I can`t get a straight answer from the astrologers around town. When Pluto was discovered in 1930, it must have been quite disruptive to the astrologers who had been making charts for generation after generation. Suddenly there was a new planet that their charts and calculations had never taken into account?
Did any of them pretend that they had known about it all along?
Did they feel that its influence was so overshadowed by the nearer giant planets that it could be dismissed?
And did anyone ask the astrologers why THEY hadn`t deduced the presence of Pluto before that pesky scientists with their telescopes and math had found it?
I think Pluto was discovered because of math. I am sure the peterbations in neptune were there before, just nobody was sure what caused them. I could be wrong here, but that was my assumption.
Pluto was discovered because some people thought there were some perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune (mostly Uranus) that would be explained by the presence of another planet out there. So Percival Lowell provided in his will for the search to continue (he’d looked himself). But it was found not by going by his or anyone else’s calculations, but rather by Clyde Tombaugh’s persistence in searching.
It turns out that 1) Pluto is too low in mass to perturb Uranus and Neptune enough for us to detect and 2) after we got more exact figures for the masses of Neptune and Uranus from the Voyager flybys, those apparent perturbations disappeared.
As for astrology, this isn’t GD, so I’m going to keep my opinions to myself. But I will note that Pluto spends about twenty years in each house of the zodiac, so whatever influence it has changes very slowly.
From what I have read, they added it to their “calculations” and declared that they could now figure things out even better than before. This, they said, was a new piece of the puzzle that explained why there were earlier inaccuracies.
For a time in the 1970’s there was talk about a Planet X, a large planet beyond the orbit of Pluto. Cutting edge people that they are, astrologers started to include Planet X in their charts and declared that they could now figure things out even better than before. This, they said, was a new piece of the puzzle that explained why there were earlier inaccuracies. The problem is that there is no Planet X. You can still find Astrology books from the early '70’s in used book stores that mention the influence of Planet X.
Neptune itself was suspected because of perturbations in the orbit of Uranus. Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh after a search using a blink microscope and thousands of photographs. Percival Lowell (and others) had indeed predicted Pluto on the basis of inconsistencies in Neptune’s orbit, but later analysis showed that his analysis was mistaken, and Pluto was discovered because of serendipity and because Tombaugh believed it and was absolutely meticulous in his work.
As for the astrologers, they knew a business opportunity when they saw one - if you look at astrologer’s ads in alternative newspapers (OK, let’s presume you happened upon them enroute to Cecil’s column in the same paper), you will find many of them proudly advertising that they take “Trans-Uranian” influences into account.
For that matter, really CLASSIC astrologer would not have gone beyond Saturn - Uranus wasn’t discovered until the 18th century. It can be seen with the naked eye under really optimum conditions, provided you know where to look. But, practically speaking, it requires a telescope.
<minor hijack>
I’ll try to steer back to astrology with sheer speculation
This ‘the mystery also remains’ bit suggests that Planet X very well might still be out there. I mean, planetary orbits are just Calculus (albeit Advanced) and don’t produce “remainders” like grade school long-division. Indeed, it ought to suggest the general orbit and location of Planet X. If these mathwhizamaticians aren’t willing to suggest a location for Planet X then they’re afraid of being shot down like they’re trying to do with Ol’ Percival and Clyde.
As the OP asked about how Pluto (the wayward asteroid with an asteroid for a pet…er moon) was treated by astrologers before it was discovered, perhaps they ought to be preparing for the real planet X’s discovery.
I don’t have a cite, but I believe this was in one of Martin Gardner’s books.
When scientists noticed perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, astrologers said it couldn’t be a new planet, since it didn’t figure into their charts. Neptune was discovered, astrologers said “yeah, we knew it all along.”
When scientists noticed perturbations in the orbit of Neptune, astrologers said it couldn’t be a new planet, since it didn’t figure into their charts. Pluto was discovered, astrologers said “yeah, we knew it all along.”
When scientists were discussing the precession of Mercury’s orbit, the astrologers immediately lept up and said “new planet! See, we predicted it! Astrology has been proven correct!” Einstein’s Theory of relativity explained the wobble, astrologers said “yeah, we knew it all along.”
I think Gardner was selectively picking his data, but it’s still fun.
The Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft relied on observable mass to gain their slingshot velocities. Sun is always good, especially if you’re heading towards Jupiter - which has moons Galileo saw first with his Dutch lenses. He was excommunicated without the Pope or anyone looking into his scope.
Galileo was booted off to Holland. Johannes Kepler was there, and had his own whack ideas about planetary motion. He had a look into Galileo’s Telescope. The Moons around Jupiter were one of the first proofs of Kepler’s Laws of Motion.
Kepler’s work allowed Christian Huygens to calculate the speed of light by comparing the ‘true’ time of an eclipse of Io to the ‘known’ distance of Jupiter.
Holland has always been tolerant - indeed yearning - for scientists. ‘inserted into the numerical integrations’ is so much BS.
Actually, astronomer Urban Leverrier [spelling probably butchered], one of the co-discoverers of Neptune, was one of the main proponents of the theory that there was a planet between Mercury and the Sun. He was so confident it existed, he even gave it a name: Vulcan.
There’s Calculus and then there’s Calculus. Being able to state equations don’t mean we can solve them. E.g., 5th degree polynomials don’t have closed formed solutions.
Two bodys can be worked out very well. Junior in college level stuff max.
Three bodys don’t have closed form solutions. They have to be worked out numerically. And they are inherently unstable. You can have three objects in mutual orbit and after thousands of orbits one of them suddenly gets ejected. Change the start conditions in the 10th decimal place and it never gets ejected.
That’s with three known objects. Trying to deduce the position and motion of a third from the other two can be amazingly difficult. And what if there were three Planet X’s and not one? Etc.
While Voyager etc. has helped clean up some orbit mysteries, there are still others.
Galileo marked the position of Neptune in the background in some observations of Jupiter. He didn’t realize it was a planet. This is the oldest known recording of Neptune’s position (by hundreds of years). Yet it doesn’t match our orbital predictions as well as we’d like.
There may still be something “out there”.
As to the OP:
What gets me, is that someone can claim they know how a new planet affects people. “Oh, see this, Pluto in your 3rd house. That means your Tickle Me Elmo doll is going to break.”
Astrology has nothing to do with rational argument or thought, and so the Pluto ‘problem’ doesn’t arise. Astrology is one instance of a closed system of thought, namely, one in which any evidence or facts can always be considered consistent with the theorem, and no falsification can ever arise. As G.B. Shaw said, “You cannot rationally argue out what wasn’t rationally argued in”.
Astrologers had no difficulty accommodating Pluto (or Neptune or anything else) because it made no difference to the ‘accuracy’ of their offerings. Why does it make no difference? For one of two reasons. Either their accuracy is not empirically verifiable; they do not state facts, but instead they provide malleable and fuzzy comment which can be shaped by interpretation (by astrologer or believer) to be as ‘accurate’ as they want. Or, alternatively, because they do state hard and fast facts, but practise selectivity. The guesses that come good are kept and remembered. The rest are forgotten and swept under the rug or dismissed as of no consequence.
