• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Oh no. Now I'm no longer an aries / Astrology shift

TraneWreck said:
Capricorns have to wear shirts.

Paul Anka will explain (I should add, NSFW):



That's just the *********** way it is.
Click to expand...

macshirt.jpg


Is that better?
 
The shift is only by a day or two. I've always been on the Pisces-Aquarius cusp, with most astrologicons(?) putting me in Pisces. Now I'm an Aquarius, by about a day and a half. Whatever.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Relax. Precession is pretty slow. I think it only changed the signs of people on the cusps.
Click to expand...

Maybe it depends on the particular chart. The only one I've looked at so far changed mine, but left my husband's the same.

Except, he was born on a cusp, I was not.
 
I'm still a "Sphnicter", damn it! Does that mean I'm like the winged lion with the man's head that asked riddles? :confused:
 


is this graphic by Bill Nye correct? according to his graphic your zodiac sign should move one forward but the new dates recently published says we move back one. Am I missing something?
 
also what does everyone think about these attempt at debunking?

http://www.dailyhoroscope.com/horoscope-headlines/ophiuchus-the-13th-zodiac-sign

-snip-

So what is the truth?

Astrology is based on the four seasons, not on constellations -- and the seasons don’t change. As Levine said above, there are four seasons, each with a beginning, middle and end, which adds up to 12 zodiac signs. There is no 13th astrological sign. Period.

-snip-
Click to expand...

http://www.dailyhoroscope.com/horos...ts-say-astrology-horoscope-zodiac-signs-wrong

-snip-

"There is no truth in this," Jawer said. "Western Astrologers use the Tropical Zodiac, which is based on the seasons, not the signs. Anyone who seriously researches the subject would know that."

Jawer shares these three simple facts to help clear up the astrological matter (pardon the pun):

1. Astrology is Earth-centric. Not Star- or Moon-centric. If the Moon's relative position to the stars changes, that doesn't mean the Zodiac changes.
2. Western astrologers have used a Tropical or season-based Zodiac for about 2,500 years. That is why time and location of birth are so important.
3. The signs of the Zodiac, while represented in constellations, are not derived or aligned exclusively with constellations (although they did so coincidentally around 2000 years ago.)

-snip-
Click to expand...
 
johnny karate said:
Fear not. I'm told a secondary name for us Ophiuchi is "Serpentarius". Which I'm pretty sure was a He-Man character and therefore infinitely cool.
Click to expand...

Oh, that is badass and evil-sounding as all hell.

We made out like bandits, or a one-off race from an episode of ST:TNG.
 
I'm still a taurus. I never went in for tattoos anyway, so even if I did put some stock in astrology I wouldn't be the type to get a taurus tramp stamp.

My parents had my horoscope professionally done right after I was born. Supposedly it was by someone well known in the cincinnatti area, and cost a bundle. It's laughably incorrect, and includes enough contradictions that a selective reading of it would let it apply to damn near anyone. They didn't let me read it until I was an adult, on the theory that knowing your fate interferes with your destiny, but when I did, any residual traces of belief I had in astrology died screaming.
 
hm

Ever notice how people who are really into astrology are really, really annoying?
 
This innacurracy between the sidereal zodiac and the tropical zodiac has been known since Ptolemy. When Ptolemy set down what has since been the basis for Western astrology the actual constellations had already drifted from the specific dates in practice at the time. This is the supposed reason for the creation and rationalization of the zodiac based on seasons instead of celestial bodies. The "recent" change is mostly showing how advocates for a sidereal zodiac are becoming more "mainstream" in astrology. The Hindu system uses the sidereal, and a few Western astrology schools of thoughts do as well. The IAU has recommended using the 13 sign version as a coordinate reference since 1930 with the specific signs having their periods mapped according to the time the constellations actually pass by. Astrology, both based on the sidereal and tropical zodiac almost always uses equally sectioned phases of 30 degrees instead of the actual time the constellations have. So even using the sidereal zodiac, Hindu astrology still uses the 12 signs instead of the 13.

I like how this little episde is showing that astrologers dialed back the claims of star influence almost two thousand years ago when math and reality contradicted their traditional charts.
 
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
I went from being a Scorpio to a Virgo.
I need to send this to my mother, who has been telling me what a scorpio I am since I was about 5.
 
The Fallen Serpent said:
This innacurracy between the sidereal zodiac and the tropical zodiac has been known since Ptolemy. When Ptolemy set down what has since been the basis for Western astrology the actual constellations had already drifted from the specific dates in practice at the time. This is the supposed reason for the creation and rationalization of the zodiac based on seasons instead of celestial bodies. The "recent" change is mostly showing how advocates for a sidereal zodiac are becoming more "mainstream" in astrology. The Hindu system uses the sidereal, and a few Western astrology schools of thoughts do as well. The IAU has recommended using the 13 sign version as a coordinate reference since 1930 with the specific signs having their periods mapped according to the time the constellations actually pass by. Astrology, both based on the sidereal and tropical zodiac almost always uses equally sectioned phases of 30 degrees instead of the actual time the constellations have. So even using the sidereal zodiac, Hindu astrology still uses the 12 signs instead of the 13.

I like how this little episde is showing that astrologers dialed back the claims of star influence almost two thousand years ago when math and reality contradicted their traditional charts.
Click to expand...

interesting. so what do "tropical" astrologists claim as influence if not stars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom