Houston We've lost a Planet

[David Bailey]

I find it strange that they have to take those things into account as, surely, those objects already affect us whether we know about them or not. Or by knowing about them do you increase the accuracy of your reading?

I assume the rationale is that the more accurate the information about the Heavenly Bodies Wot Control Our Fate, Oh Yes They Do, then the more accurate the already Really Really Accurate predictions can be made.

Actually, it's also a fantastic excuse for historical and current inaccurate predictions - "Ah, well, you would have met a tall dark and handsome stranger, but for the previously-unknown influence of Sedna, you see. That'll be £50, thanks."

So if it doesn't work, it's because we don't know enough about the planets. If it works, it's because it works.

Brilliant - no-lose scenario

[ducasi]

Hilariously, regarding something I said earlier, some astrologers really are trying to ascribe values to the TNOs.

I haven't read the article, but IF you're willing to accept that where various celestial bodies were when you were born have some effect on your life, perhaps due to gravitational, optical, or other perhaps as-yet unknown reasons, then it makes sense that the bigger, nearer objects would have the greatest influence, and smaller more distant would have less of one – but once you know it's there you can take it into account.

Not unlike working out the movement of the planets around the Sun. Taking each planet independently you can calculate a good approximation of its orbit, but it's only when you include the gravitational effects of other planets that you get nearer the reality. Every extra celestial body you take into account gives greater accuracy.

Isn't this how they know there are planets around other suns – by looking at the gravitational effects and working backwards...

(OK, I've just read the article, and it's clearly a lot of bull, but it doesn't negate my argument for why astrology needs to take the objects into account.)

[Dreadful Scathe]

but it doesn't negate my argument for why astrology needs to take the objects into account.)

So now that they are aware of different celestial objects we can expect better predictions in our newspapers? so no instead of a general "a friend will give you advice you should really heed" it will be "a friend called Duncan advises you on socks, pay attention". Ill check the paper and let you all know

[ducasi]

So now that they are aware of different celestial objects we can expect better predictions in our newspapers? so no instead of a general "a friend will give you advice you should really heed" it will be "a friend called Duncan advises you on socks, pay attention". Ill check the paper and let you all know

Absolutely – though if there are still discrepancies we know there must still be other celestial influences to discover – astrology driving astronomy!

PS> I recommend black socks.

[El Salsero Gringo]

PS> I recommend black socks.

Do you do underwear advice too? Can we put you in touch with CJ?

[Stuart M]

So now that they are aware of different celestial objects we can expect better predictions in our newspapers? so no instead of a general "a friend will give you advice you should really heed" it will be "a friend called Duncan advises you on socks, pay attention". Ill check the paper and let you all know

We should set up an astrological equivalent of the X-prize - first person to spot a serious mention of a Trans-Neptunian object (other than Pluto) in a newspaper horoscope gets a thousand pounds.

Presumably the horoscope will say something about "an unexpected boost to your finances".