Pluto The Planet Is Back!!!

[waybread]

This just in:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-planet/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.41fb29b94ab8

You probably know that in 2006 the International Astronomical Union "demoted" Pluto from its former status as a full planet to dwarf planet status, based upon new criteria developed to deal with newly discovered trans-Neptunians.

Some of us knew that, whatever the astronomers decreed, Pluto continued to work well as a planet in modern astrology.

Now some planetary scientists are on record as questioning the IAU's decision, in part due to practical problems with the 2006 definition of planet.

Stay tuned, space fans.

p.s. As Tim's notice for this board indicates, this is not the place for a modern/traditional debate. Happy to have one, but it doesn't belong on this board.

 

[david starling]

Is this about Pluto not "clearing its orbit"?

 

[waybread]

As the article pointed out, the earth didn't clear its orbit either for its first 500 million years.

 

[david starling]

I have the impression that Astrologers, in this Community at least, went "Gone With the Wind" ("Frankly my dear....") concerning Pluto's demotion to non-planertary status by Astronomers. Interesting that the demotion was precipitated by the discovery of "Eris", named for the goddess of strife and discord.
The demotion of Pluto wasn't important to Traditionalists either, because they weren't using it to begin with.

 

[david starling]

One other observation: The choice of the term "Dwarf Planet" was apparently intended to mean Pluto had lost Planetary status because of its size. Yet the word "planet" is still included in the designation, as it was in the former category "Minor Planet". Modern Astrologers have taken the attitude that "Big things come in small packages".

 

[petosiris]

As the article pointed out, the earth didn't clear its orbit either for its first 500 million years.

Well, then it was not a planet for 500 million years?

 

[CapAquaPis]

9 planets + 4 dwarf planets = 13 planets in astrology, if not in astronomy.

I say the Sun's a star (accurately), the moon's a natural (but not sole) satellite of Earth (obviously), our home Earth is one, the 3 other inner planets with solid surfaces, 4 gaseous outer planets and 3 solid-surface planets smaller than our moon: Ceres between Mars and Jupiter in the asteroid belt (too round-shaped), Pluto of course, and the farthest is Eris, but I wonder even further Sedna count.

Lilith is earth's other natural satellite not visible to the naked eye, and Chiron is something like a centaur, a planet-like celestial body between Saturn and Uranus. Does it mean we have total of 15 celestial bodies in our solar system?

 

[david starling]

Well, then it was not a planet for 500 million years?

Sure it was. But it was a messy planet.

 

[david starling]

Well, then it was not a planet for 500 million years?

Petosirus, are you using the "Outers" uranus:) In your Charts? Not sure if you're a Traditionalist or not, since you have an independent approach to Astrology.

 

[david starling]

p.s. As Tim's notice for this board indicates, this is not the place for a modern/traditional debate. Happy to have one, but it doesn't belong on this board.

There's a reason for this to be sequestered in the Modern Astrology section.

 

[petosiris]

Petosirus, are you using the "Outers" uranus:) In your Charts? Not sure if you're a Traditionalist or not, since you have an independent approach to Astrology.

I personally do not.

Obviously dwarf planets are planets because they are wandering stars. To the ancients, the planets were wandering stars that appear visible and sometimes do not because they are set under the beams.

That is, they did not make a distinction between Regulus and Jupiter because one is a planet, and another is a sun, but rather because of the sphere that appears to be moving Jupiter across the zodiac of non-wandering stars, the way I understand this.

The ''outers'' are not visible to the naked eye, and are not spheres, and they distort the symbolism of the number 7.

 

[david starling]

Yes, the reason I respect Traditional is the use of the 7-pattern. But, I've discerned a 10-pattern in Modern, and I have my own personal 12-pattern. They all "work" in my opinion. I think this Modern section is only for the 10-pattern system. For anyone who sticks with the 7-pattern, it's the wrong place to criticize the 10-pattern, just as it would be wrong for a Modern Astrologer to go to the Traditional section and criticize the non-use of the Outers.

 

[petosiris]

Yes, the reason I respect Traditional is the use of the 7-pattern. But, I've discerned a 10-pattern in Modern, and I have my own personal 12-pattern. They all "work" in my opinion. I think this Modern section is only for the 10-pattern system. For anyone who sticks with the 7-pattern, it's the wrong place to criticize the 10-pattern, just as it would be wrong for a Modern Astrologer to go to the Traditional section and criticize the non-use of the Outers.

You asked for my opinion, you got it.

 

[david starling]

You asked for my opinion, you got it.

I appreciate that. I also respect your opinion, and understand the reasoning. Do you understand why it's inappropriate to criticize the use of Pluto as an ASTROLOGICAL planet in the Modern section?

 

[petosiris]

Yes, the reason I respect Traditional is the use of the 7-pattern. But, I've discerned a 10-pattern in Modern, and I have my own personal 12-pattern. They all "work" in my opinion. I think this Modern section is only for the 10-pattern system. For anyone who sticks with the 7-pattern, it's the wrong place to criticize the 10-pattern, just as it would be wrong for a Modern Astrologer to go to the Traditional section and criticize the non-use of the Outers.

I personally started modern astrology with the 9-pattern (or is it 7 planets? + Sun + Moon) as the early modern authors did not use the undiscovered then Pluto.

However, if modern astrologers since then have adopted Pluto and make good use of it, then the opinion of the astronomical community of whether this object is planet or dwarf planet probably should not be of importance.

 

[david starling]

However, if modern astrologers since then have adopted Pluto and make good use of it, then the opinion of the astronomical community of whether this object is planet or dwarf planet probably should not be of importance.

What if there are closet-Astrologers within the Astronomical community who DO think it's important? This might be their doing.

 

[petosiris]

What if there are closet-Astrologers within the Astronomical community who DO think it's important? This might be their doing.

Astrology with charts, I doubt it. But having 7 planets might be the work of conspiracists.

 

[waybread]

Here is the 2006 IAU definition of a planet, dwarf planet, satellite and everything else.

RESOLUTION 5A

The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and

(d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3], except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar-System Bodies".

Note also the category of trans-Neptunian objects.

As I think most of you know, Pluto was discovered in 1930. Astrologers did pick up on it soon after, although there was an initial debate about assigning its domicile to Aries or to Scorpio. The rationale with the modern outers was Capricorn/Saturn, Aquarius//Uranus, Pisces/Neptune. So presumably the next planet out, Pluto, belonged to Aries.

However, those of us who work with Pluto generally feel that Scorpio is a better match.

The orbit of Eris does swing inside the orbit of Pluto at times, so perhaps the mythological sister of Mars (Ares) can get plugged into Aries as a modern ruler, following a bunch more research. I caution that a domicile is more than a question of affinity. It has to work as a house cusp ruler.

I hope everyone reads the Washington Post link.

 

[waybread]

Well, then it was not a planet for 500 million years?

How did you interpret the article? I thought it was saying that a space object does not have to clear its orbit of debris in order to be classified as a planet.

The discovery of exoplanets may further change the definition of planets in our solar system

Here are some more news bulletins on Pluto The Planet.

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-nasa-scientists-think-pluto-is-a-planet-and-here-s-why

https://www.popsci.com/pluto-might-be-planet-again

 

[petosiris]

How did you interpret the article? I thought it was saying that a space object does not have to clear its orbit of debris in order to be classified as a planet.

The discovery of exoplanets may further change the definition of planets in our solar system

Here are some more news bulletins on Pluto The Planet.

https://www.sciencealert.com/these-nasa-scientists-think-pluto-is-a-planet-and-here-s-why

https://www.popsci.com/pluto-might-be-planet-again

Seems like a linguistic and formalism issue is related to it. Are dwarf planets - planets. They might be, but children in school and planetariums would certainly prefer to study 7 planets than 109 or thousands of exoplanets. We might as well call the current 8 planets (including Earth) - major planets (or formally, as it is now and clearly stated in the IAU resolution - planets), but Pluto should not be with those in light of discovery of greater objects than Pluto, which are not considered planets - then we would really have a problem as I see it. Thus I can sympathize with the 2006 IAU decision.