welcome to the club.

Aug 27, 2006 12:03

Of the two recent definitions of (major) planet, I find I don't really mind either one. The first one, which would have made Pluto and Charon a double planet system, returned planet status to Ceres, and made planets of a few objects not yet formally named was reasonable. That it would make planets of a good many things bothered some, but it was ( Read more... )

pluto, planet, astronomy

Comments 4

Astronomical Impact irpooh August 27 2006, 18:53:47 UTC

Sooooo... how are all the Astrologists going to handle this? I read my horrorscope on occassion for ammusment, and find an occasional comment about there being 11 planets and 12 signs... NOW What are they gonna do!!! the planets supposedly have a HUGE impact on our personalities and events in our lives

pries tongue from cheek... ducks and runs for cover!

Re: Astronomical Impact altivo August 27 2006, 19:01:54 UTC

I doubt that astrologers will be very concerned about it one way or the other. The underlying basis of astrology has very little to do with astronomy, and has never concerned itself much with minor objects like Ceres or Charon. Pluto is not considered either by some astrologers, and given only minor consideration by most. (For one thing, it moves so slowly that its positions affect whole generations of individuals together, if it affects anyone.)

The important heavenly bodies in astrology have always been the ones that can be seen by the unaided human eye. None of those have been called into question in this flap at all.

vakkotaur August 28 2006, 02:16:18 UTC

NOW What are they gonna do?

Spout a lot of hooey, just like always.

They simply ignore Ophiuchus, using just the tradition constellations of the zodiac. That doesn't seem out of a line for an ancient "art" to do, except there is some accounting for Uranus and Neptune as I recall and I recall seeing at least one popular astrological newspaper listing in the 1980s use the label 'Moon Children' rather than have a section entitled Cancer.

altivo August 27 2006, 18:58:01 UTC

Poo. There are several issues with this supposed "decision" and I expect it to be revisited soon. The lack of quorum of course is significant as well.

As dakhun points out, the new definition is so vague and poorly worded that we could insist that Neptune is a "dwarf planet" as well. That's patently absurd, but he appears to be right. Since Neptune has failed to capture Pluto as a moon, it hasn't cleared its orbit. Never mind that the mass of Neptune is huge compared to that of the inner planets, because mass isn't even a factor in this new set of requirements ( ... )