Attention stargazers...

[kickaha]

So I know there are a few astrology buffs (serious and non-) on here.

Could someone please explain the ramifications of losing Pluto as a planet?

Thenk yew.




For that matter... how did astrology handle new planets being discovered? It would seem that's easier to work with than having one suddenly be declared irrelevant...


Just wonderin'.

Comments

[mcglk.livejournal.com]

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.

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

"with no discernible difference in predictive accuracy"

And really, isn't that key?

[mcglk.livejournal.com]

Always was to me. After all, they don’t follow the actual zodiacal constellations, either. Astrology has always seemed like utter crap to me.

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

Yeah well...

Actually, I have a theory about how it started, and why it was thought to have actual import, but... suffice it to say that I think that, at one time long ago, it might have actually had some meaning. For strictly logical reasons, no less. But today? Naw.