(I wrote this last night, and then fell asleep (computer open on my lap) before posting. It's a little less necessary now, given the intervening posts, but I'll post it anyway)
There are (at least) two major systems of astrology, and each has its own zodiac. They both have the same 12 signs we're all accustomed to, in the same order, but they start and end on different dates. What's often called Western astrology, which is widely used throughout the West (go figure) fixes the signs to the seasons. The vernal equinox is, always has been, and always will be zero degrees Aries. The rest of the signs go on from there. Western astrology uses what's called the Tropical Zodiac, which
ignores the precession of the equinox. Western astrologers are aware that the actual constellation of Aries isn't behind the sun in late March and early April. They just don't care, because that's not the way that system works. Indian astrology, also called Jyotisa or sometimes Vedic astrology, uses the Sidereal Zodiac, which accounts for the precession of the equinoxes. Indian astrology actually looks to see what constellation is behind the sun in determining what sign the sun is in.
Nobody's sign has changed, unless that person has switched from Western to Indian astrology, or vice versa.
I've raised this with a lot of astrological buffs..invariably they refuse to accept it and continue to call themselves whatever they were before they were told about the precession of equinoxes etc...for some reason they get attached to their sign
It's not necessarily that they're attached to their sign--a proper application of Western astrology ignores the precession of the equinoxes. I mean, maybe some of them are just attached to their sign, but that's not necessarily it.
This was old news twenty years ago when I mentioned it to an astrologically-minded friend of mine. Apparently astrologers make a distinction between a "birth sign" and a "sun sign", the latter being your sign according to where the sun actually was when you were born, and the former being where it would have been had you been born in 1 AD.
Again, Western astrologers don't care where the sun actually was (i.e., what constellation it was actually in front of) when you were born. Western astrologers use the phrase "sun sign" because "birth sign" is basically a term for laypersons. There are ten astrological planets: the sun, the moon, Pluto, and the seven planets other than Earth. Each of these planets is in some certain sign at any given moment. Astrologers care about all 10 planets (and then some) when they run your chart, so any sign that any of the planets was in when you were born is your "birth sign" with respect to that planet. Horoscopes only take into account the sun--your "sign" (or "birth sign") is actually your sun sign. Snooty astrologers sometimes use the pejorative term "sun sign astrology" for horoscopes, pointing out what they see as the foolishness of lumping all humanity into 12 broad categories, ignoring all the other stuff "real astrology" takes into account.
Maybe it is ironic--astrologers are probably
more skeptical of horoscopes than the general population, albeit for the wrong reasons!
