|
Defining the Word "Planet" 
The ancient definition of the word planet was "wanderer", or the the bodies that apparently moved against the starry background -and for thousands of years there were seven
of them; Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, but ever since the Copernican revolution and the invention of the telescope, our concept of the heavens changed
fundamentally; The Earth was no longer the center of the universe, and more planets or wanderers would be discovered.
As astronomy advanced, the Sun now became known as a star rather than a planet and the Moon became a satelite. Mercury through Saturn, as well as well as the newly-discovered
Uranus(1781), Neptune(1846), and Pluto(1930), would be called planets because of their orbits around the Sun. For a time in the early 1800's, even Ceres and the larger asteroids
were considered planets before being eventually demoted to asteroids.
In 1978, Charon, Pluto's moon was discovered, and helped to determine Pluto's true size, which was much smaller than previously thought, and which began it's demise as an astronomical planet.
By the 1990's many new tiny bodies were discovered in a trans-Neptunian region that came to be known as the Kuiper belt. It wasn't untill the early 2000's however, thanks to better viewing equipment,
that some of the objects located in this belt rivaled or even exceeded Pluto in size, such as the body now called Eris. Pluto was no longer the only one of its kind and this strengthened the case
for its demise as a regular planet.
The large and ever-growing number of "Plutinos" forced a redefinition of the word planet. This redefinition did not occur publicly untill August of 2006, at the IAU assembly of astronomers in Prague.
The original definition set forth by the IAU comittee for what constitutes a planet was basically correct; a planet had to be large enough to become spherical under its own gravity and also
have an independant orbit around a star while not being a star itself.
Under this definition, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon, and Eris would immediately become recognized as full planets, with
a whole host of others waiting in line. At the rate new planets were now being discovered, there would simply be too many of them argued some of the astronomers.
The thinking was that the planet club is an exclusive one and should remain that way, otherwise it loses its significance or appeal.
A small group of astronomers came up with a way to retain this exclusivity, but at the cost of demoting Pluto, which proved to be highly unpopular with the public and many astronomers as well.
They introduced a third clause or requirement for true planethood. This clause required that a planet dominate or clear its neighbourhood which Pluto apparently fails to do, as there are too many other
bodies near it in similar orbits. This clause was introduced very late in the debate and had the effect of reclassifying Pluto, Ceres, Eris, and other similar objects to "dwarf planet" status.
There would now be three main groups of objects orbiting the sun: 1: the "classical" planets -Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, 2: the "dwarf" planets -Ceres, Pluto, Eris,
and other similar bodies such as are being discovered in the Kuiper belt, and the comets, meteors, and other very small and normally non-spherical bodies. Both groups 1 and 2 are spherical and planetary, but
group 2 bodies are deemed too small or erratic to dominate or clear their neighbourhood. This orbital dominance theory, however, is not so clear-cut, even among the larger planets of our solar system.
After 76 years of being a full-fledged planet, Pluto is no longer such, mainly because of its size, location, and eccentric orbit. And neither is Eris which was initially proclaimed the tenth planet by Nasa.
Not all astronomers accept this hasty resolution, however, and certainly not the majority of the public, least of all the astrologers.
What is cursing this hard-line group of astronomers, perhaps unbeknownst to them, is their purely scientific definition or rationale for what constitutes a true or major planet. They fail to consider the "cultural"
and/or non-scientific(astrological) criteria for major planethood, and so long as they deny these realities they will continue to ostracize themselves from the rest of us.
In short, the original definition of "planet" presented by the seven-member panel of the IAU was correct -but incomplete: a planet is round, non-stellar, and orbits the sun. The issue then becomes: what
distinguishes a major from a minor planet? This is where a small group of astronomers stepped in and tried to establish that distinction -and failed!
Planethood and Their Size-Relation to Earth  Before telescopes and modern astronomy, astrology and an Earth-centered universe dominated the ancient definition of "planet", which was any moving heavenly body which apparently orbits the Earth against a starry background. The ancient total was seven including Sun, Moon, and the five "wanderers" -Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Modern astrologers have come to accept Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, making the total ten. Strangely, Earth, because of its central position, was never recognized as a planet. One of the great failings of modern astronomy is its almost total disregard for astrology, which can help it tremendously in solving the planet issue. Astronomy and astrology were only separated a few hundred years ago, when science was on the upswing. Today astronomy has become very materialistic and needs to re-incorporate some of the spiritual elements it has left behind, otherwise it will further ostracize itself and face an inevitable demise. Astronomy is concerned with scientific or material concepts and measurements while astrology is concerned with it's spiritual or esoteric implications. Astronomy uses the telescope while astrology uses naked eye observations. Recently, however, most astrologers have come to depend on astronomical findings, such as the discovery of the modern planets, and some astronomers are approaching astrology because it adds personal meaning to the planets and their lives. If anything, this shows that the two need each other and that they must eventually heal their silly schism.
  
...astronomer/astrologers of the 16th abnd 17th centuries In astrology, the only planets or bodies that are important are those that have major astrological power or influence. The traditional seven -Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were always recognized as such because of their power and visibility, but with the rise of science, and the invention of the telescope, three others -Uranus(1781), Neptune(1846), and Pluto(1930) were added or accepted. Ceres(1801) was also accepted as a planet but later demoted to an asteroid when many more similar bodies were found. Now Pluto, which was discovered in 1930, is a strange planet indeed. Originally thought to be as large or larger than Earth, it turned out to be even smaller than our Moon! Not only that, it is highly inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, as though it were in defiance to the other planets. This has long led many astronomers to want to demote Pluto from planetary status, but most children and astrologers, and many astronomers as well, want to keep Pluto as a planet. They, like the astrologers, instinctively feel that Pluto is a major planet, despite its small size or highly irregular orbit. Most Scorpio Sun signs are also jealous, and proud, to have Pluto as their ruling planet. It seems emotions or feelings are just as important as intellect or logic when considering planethood. Astrologers do not consider Ceres to be a major planet, although this may change. Neither do they see Charon(Pluto's moon) as a planet. For them, Pluto-Charon, although a double planet by astronomical standards, is seen as a singular influence. Our Moon, on the other hand, is considered a planet, as is the Sun. What a size difference between the Sun and Pluto(over 600/1), and yet both have equal power or importance in astrology! I guess it all depends on your perspective.
 ...system despite the fact that the barycenter lies under Earth's surface Then there is Eris which is slightly larger than Pluto, further out, and even more inclined to the ecliptic than Pluto. For many astronomers, including its discoverer, Eris is a marginal candidate for major planethood, basically because of its size. "If we can't get rid of Pluto, we might as well accept Eris" they say. An interesting proposal is that Pluto's size be used as the cut-off point for true planethood. Anything round and smaller than Pluto is minor, and anything equal to or larger is major. This would immediately eliminate a large number of contenders and keep the total close to twelve, even if the Sun and Moon were included -at least for now. Size alone, as a criterion for major or minor planethood, however, is doomed to failure, as there is too much variation among all the official members of of our solar system, especially if we include the Sun and Moon in the equation -see here. Astrologically, the test of a true or major planet depends not primarily on its size or distance, but whether it has any real or significant astrological influence. This is the pivotal determining factor of true or major planethood and is something astrologers determine by studying the body's influence on people and events. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have passed this test with flying colors, and any other new or discovered planet will of course undergo the same scrutiny. It is the minor bodies, such as Chiron, Ceres and others which astrologers have yet to properly assess. It seems astrologers, like the astronomers have their own definitions to work out as to what is major or minor. If the original two-part definition went through, we would have at least twelve major astronomical planets (Ceres, Charon, and Eris added), and perhaps eleven major astrological ones(Sun, Moon, and Eris included but unlikely for Ceres or Charon). Instead, astronomers have decided(for now) to demote Pluto and keep the "classical" or major planet count at eight(Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Strange that Earth has yet to be recognized as a true or major planet by the astrological community, which I find is one of its greatest failings. Because we live on it, Earth or Gaia affects us astrologically in a special way -via the ascendant or rising sign. Earth is definitely a major planet in my view, and adding it would also make the astrological total twelve(if Eris is accepted). Just as there were twelve major Gods on Mount Olympus and plenty of minor, contending, or semi-gods, so it is with the planets. There are major planets, and then there are minor or semi-planets. Distinguishing among these is the crux of the entire planet-definition debate, and astronomy cannot do this alone. It must reunite with its other half, astrology, and both must draw upon our rich mythological past to come up with the correct resolution to this dilemma. back to main |