Whats your new zodiac?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,074
Likes: 0
From: All up in your inner tubes. Whatcha gonna do sucka?
Whats your new zodiac?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horosc...s-zodiac-signs/
however,
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-yo...-hasnt-changed/
strange days....
If you're the type of person who relies on mysterious-sounding locations of stars to determine your personality and outcome in life, get ready to be shocked.
The field of astrology, which is concerned with horoscopes and the like, felt a major disruption from astronomers, who are concerned with actual stars and planets. The astronomers from the Minnesota Planetarium Society found that because of the moon's gravitational pull on Earth, the alignment of the stars was pushed by about a month.
The field of astrology, which is concerned with horoscopes and the like, felt a major disruption from astronomers, who are concerned with actual stars and planets. The astronomers from the Minnesota Planetarium Society found that because of the moon's gravitational pull on Earth, the alignment of the stars was pushed by about a month.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-yo...-hasnt-changed/
But before astrology fans scrape the ink from their arms because they think they're now a Virgo instead of a Libra, they should consider this: If they adhered to the tropical zodiac - which, if they're a Westerner, they probably did – absolutely nothing has changed for them.
That's worth rephrasing: If you considered yourself a Cancer under the tropical zodiac last week, you're still a Cancer under the same zodiac this week.
That's because the tropical zodiac – which is fixed to seasons, and which Western astrology adheres to – differs from the sidereal zodiac – which is fixed to constellations and is followed more in the East, and is the type of zodiac to which the Star Tribune article ultimately refers.
That's worth rephrasing: If you considered yourself a Cancer under the tropical zodiac last week, you're still a Cancer under the same zodiac this week.
That's because the tropical zodiac – which is fixed to seasons, and which Western astrology adheres to – differs from the sidereal zodiac – which is fixed to constellations and is followed more in the East, and is the type of zodiac to which the Star Tribune article ultimately refers.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
That's my astronomy professor 
Truth be told, "astrology" is behind "astronomy" by a few thousand years.
What the Star-Tribnune article relates has been truth for a long, long time. But people who think "astrology" is better used as a form of magic to make money have never been concerned with reality.
There used to be real science behind astrology, helping farmers know when to plant crops and when to harvest. When to mate livestock and when not to do so.
It was useful to the common man.
The idea that Ptolemy "codified the tropical Zodiac" in the second century and "was never oriented to the constellations" is a convenient lie for charlatans who reap profits by supposedly using "complex computer programs to map the stars."
Suggesting that Ptolemy's zodiac "was never oriented to the constellations" is massive ignorance or bald-faced lie. I'm voting for both.
Ptolemy worked out a complex algorithm to predict the planets' locations at any given time. His model treated their orbits as stretched out spirals along a perfect circle. It was a mathmatical tool in much the same way a paper road map allows you to get to your destination despite the world being round and not flat. The world had known for centuries before his birth that the planet's orbits were not perfect circles, but he found a way to predict their movements mathmatically. I highly, highly doubt he thought it was irrelevant where the stars were in relation to the sun when it came to predicting seasons.
There is nothing wrong with astrology as a passing interest. But there was a time when it was related to reality, as in when to plant crops and when to harvest, when to mate your livestock and when not to. The fact that astrologers insist on perpetuating inaccurate astronomy to me is offensive. It would change nothing if charlatans and liars at least adhered to reality as far as star locations. All the people who followed it would at least be educated, instead of deceived as to where the sun and stars actually were.
The Zodiac used to be a way to teach everybody about basic astronomy, disseminating knowledge for the good of the general public. Now it's just a way to make money by lying. WTF people.
Truth be told, "astrology" is behind "astronomy" by a few thousand years.
What the Star-Tribnune article relates has been truth for a long, long time. But people who think "astrology" is better used as a form of magic to make money have never been concerned with reality.
There used to be real science behind astrology, helping farmers know when to plant crops and when to harvest. When to mate livestock and when not to do so.
It was useful to the common man.
The idea that Ptolemy "codified the tropical Zodiac" in the second century and "was never oriented to the constellations" is a convenient lie for charlatans who reap profits by supposedly using "complex computer programs to map the stars."
Suggesting that Ptolemy's zodiac "was never oriented to the constellations" is massive ignorance or bald-faced lie. I'm voting for both.
Ptolemy worked out a complex algorithm to predict the planets' locations at any given time. His model treated their orbits as stretched out spirals along a perfect circle. It was a mathmatical tool in much the same way a paper road map allows you to get to your destination despite the world being round and not flat. The world had known for centuries before his birth that the planet's orbits were not perfect circles, but he found a way to predict their movements mathmatically. I highly, highly doubt he thought it was irrelevant where the stars were in relation to the sun when it came to predicting seasons.
There is nothing wrong with astrology as a passing interest. But there was a time when it was related to reality, as in when to plant crops and when to harvest, when to mate your livestock and when not to. The fact that astrologers insist on perpetuating inaccurate astronomy to me is offensive. It would change nothing if charlatans and liars at least adhered to reality as far as star locations. All the people who followed it would at least be educated, instead of deceived as to where the sun and stars actually were.
The Zodiac used to be a way to teach everybody about basic astronomy, disseminating knowledge for the good of the general public. Now it's just a way to make money by lying. WTF people.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,614
Likes: 2
From: Denton, TX
Ok, but if your sign is determined by the position of the sun the day you were born, then that could be interpreted as the day you were actually born, which for most people, wouldn't be this year. So, ok, all people going forward can be the new signs.
Trending Topics
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
Originally Posted by DFWs2k,Jan 14 2011, 07:03 AM
Ok, but if your sign is determined by the position of the sun the day you were born, then that could be interpreted as the day you were actually born, which for most people, wouldn't be this year. So, ok, all people going forward can be the new signs.
The issue was is that when the babylonian zodiac was reconstructed it had forgot to account for one major variable: That the Earth had shifted inbetween the time Babylon fell, and their constellations were refound. If you're curious as to why Ophiucus was omitted, you'd have to understand the importance in the numbers 24 and 12 in ancient cultures. Note the fact that the numbers 24/12 were also very important in ancient Chinese cultures, Mayan cultures, and Egyptian cultures. Were these civilizations across 4 continents in communcation ~3000 years ago? Is it mere accident that they concluded similar findings? I mean... why would 4 drastically different cultures, all conclude similar things? Do you find it odd that these 4 civilizations, all built pyramids that still stand today? All with the same claims and purpose? I'm not drawing a conclusion, just pondering the questions.
A bit more on topic this effect rolls back to essentially 2000-1000 B.C., if you subscribe to that line of thought. If your belief is that astrology is simply "horroscopes" fear not, they (along with your fortune cookies) will continue to be plenty vague and inaccurate.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 11,074
Likes: 0
From: All up in your inner tubes. Whatcha gonna do sucka?
Originally Posted by whiteflash,Jan 14 2011, 09:22 AM
If your belief is that astrology is simply "horroscopes" fear not, they (along with your fortune cookies) will continue to be plenty vague and inaccurate.
honestly, I just get a kick out of the explosion of the story and how news reports think this is something new:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/11/...rotation-earth/
when in we've had this all along:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology
