Before 1930, Pluto was unknown, and astrologers didn’t use it, claiming their predictions were fully qualified by the planets. Since 1930, Pluto has been incorporated into the star charts (after some initial resistance by astrologers)—with no discernible difference in predictive accuracy. Since astrologers don’t seem to care about planetary status (hence the incorporation of the Moon into the horoscopes), or even the Copernican system all that much (it’s still heavily based on the Ptolomaic system), I really doubt they’ll bother to change back.
A few astrologers have incorporated Sedna and other Kuiper-belt objects into their horoscopes. No word on Ceres, though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-26 01:24 am (UTC)No ramifications at all.
Before 1930, Pluto was unknown, and astrologers didn’t use it, claiming their predictions were fully qualified by the planets. Since 1930, Pluto has been incorporated into the star charts (after some initial resistance by astrologers)—with no discernible difference in predictive accuracy. Since astrologers don’t seem to care about planetary status (hence the incorporation of the Moon into the horoscopes), or even the Copernican system all that much (it’s still heavily based on the Ptolomaic system), I really doubt they’ll bother to change back.
A few astrologers have incorporated Sedna and other Kuiper-belt objects into their horoscopes. No word on Ceres, though.