Pluto no longer a Planet

[jimmoyer]

The earlier proposed definition of planets was cleaner
without the linguistic confusion of saying Pluto is a dwarf planet, yet not a planet.

I thought a dwarf human being is still a human being.

I thought a blonde haired woman is still a woman.

I thought I saw a putty cat.

 

[#juan]

Re: RE: Pluto no longer a Planet

The earlier proposed definition of planets was cleaner
without the linguistic confusion of saying Pluto is a dwarf planet, yet not a planet.

I thought a dwarf human being is still a human being.

I thought a blonde haired woman is still a woman.

I thought I saw a putty cat.

Had they left it up to me, Pluto would still be a planet. Pluto not only has a moon, Charon makes Pluto a double planet. The double planet system also has at least two other satellites. Pluto has a slightly wonky orbit and was evicted from planethood for that orbit.

 

[jimmoyer]

Also, another nebulous definition of planets is having
a cleared pathway.

Not all the planets have a cleared pathway.

 

[#juan]

Re: RE: Pluto no longer a Planet

Also, another nebulous definition of planets is having
a cleared pathway.

Not all the planets have a cleared pathway.

I don't know the age of Pluto in it's present orbital path, but presumably, it has been traveling that lopsided orbit for some time now. Pluto's just too far away to get a really good look at.. Has it cleared all the junk out of it's path? I haven't the slightest.

 

[s_lone]

Believe it or not, Pluto will be in 'conjunction' with the galactic core in December 2006. The little dude will have a chance to show what it's all about.

 

[jimmoyer]

okay.

?

Um.

What's the "galactic core" ????

 

[s_lone]

Re: RE: Pluto no longer a Planet

okay.

?

Um.

What's the "galactic core" ????

It's the center of our galaxy. From an astrological point of view, this is quite meaningful.

 

[#juan]

It's the center of our galaxy. From an astrological point of view, this is quite meaningful.

astrological??

I don't do "Astrological"

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Pluto no longer a Planet

Believe it or not, Pluto will be in 'conjunction' with the galactic core in December 2006.

Believe it or not? That's hardly a surprise, and has nothing to do with anything. It'll happen to every planet on every orbit. According to the display from the little sky chart program I've got here, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, the moon, and the sun, will be in conjunction with the galactic core at some time during next December and January, much more closely than Pluto will be. Conjunction in this context simply means lined up, e.g. if you look at Pluto in December, the centre of the galaxy will be behind it. Happens all the time, with all planets, and means nothing. The centre of the galaxy is in the direction of Sagittarius, which means the plane defined by the earth's orbit (the ecliptic, the band across the sky in which all the zodiacal constellations appear), which to a close approximation is also the orbital plane of every other planet but Pluto (hence its recent demotion) crosses the plane defined by the disk of the galaxy on a line in the direction of Sagittarius.

Besides, the claim's not true anyway. Pluto at the moment is quite clearly in the constellation called Ophiuchus, which should also really be one of the zodiacal constellations. It crosses the ecliptic at least as obviously as Scorpio, which in Canadian latitudes is right below it, with Sagittarius to the left and Libra to the right. And just for interest, the moon will be in conjunction with the galactic core tomorrow night and the next night, Sept 2nd and 3rd. Happens about every 28 days, and has no significance at all.

And just in case you missed the implication: astrology is unmitigated nonsense. I was originally going to use stronger language, but there may be children here...

 

[s_lone]

First of all, it is the sidereal zodiac that deals with constellations. The tropical zodiac, most commonly used by astrology deals with zodiacal signs, not constellations. The zodiacal constellations are far from being equal while the zodiacal signs are (starting from the spring equinox, the ecliptic is seperated into 12 equal parts)

From an astrological point of view, e.g, if you believe cosmic cycles are related to human existence, Pluto conjunct the galactic core is meaningful in the sense that it doesn't happen very often... approximetely every 250 years due to Pluto's slow orbit. Of course, if you don't believe in any form of correlation between cosmic and human events, all this is gibberish.

Astrology studies the relationship between the structure of the cosmos and our existence. It's a holistic view of the cosmos in which the existence of any entity, such as a human being, or a planet, is always deeply rooted in the higher structure(s) to which it belongs. It's not as foolish as some like to think it is.

 

[s_lone]

It's the center of our galaxy. From an astrological point of view, this is quite meaningful.

astrological??

I don't do "Astrological"

I feel like such a heretic.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Pluto no longer a Planet

Astrology ... It's not as foolish as some like to think it is.

Crap and nonsense. It has no plausible mechanism, astrologers can't even agree among themselves about how to interpret its fundamentals, and in 5000 years of practice it has made no measurable contributions to our understanding of anything. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, for example, aren't visible to the naked eye, so every astrological chart and any interpretions of it that predate their discovery must be fundamentally wrong. Not only that, astrology holds that the mass, distance, brightness, whatever, of the orbiting bodies doesn't affect their influences, the only significant thing is their position against the background stars. There are at least thousands, probably millions, of substantial bodies orbiting the sun that aren't visible to the naked eye, but if astrology is to be logically consistent those bodies too must have astrological influences no less than the visible planets do. And since we don't have a complete catalog of them, astrologers by definition, even in their own terms, never mind the scientific evidence against them, cannot ever produce an accurate interpretion of a chart.

Astrology is demonstrably absolute pure bullshit, and anybody who believes otherwise is deluded. Sorry to hijack your thread #jaun, but I couldn't let that one go by unchallenged.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Pluto no longer a Planet

...it is the sidereal zodiac that deals with constellations. The tropical zodiac, most commonly used by astrology deals with zodiacal signs, not constellations. The zodiacal constellations are far from being equal while the zodiacal signs are (starting from the spring equinox, the ecliptic is seperated (sic) into 12 equal parts)

That's the core of the nonsense right there. The zodiacal signs of tropical astrology deal with patches of sky 30 degrees wide (so 12 of them make the full circle of 360 degrees) that are named for constellations, but because of the precession of the equinoxes that's not where the constellations are any more. That's the real difference between sidereal and tropical astrology. Astrologers need to actually look at the sky. Things aren't in the same places they were when the Babylonians made all this stuff up. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. We can at least excuse the Babylonians, being a pre-scientific culture, for buying this crap, but there's no excuse for any educated contemporary person to believe it. It's just dumb, because it's demonstrably false.

Again, apologies to #juan for hijacking the thread into irrelevancies.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

RE: Pluto no longer a Pla

Odd, a couple of days ago, I read Uranus isn't a planet. I didn't keep on reading the headlines. Maybe it's a typo. really great. Dawrf planet.

Fact: There have been reports of Jupiter's moons getting closer toward Jupiter and became slitherings.

And earth and the sun?

Will the sun become cool first then we die, or do we get pulled in the sun's center and perish?

 

[#juan]

No problem Dexter

I once told a new neighbor I was an amateur astronomer and he asked me what my sign was. I had been sort of leading up to showing him my new telescope that I was quite proud of. My wife caught the look on my face and whispered in my ear,"Don't be nasty dear". I took a deep breath and changed the subject.

 

[Kreskin]

People rally behind Pluto.

Hunger strikes to follow.

 

[#juan]

I think, on a given day, you can probably find a rally somewhere, about any subject under the sun, pro or con.

 

[Zzarchov]

Planet is a subjective cultural term anyways, I don't think scientists should be involved with it.

Describe "planets" by what they are. Objects of X mass, X composition with X orbit.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... I took a deep breath and changed the subject.

Probably a good idea if you want to get along with neighbours and other such casual people in your life, and usually I can do it too with the assorted woo-woos who cross my path, but astrology just makes me see red. It's so lame and impoverished an idea compared to the knowledge of the reality of the cosmos that science gives us, I find it very difficult to be polite about it.

But back to the main theme: I'm not particularly distressed or surprised about Pluto being downgraded. It's always been a little bit odd as a planet: a much more eccentric orbit than any other planet, much more elliptical, sharply inclined to the general plane of the other 8 planets' orbits, much smaller than expected... I think that's essentially the logic behind the downgrading. Since astronomers discovered the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt, it's been clear that Pluto properly belongs in one of those, and has perhaps had its orbit perturbed by the passage of some other massive object into something like a near-planetary orbit. Eh, so it's now a dwarf planet, probably one of thousands out there, and not even the largest one, what does it matter? I think it's a storm in a teacup. There are at least dozens, possibly hundreds or thousands, of fairly large spherical objects orbiting the sun, Pluto's not special in any way. The other 8 planets are: they're much bigger, in nearly circular orbits, and nearly in the same plane, which suggests the processes that formed them were fundamentally different from the processes that created the stuff in the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt, and Pluto. The planets are in the plane of the spiraling disk of gas and dust that formed them and the sun. All other objects are leftovers, and that specifically includes Pluto because of the oddities of its orbit compared to the other 8 planets.

Well, that's my $0.02 worth ...

 

[s_lone]

Re: RE: Pluto no longer a Planet

Astrology ... It's not as foolish as some like to think it is.

Crap and nonsense. It has no plausible mechanism, astrologers can't even agree among themselves about how to interpret its fundamentals, and in 5000 years of practice it has made no measurable contributions to our understanding of anything. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, for example, aren't visible to the naked eye, so every astrological chart and any interpretions of it that predate their discovery must be fundamentally wrong. Not only that, astrology holds that the mass, distance, brightness, whatever, of the orbiting bodies doesn't affect their influences, the only significant thing is their position against the background stars. There are at least thousands, probably millions, of substantial bodies orbiting the sun that aren't visible to the naked eye, but if astrology is to be logically consistent those bodies too must have astrological influences no less than the visible planets do. And since we don't have a complete catalog of them, astrologers by definition, even in their own terms, never mind the scientific evidence against them, cannot ever produce an accurate interpretion of a chart.

Astrology is demonstrably absolute pure bullshit, and anybody who believes otherwise is deluded. Sorry to hijack your thread #jaun, but I couldn't let that one go by unchallenged.

Dexter, the problem about your argumentation is that it clearly shows you have a limited understanding of what astrology is and how it is used. For a rational person like you, saying "astrology is demonstrably absolute pure bullshit and anybody who believes otherwise is deluded" only shows that you give too much importance to your own conception of the world. The terms you use only reveal your emotional bias to the subject. It's as if you were saying anyone who believes in God is deluded.

In its essence, astrology implies a holistic view of the universe. The perfect astrology would need to include every single bit of matter and energy in the universe in order to put light on one single entity. So astrology, whether it works or not, is always incomplete. You claim that any chart cast and interpreted before the discovery of the modern planets must be fundamentally wrong... well that claim is fundamentally flawed. Charts from the past were simply more incomplete than the ones cast today. Are all pre-quantum physics fundamentally wrong? Was medical practise fundamentally wrong a thousand years ago? That argument does not disprove astrology (nor does mine prove it). Astrology is constantly widening up the number of celestial objects used to deepen the approach. The question of size, mass, distance IS considered, but the main determining factor is indeed the objects's position. Where does it stand in a given cycle (for example, the Uranus-Pluto cycle, or the Jupiter-Saturn cycle)? Most important of all, astrology considers the solar system as a structural whole. Every object needs to be put in its larger context.

The precession of the equinox is simply not an issue because there is a crystal clear difference between the tropical zodiac and the sidereal zodiac. There is no confusion at all. Of course, the tropical zodiac uses the same names used for the constellations but this is a historical issue. Anyone honestly interested in astrology knows the difference between both systems. You could change the tropical sign names by numbers and it wouldn't change a thing. Except maybe for the millions who read their sun-sign columns every morning without knowing a single thing on astrology.

I'm not proving astrology works here but your arguments need to be adressed because they do not disprove astrology. The real question is, how does the cosmos affect us? Astrology simply studies this question. It deals largely with archetypal language and whether you adhere to this idea is a whole other issue/debate. In the case of Pluto (to come back to this thread's topic), its change of status does not diminish its astrological importance. It does however lead to a reexamination of plutonian archetypes.