'Sedna in yer acteral aspect innit ?

Factual Questions
1

Looks like astrologers will have some explaining to do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3511678.stm

Maybe this is why they get it so vague and wrong so often.

So do we have any astrologers here ?

How will astrologers take this into account when doing horoscopes ?

How will they ever get over the PR disaster of the name of the recently discovered planet - if that is what it is finally accepted to be - , Sedna! what a flipping name.

2

Count down to GD?

3

Any past inaccuracies of horoscopes will now be explained by the presence of this previously unknown planet, of course! Either that or they’ll ignore it altogether, like some of them ignore Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

[sub]I’m still gonna call it Rupert[/sub]

4

I head someone mention Cruithne in an astrological context last week, so it’s probably only a matter of time…

5

At one time it was theorized that there was a planet inside the orbit of Mercury. This was because Mercury has a wobble in its orbit and it was thought that another body was causing the wobble to happen. It turns out that the wobble was due to the extra strong effect that gravity has so close to the sun or some such.

Anyway, this proposed planet was called Vulcan. Astrologers were all over it. They said that the reason for inaccuracy in the past was because the hadn’t taken Vulcan into account. There are apparently a few astrology books from the last generation that include Vulcan in the charts. Well, Vulcan doesn’t exist and it’s just not mentioned anymore.

Haj

6

It’s not like astrology takes into account the constellation Ophiuchus, which technically could qualify as a sign of the zodiac because it crosses the ecliptic. Why? JUST BECAUSE. I asked an astrologer about Ophiuchus, and he went on about how 12 is a special number and that the horoscope has worked so well for so long that there’s no reason to muck it up with a 13th sign – in other words, JUST BECAUSE. That’s what’s so fun about astrology!

7

Minor nitpick- the reason for the for errors in Mercury’s orbit was that they were still using Newtonian gravity. When Einstein came out with relativity, it accurately predicted Mercury’s orbit, providing one of the proofs for relativity.

8

Surely the astrologers could have analysed the discrepancies between their
predictions and subsequent observed events and been able to deduce the
presence of the new planet ?
Hey, i said all that with a straight face !