Should Pluto be demoted as a planet in Astrology?

JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Zarathu said:
I think earth should be demoted. Only planets like Saturn and Jupiter should be considered real planets. I'm also demoting small dogs to rodent status.

Seriously, Astrology has little to do with astronomy.
Click to expand...
Siriusly? :smile:

For any readers of this thread interested.....

astronomy = scientific study of the universe and the objects in it, including stars, planets, nebulae, and galaxies.

Astronomy deals with the position, size, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial objects. Astronomers analyze not only visible light but also radio waves, x-rays, and other ranges of radiation that come from sources outside the Earth's atmosphere. source: Online dictionary
 
Z

Zarathu

Account Closed
Only the small dogs part.

The smartest dog I ever owned was a dachound poodle mix and looked like a large rat with a hairy tail. But she was wicked smart.
 
Love2Know

Love2Know

Well-known member
Zarathu said:
Only the small dogs part.

The smartest dog I ever owned was a dachound poodle mix and looked like a large rat with a hairy tail. But she was wicked smart.
Click to expand...

I really love my tiny dog. I am sure that the gravitational pull of planets affect the earth
 
Flapjacks

Flapjacks

Well-known member
Characteristics of planets do influence their interpretation, as I've seen... most explanations of each planet's meaning in astrology begins with physical characteristics.

For Pluto, it:

1) Orbits the Sun, so it has a place in our solar system
2) Can come closer to the Sun than Neptune in it's orbit, so why say it should have less importance than Neptune? How close must the orbit be, and how big must the object be, to have an influence?
3) First discovered dwarf planet... so perhaps, instead we should be giving Chiron, Ceres an Eris more attention, for example.

To me, it doesn't make sense to exclude bodies because of discoveries of new ones rather than include more upon their discovery.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Love2Know said:
I really love my tiny dog. I am sure that the gravitational pull of planets affect the earth
Click to expand...
LAWRENCE EDWARDS WORK WITH PLANT BUDS http://www.astro-calendar.com/shtml/Research/research_edwards2.shtml

'…...Lawrence Edwards, retired mathematics teacher researched forms of living nature, using geometric analysis.
1982 daily began taking photographs of tree buds on selection of trees, finding that buds expanded and contracted to an approximate fortnightly rhythm.
These periods varied between 13.6 and 14.7 days
but each species of bud kept the same period in their rhythm.
Edwards realised these were astronomical rhythms,
each period correlated to Moon's alignment with a planet and Earth.…...' :smile:


'…..When Earth, Moon and planet were in straight line, buds of the tree where more rounded, expanded shape.
When Moon and planet where 900 apart
(as seen from the Earth), the buds took on a more oval, contracted shape, sharp at one end and blunt at the other.
Even in the middle of Winter buds are doing a rhythmic dance whose tune is called by the planetary movements......'


TREE--------------------------------ASPECTS BETWEEN-------------PERIOD DAYS

Ash---------------------------------------Moon / Sun -----------------------14.77

Elm -----------------------------------------Moon / Mercury ---------------14.77
Birch -------------------------- ---- --------- Moon / Venus -----------------14.77
Oak ------------------------------------------Moon / Mars --------------------14.23
Maple, Sycamore -----------------------Moon / Jupiter ------------------- 13.75
Beech, Hornbeam, Conifers ---- ------ Moon / Saturn ------------------13.67
 
Flapjacks

Flapjacks

Well-known member
Bunraku said:
Then we'd be using the entire Oort Cloud, Kuiper belt, or asteroid belt...
Click to expand...

Yes, so the question stands.... where would the cutoff point be?

I can't throw out Pluto because it makes too much sense astrologically. Although, if alternative explanations work just as well, perhaps it could be excluded. But, I'd like to hear some principles that clearly show why some planets (or dwarfs, or asteroids) would be excluded, aside from whatever is popular or easier.
 
athenian200

athenian200

Well-known member
Flapjacks said:
3) First discovered dwarf planet... so perhaps, instead we should be giving Chiron, Ceres an Eris more attention, for example.

To me, it doesn't make sense to exclude bodies because of discoveries of new ones rather than include more upon their discovery.
Click to expand...

Well, that would be the logical alternative. If Pluto is big enough and/or close enough to count as a planet... then so should all those other Kuiper belt objects.

I'm mostly suggesting that perhaps it's less important than most planets. Asteroids do have an influence, and people do use Chiron frequently. I just don't see how Pluto's influence is major enough to award it planetary status. It's a matter of scale/degree.

Of course, if we go ahead and make Eris, Ceres, and Chiron planets as well, then I guess that could work.

As of right now, the inclusion of Pluto as a major planet rather than an asteroid appears to be arbitrary. Including other Kuiper belt objects of similar size would change that.
 
Last edited:
Flapjacks

Flapjacks

Well-known member
athenian200 said:
Well, that would be the logical alternative. If Pluto is big enough and/or close enough to count as a planet... then so should all those other Kuiper belt objects.

I'm mostly suggesting that perhaps it's less important than most planets. Asteroids do have an influence, and people do use Chiron frequently. I just don't see how Pluto's influence is major enough to award it planetary status. It's a matter of scale/degree.

Of course, if we go ahead and make Eris, Ceres, and Chiron planets as well, then I guess that could work.

As of right now, the inclusion of Pluto as a major planet rather than an asteroid appears to be arbitrary. Including other Kuiper belt objects of similar size would change that.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you are right. Astrologers have to reevaluate why they are using it the way they do just as astronomers were forced to question how they classified Pluto in light of other similar celestial objects. Of course, they can come to different conclusions, but I am curious as to why astrologers starting using Pluto in the first place.
 
Blaze

Blaze

Account Closed
Ya'know. This question brings another question to mind.

If Pluto isn't as important as some make it out to be then where would those "Plutonain" energies stem from?

Could it be that Eris or another dwarf planet creates these energies?
 
athenian200

athenian200

Well-known member
Blaze said:
Ya'know. This question brings another question to mind.

If Pluto isn't as important as some make it out to be then where would those "Plutonain" energies stem from?

Could it be that Eris or another dwarf planet creates these energies?
Click to expand...

Well, Pluto would still have an influence even if it's not counted as a planet. My own experience and other people's reports suggest that the influence of it is really only significant when it's in close aspect with an angle or a planet. Which is like an asteroid, and unlike the other planets, which seem to show an influence in the native's life wherever they are placed.

Also, Eris and other dwarf planets would probably create as much energy as Pluto. If you're using Pluto, it makes sense to use these objects as well.

The Kuiper belt as a whole probably does give off some kind of significant influence. Pluto was once thought to be the largest trans-Neptunian object, so I can see why they would have picked it as symbolic of that energy. But in truth, it has no more influence than any other part.

I do think that a large part of Pluto's significance is symbolic, tied to the myth of Pluto himself, and related to past fame. Its position as a body in the heavens is far less than the position it holds in people's minds.
 
Last edited:
Blaze

Blaze

Account Closed
athenian200 said:
Well, Pluto would still have an influence even if it's not counted as a planet. My own experience and other people's reports suggest that the influence of it is really only significant when it's in close aspect with an angle or a planet. Which is like an asteroid, and unlike the other planets, which seem to show an influence in the native's life wherever they are placed.

Also, Eris and other dwarf planets would probably create as much energy as Pluto. If you're using Pluto, it makes sense to use these objects as well.

The Kuiper belt as a whole probably does give off some kind of significant influence. Pluto was once thought to be the largest trans-Neptunian object, so I can see why they would have picked it as symbolic of that energy. But in truth, it has no more influence than any other part.

I do think that a large part of Pluto's significance is symbolic, tied to the myth of Pluto himself, and related to past fame. Its position as a body in the heavens is far less than the position it holds in people's minds.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So in essence, It's the entirety of the Kuiper belt that should be taken into account, Not just Pluto?
 
athenian200

athenian200

Well-known member
Blaze said:
Ah, I see. So in essence, It's the entirety of the Kuiper belt that should be taken into account, Not just Pluto?
Click to expand...

Yeah. For instance, I've found some interesting information about Eris...

http://www.edaugusts.com/?p=1097

It seems to be strongly associated with major wars. Possibly even more so than Pluto.

When I say that Pluto shouldn't be considered a planet, I'm bearing in mind that something as significant as Eris doesn't qualify either.

Far from saying that Pluto influences nothing at all, I'm really saying that it isn't any more powerful than a lot of bodies we currently regard as asteroids.
 
Flowergirl

Flowergirl

Well-known member
No person practising psychological astrology will ever ignore Pluto. I don't think people should waste their time and energy on popular opinion of some 'Authority in Astrology'. Just the last decade have proven to us that a lot of 'people in authority' have gotten things pretty wrong and ******* up. Use common sense and make up your own mind. Authority is not authority anymore. Scientists and professors are often proven wrong these days. Be your own authority.
 
Z

Zarathu

Account Closed
While this is general chat, IMO, anyone who has put any serious study into astrology knows that demoting planets as the astronomers are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology, which is all about the meaning of the cosmos not about cataloging its size and numbers.
 
Flapjacks

Flapjacks

Well-known member
Zarathu said:
While this is general chat, IMO, anyone who has put any serious study into astrology knows that demoting planets as the astronomers are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology, which is all about the meaning of the cosmos not about cataloging its size and numbers.
Click to expand...

That is why I'd like to know why, astrologically, Pluto is considered more important than other (astronomically) dwarf planets.
 
Bunraku

Bunraku

Well-known member
Flapjacks said:
That is why I'd like to know why, astrologically, Pluto is considered more important than other (astronomically) dwarf planets.
Click to expand...

Time and culture! People here are acting as if there is an astrological authority figure that dictates what planets are popular and what isn't in the snap of a finger.
:pinched:
 
athenian200

athenian200

Well-known member
Zarathu said:
While this is general chat, IMO, anyone who has put any serious study into astrology knows that demoting planets as the astronomers are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology, which is all about the meaning of the cosmos not about cataloging its size and numbers.
Click to expand...

Well, if Astrology is purely symbolic, then wouldn't that mean that even if a planet were destroyed or ceased to exist entirely, we would still use it in calculations as if it were there?

I thought part of the idea behind Astrology was that the positions and qualities of planets and stars could influence us.

Anyway, it really seems like most people studying astrology only care about the symbolism and popular perception, and don't believe the physical properties of the planets have anything to do with their astrological meaning. It all seems to be something considered very solid and real, but which is merely rooted in belief/perception, like the stock market. In other words, merely another avenue for belief to impact the nature of things.

I guess that answers my question. I may not agree with it or like it, but I do understand what the emphasis is now.
 
Last edited:
Top