Is Pluto an astrological planet?

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Ce_TPWwUIAAxF4r.jpg:large
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
But I already have, on this very thread, and you have responded to my post, we're not running in circles, OK?
Nothing to do with 'circles'
You cannot quote 'your post' because it was another member
and not you
who stated

Don't forget Mars and Jupiter!
They all haven't fully cleared their orbits yet.

:biggrin:
which is incorrect because

On the contrary
Along with its moons, Jupiter's gravitational field
CONTROLS NUMEROUS ASTEROIDS

that have settled into the regions of the Lagrangian points
preceding and following Jupiter in its orbit around the Sun.

These are known as the Trojan asteroids, and are divided into Greek and Trojan "camps" to commemorate the Iliad.
InnerSolarSystem-en.png



This diagram shows the Trojan asteroids in Jupiter's orbit, as well as the main asteroid belt :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
So humans labeling things again.


Bah. I'm calling this place it from now on!
hqdefault1.jpg



Jupiterasc i have a questions
why do you hate pluto that much because it is just too real ?
or it is because your too weak ?

and okay you know what you dont have to belive in pluto
but dont come here and try to convinse people who do cause you just look WEAK and DUMB
There's no postable answer to that :smile:



why you not answer my questions
Read my answers

so one more question

if scientists decide that jupiter is a dwarf planet

would you still call yourself jupiterasc ehhh ????.!




another%20solar%20system%20photo.jpg
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
the question is whether or not pluto is an astrological planet
clearly there is disagreement :smile:

'An astrological planet' is a planet only so far as ASTROLOGY is concerned
and
Astrology began in ancient times
when watchers of the stars noticed some VISIBLE celestial objects

that appeared to be moving more swiftly than others
against the background of 'fixed stars'
these VISIBLE more swiftly moving celestial objects

were dubbed 'the wandering stars' or 'planets'
today the seven visible planets are known as:
Sun Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn


and in fact
Dwarf planet pluto is so far distant from the Sun

that it is COMPLETELY INVISIBLE unless using powerful expensive telescopes
and

REMAINS INVISIBLE even with their assistance
unless skies are completely free of light pollution
and weather conditions are clear also



WORD ORIGIN HISTORY for 'planet'

n. late Old English planete,
from Old French planete
(Modern French planète),
from Late Latin planeta,
from Greek planetes,
from (asteres) planetai "wandering (stars),
" from planasthai "to wander," of unknown origin, possibly from PIE *pele- "flat, to spread" on notion of "spread out."
So called because they have apparent motion, unlike the "fixed" stars.



BEFORE 18 February 1930 Pluto was unknown
COMPLETELY INVISIBLE without the use of powerful telescopes.
astrology has been practised for thousands of years


and
An ancient system of dignities and debilities http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig2.html
in use for approximately two thousand years
BEFORE powerful telescopes

noticed dwarf planet pluto,
is finely tuned/balanced
and makes no sense if attempts are made to add dwarf planet pluto





 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

okay it is an astronomical dwarf planet

but it's influence is just like the influence of jupiter sun moon mars neptune uranus ....
:)
all those planets you mentioned are astronomical planets as well as astrological planets :smile:
but not dwarf planet pluto which was mistakenly presented as a planet

pluto is bigger then eris
You have been misinformed

Ja please have some knoweldge
and then come and talk
if you know nothing dont talk
:)
Practice what you preach :smile:

'.....Eris is the most-massive and second-largest dwarf planet known in the Solar System.

It is the ninth-most-massive body known to directly orbit the Sun


Eris is 27% more massive than dwarf planet pluto,

though pluto is slightly larger by volume.Eris's mass is about 0.27% of the Earth's mass....'
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
maney astrologyers *agree* that pluto is an astrological planet
FEW astrologers disagree
and ALL the people feel pluto energy except you
That is misinformed and in any event, the discussion does not concern dwarf planet pluto's alleged 'enegy'
but whether or not pluto can be considered an astrological planet
even if it is not an astronomical planet
and
also given that dwarf planet Eris is bigger than dwarf planet pluto
it makes no sense that no one is questioning why Eris is not an astrological planet as well :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
"Visibility" is in the eye of the beholder. Armed with a telescope, the beholder can see the planet Pluto.
To astronomers, the Moon and Sun are not "planets". Traditional astrologers disagree.
To astronomers, Pluto isn't a "planet". Modern astrologers disagree.
According to Traditional astrology, the Moon and Sun are "planets". Astronomers would certainly disagree!
So, Moderns aren't the only astrologers to ignore the astronomers regarding what qualifies as an "astrological planet".
On the contrary :smile:
To explain further, there are a few philosophical issues
that arise when using the outer planets.
Dirius is correct in noting that the fact

the outers carry no visible light

Astrology evolved alongside ancient optical theories
and these theories still permeate astrological discourse to this day.

Planets in aspect are said to "see" or "regard" one another
and their light is often considered a transmitter of their influence.

The word "planet" originally evolved from the Greek "planetes aster",
or "wandering star" and referred to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn
whose motion could be detected against the backdrop of fixed stars
that are stable in their relative distance from one another, but
all move together as one large group.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
JA, repeating the same old rejected arguments doesn't make you more correct. It merely means you are mistaken in a greater number of posts.
WB just one example of your rejected 'same old same old' arguments :smile:
Once more, with feeling:
The 2006 IAU designation is irrelevant to traditional astrologers who don't use Pluto anyway. Before or after, it makes no difference.

The IAU designation is irrelevant to modern astrologers who found no change in Pluto's effectiveness before or after the IAU designation.
Modern astrologers agreed with IAU designation when pluto was a planet
Modern astrologers disagreed with IAU designation when pluto was demoted to dwarf planetary status



Astronomy is not astrology. Really, it's that simple.
Modern astrologers agree with astronomy when it suits them. 'Really it's that simple'

Very disingenuous. Count up all your posts on this thread and your Pluto cartoon thread.
Count up everyone else's posts on this thread and your Pluto cartoon thread. Who tops the lists-- by a country mile?

If you want to spend your time obsessively counting posts on this thread and other threads then that's your choice

In any event it's unsurprising I comment on this thead
I'm the OP
Pluto is about suppressed facts that one doesn't like to face.
Is that all?
We moderns like studying astrological Pluto. We use it. Deal With It.
By all means continue to do so
Not all astrologers use 'dwarf astrological planets'
'Deal with it'

And please, your history argument is one such chestnut.
You read history and biographies? We read history and biographies.
We can see how Pluto operated in the past, easily.
How dwarf planet pluto allegedly 'operated in the past' is a matter of opinion
Traditional astrologers developed the concept of the Great Year,
even though none of them would live a fraction of its 24,000 cycle.

This is why I think you're obsessive.
We've answered your same old arguments over and over again.
You won't listen to any argument that supports modern astrology.
The same old arguments you yourself post
have been refuted multiple times
yet you keep repeating them
by your definition then
you think you yourself are obsessive
Given how little you've studied it,
I guess all you can do to keep your beliefs about modern astrology is to repeat your same old, same old.
Another baseless assumption
that you keep repeating in the same old, same old way

The only reason I don't give up in disgust
is because I don't want a fledgling astrologer to read the kind of misinterpretations
some of the trads post about modern astrology and think that they're correct.

If you really believe in a "live and let live" astrology, I suggest you do that.
So you think that your arguments are the sole arguments for 'fledgling astrologers' to consider
and that any arguments to the contrary must be 'misreperesentations'
however
the fact is
'fledgling astrologers' are quite capable of forming their own opinion
by considering all the pros and cons

so do continue posting your same old, same old arguments
and they shall be refuted
 
Top