I'm now a capricorn...not an aquarius.

It only applies to people born after 2009, sorry!

Go get that watering pot!
 
Thanks Sam...I always felt like a water bearer....Capricorns are just too type "A" for me.

According to the article ..there is now a new astrological symbol..a 13th one...Ophiuchus...what the fuck is that.
 
Ophiuchus is the Serpent Bearer, who holds on to the snake in the constellation Serpens.

Also, as at least one article mentions, this is old news. The phenomenon responsible for the "change of signs" is called precession of the equinoxes. Over a period of 26000 years, a line from pole to pole through the Earth traces out a circle in the sky, which means that the sun appears in the opposite part of the sky every 13000 years. Over a period of 2000 years, the equinoxes have precessed by 1/13 th of a full cycle, which corresponds to about one of the 12 sun-sign constellations (or 13, if you want to include Ophiuchus). So, astrology that is 2000 years old is now out of date by about 1 star sign.
 
A dramatic change

You know, I'm accustomed to the houses creeping a day or so every four hundred years, but this is a bizarre change. I understand that astronomical data demands updating, but I can't wait for the symposia explaining how astrology has just changed.

Strangely, I passed over this story today; it had something to do with siderial versus tropical zodiacal configurations. Having passed my astrological phase and relegated those experiences to my supremely disorganized literary and philosophical archives, I apparently underestimated this story as being just another spat between arcane practicioners.

Whoops. My bad.
 
You know I was yust reading the newspaper and they haven updated their horoscopes they are still the same 12
 
Why should it apply to people born after 2009; those stars and planets have been there a lot longer than that. It seems to me that the entire astrology theory has to be reworked to take into account these new discoveries; not that it would make astrology any more credible.

BTW I'm now a Virgo instead of Libra. I always despised Virgos. Damn', if I'm not a Libra that means I've lost my taste for easy comfortable living, lost my taste in fashion, my good looks, my depraved sexual appetite and my artistic streak; man that sucks!:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
tablariddim said:
Why should it apply to people born after 2009; those stars and planets have been there a lot longer than that. It seems to me that the entire astrology theory has to be reworked to take into account these new discoveries; not that it would make astrology any more credible.
Click to expand...
New discoveries? What new discoveries. The precession of the equinoxes was known to Ptolemy. This "new discovery" has been reported in the news many, many times. I first remember hearing this "news" when I was a kid. There is nothing at all new here.

And there is nothing at all that could make astrology more credible.
 
tablariddim said:
Why should it apply to people born after 2009; those stars and planets have been there a lot longer than that.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the zodiac is not about the stars, its about the position of the planets, moon and sun in the sky as viewed from the earth when you are born. Hence you are still Libra. 2009 is supposedly when the polar shift occurred making the 13th sign visible.
 
D H said:
New discoveries? What new discoveries. The precession of the equinoxes was known to Ptolemy. This "new discovery" has been reported in the news many, many times. I first remember hearing this "news" when I was a kid. There is nothing at all new here.
Click to expand...

Shows you how much interest I take in it.
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah but the zodiac is not about the stars, its about the position of the planets, moon and sun in the sky as viewed from the earth when you are born. Hence you are still Libra. 2009 is supposedly when the polar shift occurred making the 13th sign visible.
Click to expand...

No. Astrology is based on which constellation of the Zodiac the "planets" are in. The most important of these is the Sun (when astrology was first conceived the Sun and Moon where considered planets.)

The "Polar shift" being talked about is the precession of the equinoxes, something that slowly happens all the time. It is not some sudden shift which just happened. The position of the Sun with respect to the zodiac from year to year has been changing constantly at the rate of 1 deg/71.6 years. Which means that birth signs dates should have shifted along with this to make sure that the Sun was actually in the sign you are "born under". Astrology has just never kept up with this shift and just kept the same dates for the signs.

As DH has pointed out, this has been known for a long time.
 
I'm now a strong Aries...no longer on the cusp of Taurus.
How does this affect compatibility signs?
 
Does that mean the story's over?

Source: Regret the Error
Link: http://www.regrettheerror.com/2011/...dia-reports-set-off-frenzy-of-misinformation/
Title: "A new Zodiac sign? Media reports set off frenzy of misinformation", by Craig Silverman
Date: January 15, 2011

Apparently, this whole story is a bit of a mess. And Silverman's blog post would be hard to quote substantially here. But as time passes, the whole claim of the Ophicius revival seems to weaken substantially.

It's worth mentioning, though, that the zodiacal shift was asserted eleven years ago, as well. And that the cited Minnesota Planetarium Society itself did not push the new zodiac; one of their members did.

Strangely, given the state of astrology, the story has had some legs. And now we find that, regardless of astrology itself, it was a problematic and possibly bogus story to begin with.
 
Yes, this happened thousands of years ago.
But, it was not until 2009 that there was enough space between the signs to REVEAL the 13th sign clearly enough. Thus, the 13th sign only applies to people born after 2009.
Astrology is based on the position of the planets the year you were born.
 
I also thought that this change was only related to the sidereal zodiac calendar, not the tropical zodiac that is more commonly followed in the West? So in the West for all the "horror"scopes, everything will be as it was / is / will be... or at least it should be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top