Earlier today Pluto lost it's status as a planet (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/5282440.stm?ls ) so there are now only 8 planets and with the potential addition of 3 more this would only make 11.
The zodiac is in no way related to the planets. The constellations that make up the signs of the zodiac are random groups of stars and the only reason there are 12 of them is because there are 12 signs of the zodiac / 12 months a year.
Had it been decided that there were to be, for example, 37 months a year then there would be 37 signs of the zodiac.
Further, astrology takes into account the sun and moon. Earth isn't the only planet to have a moon. The larger planets such as Jupiter and Saturn have many moons.
2006-08-24 03:21:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Zodiac has absolutely nothing to do with it. The IAU has been debating what should be the definition of a planet, because many of the objects recently discovered don't obviously fall either into the "it's a planet" or "it's not a planet" category. What they proposed is that a planet be defined as a body that is large enough that its gravity give it a roughly spherical shape.
2006-08-21 16:31:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The zodiac is based on constellations crossing the elliptic, not planet and astrology had nothing with the body of astronomers who define planets.
By the way there are 13 constellations in the elliptic (Astrologers missed one called Ophiuchus) so the whole thing is not science at all. Do not mix the science of astronomy with the entertainment of astrology.
2006-08-21 16:31:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pyramider 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It has nothing (nada, zilch) to do with the Zodiac...
...And it really doesn't change science as we know it. I'm a Scientist, and my life hasn't really changed at all because of this.
When Merriam-Webster adds words to their dictionary that have existed in common culture for quite some time, the world doesn't change, does it? No more does science change because a group of astronomers fine tune their definition of a planet.
2006-08-21 16:31:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by The ~Muffin~ Man 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Zodiac deals with Constellations - i.e. stars and their apparent patterns. The planets in our Solar system (whether be it 9, 12 or more) have nothing to do with it.
2006-08-21 16:50:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by borscht 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not quite sure how you are relating the new planets to the Zodiac. I don't believe there is any correlation.
wiki has a great article on extra solar planets.
2006-08-21 16:30:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Michael M 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
thought that was based on the earth traveling around the sun, and also the stars not the planets. also we may end up having to trade in Pluto to get the other three, which hopefully will be named after more modern cartoon characters like Cartman, Kenny, and Homer
2006-08-21 16:32:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by shazam 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a coincidence that there are 12 signs and planets. Personally, I object that Pluto / Charon should be considered worthy of the name "planet", binary or not.
2006-08-21 17:16:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Awesome Bill 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
no it has nothing to do with the zodiac they are adding Pluto's moon because it is on the exact orbit as Pluto (meaning that it does not orbit Pluto but follows it) they are also adding a planet that they have nicknamed XENA from a TV show add also another which i can not remember (sorry)
2006-08-21 17:13:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by yo 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just wanted to second that they are completly unrelated. I know its been said. But this needs to be repeated 100 times,.
2006-08-21 19:13:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by am1360 3
·
1⤊
0⤋