The Zodiac has shifted, and now there's 13

[Zodiac]

Well, I'm a Capricorn now. (http://www.telegraphbuzz.com/new-zodiac-sign-dates-1945/) And apparently Ophinicus gets the full zodiac treatment.

Capricorn: Jan. 20 – Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 – March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18 – May 13
Taurus: May 13 – June 21
Gemini: June 21 – July 20
Cancer: July 20 – Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10 – Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16 – Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30 – Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23 – Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 – Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17 – Jan. 20


And astrologers all over the world cry. Or say that they follow vedic astrology.

[Skjaldbakka]

Weird. Even if you accept that finding though, your personal sign wouldn't change, since it is based on your date of birth... including the year.

[shadow_archmagi]

Now, I'm not a master of astrology, but how can something like this even change?

I mean, it's all made up anyway, right?

[DraPrime]

I'm a pisces now? Well, thats...insignificant.

[Zodiac]

Now, I'm not a master of astrology, but how can something like this even change?

I mean, it's all made up anyway, right?

The zodiac was originally determined by the fact that they were all 30 degrees away from each other, making a full 360 degrees, which was useful to the ancients. However as the Earth moves and the constellations drift apart, its apparent location in the sky changes. The dates are determined by measuring the amount of time that each constellation is in the sky. This actually has been known for a very long time, but this is the first time I've heard that someone recalculated the dates that the zodiac falls under.

[Nameless]

Now, I'm not a master of astrology, but how can something like this even change?

I mean, it's all made up anyway, right?

You've answered our own question. :smalltongue:

[KuReshtin]

That new listing doesn't make sense.

If I'd been born a day later, I'd be both an Ophiuchus and Sagittarius?
Or would that depend on when during that date you were born? So that up until 12 Noon, you're an Ophiuchus and after 12 noon, you're Sagittarius?

[Eldan]

Basically, the Zodiac was defined in ancient times by looking at the sky and, for every 30 degrees, choosing a particularly memorable constellation that lies on the ecliptic plane. However, these were defined a few centuries BC.

Since then, the axis of the Earth and other astronomical factors have shifted so that, when seen from here, the constellations don't appear in the same point in the sky anymore. This is not a sudden change, but happens gradually all the time. Our sky is not the same as it was thousands of years before.

So, in a way, the zodiac changes, in that the conditions in a certain time period are different these days than they were 2500 years earlier.

[Sipex]

While very interesting is this official? Or are we just sticking to the 12 we know for the sake of simplicity?

[Cyrion]

There are two ways the zodiac is defined- by date and by constellation. If you're a follower of Western astrology, you have used and will continue to use the tropical date and by fixing the signs relative to the seasons. This has not changed.

However, there is also the sidereal zodiac. This is defined by constellation and earth's orientation to the rest of the galaxy. This is affected by axial drift, and this has changed by about a month over the millenia. Only a minority of astrologers use the sidereal zodiac.

[Eldan]

Short version: when has Astrology last cared about actual Astronomy?

Long Version: How do you declare anything "official" in astrology? There is, as far as I know, no official institution able to make official astrological declarations. Yes, in Astronomy, pretty much no one would claim that the signs still show up in the same months as two thousand years ago. The same can't be done in Astrology.

[Mauve Shirt]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/?hpt=C2

My sister said it nicely:

Ophiuchus has been part of the "natural" zodiac pattern for the past thousand years, and nobody uses it because Ophiuchus is {Scrubbed} lame because you can barely see him. Astronomy does not equal astrology, and astrologists aren't gonna ruin a good racket just because some Minnesotan reporter checked a star chart against a star map.

(I have today off, I'm allowed to be back. >_>)

[factotum]

I don't believe in astrology, but then, that's what my birth sign says I should do. :smallwink:

[truemane]

So does that mean my horoscopes only apply a month from now? Like Daylight Savings Time for New Agers?

[Aidan305]

Personally, I blame Ptolomy.

[Telonius]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/?hpt=C2



Clearly this means we should all move to the equator to ensure an accurate reading.

[KuReshtin]

Personally, I blame Ptolomy.

Personally, I think I'll blame Castaras.

[Erloas]

This isn't the first time its changed either. My grandma mentioned that she had changed from a gemini to a taurus many years ago, and now it seems I have done likewise.

[Cheesegear]

If I'd been born a day later, I'd be both an Ophiuchus and Sagittarius?

Its called being 'on the cusp'. It means you're both. I was a 'cuspie' before the change...And now I'm not. Actually, I believe its based on what year it is since the signs vary a day or so year-to-year. Because the calendar isn't even - hence Leap Years.

'Hard' dates are for simplicity's sake.

Basically, if you're reading your Astrology, my understanding was 'read both, pick your favourite make believe story and pretend like it means something and you didn't pick the wrong fake story to believe in.'

[Crow]

Astrologers don't base their work on the stars, but rather the pattern of the planets and the moon as they pass through the 12 zones defined by their relationship between the earth and the sun.

So your sign is the same as it's always been. Otherwise I would now be an Ophiuchus...Whatever that is.

[Sipex]

That's good enough for me.

I just wanted to make sure I knew where things were when someone tried to tell me I'm no longer a scorpio.

[Haruki-kun]

Supposedly, I'm an Aquarius now. I kinda liked being a Pisces. The description suited me.

.-.

A friend says they're supposedly only for people born after 2009, though. Anything on that?

[Keld Denar]

The phenomenon is called Polar Shift, IIRC. Basically breaks down as "crap in the sky is moving, and we're moving too, so our sky looks different from the sky a thousand years ago, which looks different from the sky a hundred thousand years ago".

The good news is, I went from just barely still being a Taurus, to landing back near the beginning of Taurus. Still BIG LIKE BULL!!! :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

The good news is, I went from just barely still being a Taurus, to landing back near the beginning of Taurus. Still BIG LIKE BULL!!! :smallbiggrin:

Well. That certainly was something to finish waking me up.

...Though this does explain the cryptic message I got from a friend about how he's no longer a fishgoat.

[Sipex]

I think the whole official thing may still be on the horizon though. This sort of thing really depends on how people interpret it and take it. If enough people (a good majority) eventually adopt the changed system (instead of the seasonal system) companies will start to adapt. If this happens enough, it'll sort of be the unofficial, official which is all astrology is anyways.

In 1000 years people could be arguing how they're right because 'We follow old astronomy which our ancestors used' while others go 'but most people use astrology nowadays'.

The minority will be featured in media as some negative social group everyone irrational hates but can't really define. Like hipsters.

[Copacetic]

A day later and I would have been both a Libra and a Scorpio. I miss the hea old days of Sagittarius status.

[Coidzor]

In 1000 years people could be arguing how they're right because 'We follow old astronomy which our ancestors used' while others go 'but most people use astrology nowadays'.

The minority will be featured in media as some negative social group everyone irrational hates but can't really define. Like hipsters.

That's a pretty drastic change to society and implies the near-total eradication of science for astrology to replace astronomy like that. :smalleek:

[shadow_archmagi]

That's it. I'm inventing my own Astrology.

The twelve signs:

1. Zeppelin-The fifth day of the fifth month
2. Airship- The 3rd, 6th, and 9th months
3. Jet-Plane- Mondays and Tuesdays
4. Bi-Plane- Within eight miles of a museum
5. Space-Biplane, as seen in Doctor Who- If your mother's mother successfully completed a crossword puzzle in less than six hours
6. Tardis- In Europe.
7. Enterprise- If you remember when the year TWO THOUSAND was a big deal
8. X-wing- If you were born on a day whose scrabble value equals the scrabble value of the letter X
9. Very Large Birds- Born in a state/province that features Eagles
10. Stars- Born on Earth
11. Jibar- Born after the creation of the internet
12. Jibar again for good measure- Born

[tyckspoon]

That's it. I'm inventing my own Astrology.

The twelve signs:

1. Zeppelin
2. Airship
3. Jet-Plane
4. Bi-Plane
5. Space-Biplane, as seen in Doctor Who
6. Tardis
7. Enterprise
8. X-wing
9. Very Large Birds
10. Stars
11. Jibar
12. Jibar again for good measure

I'm adopting this system. What are the dates? I'd like to be in Jibar-2.

[Sipex]

That's it. I'm inventing my own Astrology.

The twelve signs:

1. Zeppelin
2. Airship
3. Jet-Plane
4. Bi-Plane
5. Space-Biplane, as seen in Doctor Who
6. Tardis
7. Enterprise
8. X-wing
9. Very Large Birds
10. Stars
11. Jibar
12. Jibar again for good measure

I laughed at this.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Well, I'm a Capricorn now. (http://www.telegraphbuzz.com/new-zodiac-sign-dates-1945/) And apparently Ophinicus gets the full zodiac treatment.

Capricorn: Jan. 20 – Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 – March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18 – May 13
Taurus: May 13 – June 21
Gemini: June 21 – July 20
Cancer: July 20 – Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10 – Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16 – Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30 – Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23 – Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 – Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17 – Jan. 20


And astrologers all over the world cry. Or say that they follow vedic astrology.

You'd only be changing if you were born after 2009.
And if you were...
My, I'm impressed.
I'm a Cancer-Leo cusp. If I had been born after 2009, I'd have just been a Cancer, which is fine, except I really am that between child of the two most conflicting signs possible.

[Telonius]

Hmph. Looks like my daughter doesn't even get a sign change under that.

[Trog]

I ain't changing mine. :smallannoyed:

[shadow_archmagi]

I'm adopting this system. What are the dates? I'd like to be in Jibar-2.

I've updated them. If you have more than one, that's fine; you just have to read multiple horoscopes. It may be such that your day includes great danger, large fish, and economic opportunity. Such is life for Brindles.

[Haruki-kun]

I ain't changing mine. :smallannoyed:

Me neither. And Pluto's still a planet. :smalltongue:

[Celitholar]

But what does it mean?!!?

I don't like change :smalleek:


Side note: Does this mean I'm no longer a badass centaur? Now I'm some dude holding a snake?

Annnnd now that sounds weird. :smallamused:

[AtlanteanTroll]

Guys, you're forgetting this.


Weird. Even if you accept that finding though, your personal sign wouldn't change, since it is based on your date of birth... including the year.

No one here was born in 2009 were they?

[Orzel]

Im still a pisces. So whatever.

*goes back to daydreaming about zodiac. Signs in a free for all combat*

[CynicalAvocado]

nein. i was born a cancer and i will stay a cancer no matter what some scientist says:smallannoyed:

[Assassin89]

I'm a Libra-Scorpio based on the new zodiac, but I say I'm a Sagittarius regardless of this announcement, not to mention that I find the Chinese Zodiac more interesting.

[Castel]

Nonsense! They mean to screw with all the hard work of Knights of the Zodiac? Can you imagine having to add a 13th house to the sanctuary? And finding someone to be the 13th golden saint, too!

:smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Oh wow, this makes like almost no difference to my life. Astrology has some historical interest to me as it a) is a facet of human culture and as such is worthy of study if not belief, and b) many early scientific astronomers made money doing astrologies. After all, spending your nights staring at the sky doesn't pay well, and making telescopes is expensive. But I only read horoscopes for tips on doing meaningful sounding vagueness, a useful skill for a GM.
Oh, and my sign changed.
'serpent-bearer', eh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus) *snerk*

[CrimsonAngel]

Libra... feminine extrovert...

Scorpio... feminine introvert...

I'm girly either way. :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Libra... feminine extrovert...

Scorpio... feminine introvert...

I'm girly either way. :smalltongue:
Or this affects you less then which way the winds blow tomorrow on Neptune's equator.
You're, you.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

[Telonius]

Oh wow, this makes like almost no difference to my life. Astrology has some historical interest to me as it a) is a facet of human culture and as such is worthy of study if not belief, and b) many early scientific astronomers made money doing astrologies. After all, spending your nights staring at the sky doesn't pay well, and making telescopes is expensive. But I only read horoscopes for tips on doing meaningful sounding vagueness, a useful skill for a GM.
Oh, and my sign changed.
'serpent-bearer', eh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus) *snerk*


According to Gavin White, Ophiuchus may represent the Babylonian constellation known as the Sitting Gods (Mul.Dingir.Tush.A.Mesh), which he proposes was originally a human figure whose legs have been replaced by the tail of a huge serpent.

So basically your sign is a Yuan-ti?

[Jarawara]

A friend says they're supposedly only for people born after 2009, though. Anything on that?

There is absolutely no basis for that. This has been known of for a long, long time, only now it got alot of buzz. I heard about this a decade ago at least, and it wasn't 'new' news then either. In fact, someone above mentioned that "this has happened before", changing their grandmother's sign or something like that. No... I'm sure that was the very same change we're hearing about now.

The zodiac change has been developing over a millenium, and there is no official governmental department of the zodiac that makes an official determination of the exact dates. So no sudden, official change like daylight savings time. It only "changes" anything if you weren't aware of the ongoing change... which probably includes the vast majority of astrologers, whose 'expertise' comes from reading some books by 'experts' who didn't bother to actually check for any modern scientific correlation.

And as for whether or not your sign just changed... consider the following: I was born in Leo, though that now puts under the sign of Cancer. A friend of mine, born on the exact same day as I, but five years previous, was born as a Cancer. Why? Because their parents knew about this before my parents. We're born on the same date, but are of different signs, because one set of parents were in the know and the other were'nt? And astrologers are going to convince me that I remain a Leo because of it???

Consider an astrologer trying to figure that one out - "Tell me your name, date of birth, and whether or not your parents were knowledgeable on astrology previous to your birth. Now, let me check the sacred texts." Yeah, that's not gonna work.

As said above, it's all made up, and now it's made up differently. Astrologers will scramble to explain it all away to keep their appearance of legitimacy, try to assure you that nothing has changed, this was how it always was, really it was, and you're still good at bars with using the line "What's your sign baby", with just the same small risk of starting an unwanted conversation about astrology.

Personally, I always answered that question with "My sign? 'Pagen God of Fertility'. Is your sign 'The Unplowed Field'?"

[Ravens_cry]

So basically your sign is a Yuan-ti?
That is one interpretation from a long dead civilisation. I think the sign looks like exotic dancer rubbing a (feather) boa between her legs.

[Haruki-kun]

*snip*

Typical [Insert sign here]. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59boLMnrbU)

:smalltongue:

[absolmorph]

That's it. I'm inventing my own Astrology.

The twelve signs:

1. Zeppelin-The fifth day of the fifth month
2. Airship- The 3rd, 6th, and 9th months
3. Jet-Plane- Mondays and Tuesdays
4. Bi-Plane- Within eight miles of a museum
5. Space-Biplane, as seen in Doctor Who- If your mother's mother successfully completed a crossword puzzle in less than six hours
6. Tardis- In Europe.
7. Enterprise- If you remember when the year TWO THOUSAND was a big deal
8. X-wing- If you were born on a day whose scrabble value equals the scrabble value of the letter X
9. Very Large Birds- Born in a state/province that features Eagles
10. Stars- Born on Earth
11. Jibar- Born after the creation of the internet
12. Jibar again for good measure- Born
I find this more logical than the current system. I'm using this now.

[nysisobli]

There are two different branches of astrology, one is Western which is the Zodiac and the other is an Eastern form which is called Sidereal.

The Sidereal is based on constellations and it has shifted by a month, HOWEVER Zodiac is based on the Sun and has not changed at all. Zodiac is the most commonly used for horoscopes and ect. So please everyone share this so everyone knows their signs havent changed!

[ForzaFiori]

Here's the fun thing about the Zodiac (learned this in my Astronomy class last semester).

The Zodiac (originally) are the 13 (yes, 13) constellations that follow the same path through the sky as the sun. Because of that, it was possible to determine where in the year you were based on what signs were visible. Ophiuchus was left out when they Zodiac that your horoscope is based on, because it has always been considered an unlucky sign. The original myth was that it was a snake going through a coffin. No one wanted that as their sign.

Also, the myth that each Zodiac takes 1 month to move through is wrong. Some of the Zodiac barely made it in, with most of their constellation above or below the line (Capricorn is one of these, I believe) and the Earth is "in Capricorn" for only a few days a year. Others are almost centered on the line that the sun traces (such as Libra, I believe) and can take almost 2 months to move through.

So really, what the astronomers want us to change to now is the way it originally was, or at least, is closer to it. Astrologers have been lying to us for centuries.

[PirateMonk]

There is absolutely no basis for that. This has been known of for a long, long time, only now it got alot of buzz. I heard about this a decade ago at least, and it wasn't 'new' news then either. In fact, someone above mentioned that "this has happened before", changing their grandmother's sign or something like that. No... I'm sure that was the very same change we're hearing about now.

The zodiac change has been developing over a millenium, and there is no official governmental department of the zodiac that makes an official determination of the exact dates. So no sudden, official change like daylight savings time. It only "changes" anything if you weren't aware of the ongoing change... which probably includes the vast majority of astrologers, whose 'expertise' comes from reading some books by 'experts' who didn't bother to actually check for any modern scientific correlation.

And as for whether or not your sign just changed... consider the following: I was born in Leo, though that now puts under the sign of Cancer. A friend of mine, born on the exact same day as I, but five years previous, was born as a Cancer. Why? Because their parents knew about this before my parents. We're born on the same date, but are of different signs, because one set of parents were in the know and the other were'nt? And astrologers are going to convince me that I remain a Leo because of it???

Consider an astrologer trying to figure that one out - "Tell me your name, date of birth, and whether or not your parents were knowledgeable on astrology previous to your birth. Now, let me check the sacred texts." Yeah, that's not gonna work.

How is what your parents knew important here? Is there a space on birth certificates for Zodiac sign?

[Ravens_cry]

Astrologers have been lying to us for centuries. millennia
I rectified your statement. Though technically speaking, they have ALSO been lying for centuries, just at least ten times more centuries.

[grimbold]

Now, I'm not a master of astrology, but how can something like this even change?

I mean, it's all made up anyway, right?

they needed to keep it fresh man

[Innis Cabal]

Weird. Even if you accept that finding though, your personal sign wouldn't change, since it is based on your date of birth... including the year.

This. No one has changed signs, that isn't how it works. You are the sign in which you were born. Not the current sign that you would be. People born now that it's shifted would be affected by this. We all won't. No one posting on this board would in fact.


That new listing doesn't make sense.

If I'd been born a day later, I'd be both an Ophiuchus and Sagittarius?
Or would that depend on when during that date you were born? So that up until 12 Noon, you're an Ophiuchus and after 12 noon, you're Sagittarius?

Yes it does. It's called being on a Cusp. You would be Ophiuchus on the cusp of Sagittarius. Has nothing to do with time.

[Yora]

The stars do naturally change their apparent position in the sky. After all, the universe is expanding.
But since the 12 equally large sections of the sky where set up in a completely random way that only had to be in a position so all the stars of 12 equally random groups of stars are in one segment each, it's irrelevant.
Why change the zodiac? We could just re-define the constellations. At some point some crazy guy in the dessert took a map of the sky and played connect the dots without any numbers.

I think as a geek thing, we should get us some star charts and do exactly that! Let's create constellations of the Great Spagetti Monster, Zoidberg, and Captain Kirk!

[Falgorn]

Ah, yes. "The Zodiac symbols." Stars aligned with God-knows-what have shifted, adding another? We have dismissed that claim.

My birthday is right where new little cancers begin, now.

[AshDesert]

nein. i was born a cancer and i will stay a cancer no matter what some scientist says:smallannoyed:

Good thing astrologers aren't scientists then.

Anyway, I'm still a Pisces, go me! My birthday still falls under a completely meaningless set of dates!

[Yora]

I'm 26, that's all that really matters.
Or rather, I'm over 18 and under 65, that's really all that matters. (Not that the retirement age will still be 65 when I'm that old.)

[Dr.Epic]

Bah! It doesn't matter to me. I'm always going to be a goat-fish!

[Muz]

This is nothing compared to the ****-storm of confusion that will come when people colonize planets in other solar systems and try to figure out what their signs are THEN.

:smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

When we first make contact with other sentient beings, the real ideological problems will not be about the question if earth is the centre of Creation.
But then, people never had a problem that 70 to 99% of earths population are infidels and heretics, I guess there won't be much of a problem to extend that to entire alien species without revising dogma.

[Bayar]

When we first make contact with other sentient beings, the real ideological problems will not be about the question if earth is the centre of Creation.
But then, people never had a problem that 70 to 99% of earths population are infidels and heretics, I guess there won't be much of a problem to extend that to entire alien species without revising dogma.

Alien species as in xenos scum heretics ? There is one solution for that, you know. It starts with an Ex and ends with a terminatus.

Also, Cancer for life :biggrin:

[Dr.Epic]

I just realized something: 13 is an unlucky number so we should a fourteenth sign and call it the Barrel-Rider.

10 points to anyone who gets the reference.

[weeping eagle]

Yesterday, I would've explained calmly and rationally why astrology is ineffectual and irrelevant.
Today I'm just going to stubbornly insist that it's dumb.

[Yora]

Yesterday, I would've explained calmly and rationally why astrology is ineffectual and irrelevant.
Today I'm just going to stubbornly insist that it's dumb.
I have to remember this, Very quotable. :smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

nein. i was born a cancer and i will stay a cancer no matter what some scientist says:smallannoyed:I don't think any scientists are saying anything about what you were or were not born.

[Mando Knight]

It only "matters" if you're following a sidereal zodiac, which would have technically ought to have used the "new" rules a couple thousand years ago anyway.

[Coidzor]

I just realized something: 13 is an unlucky number so we should a fourteenth sign and call it the Barrel-Rider.

10 points to anyone who gets the reference.

Quite. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04)


Ah, yes. "The Zodiac symbols." Stars aligned with God-knows-what have shifted, adding another? We have dismissed that claim.

My birthday is right where new little cancers begin, now.

Taken out of context, that sentence just sounds painful. :smalleek:

[Symmys]

What's this, you say? The 'Zodiac has shifted' thing is a load of baloney? Thank goodness. I was shocked when my local news station told me that I was now a Taurus. Not that I believe in that astrology stuff, of course- the stars couldn't care less about us- but at the same time I quite prefer being a Gemini.

[Nameless]

I'm not much of a believer, but according to this (http://www.cainer.com/) dude, the new zodiac thing is nonsense.

[Asta Kask]

But what does it mean?!!?

I don't like change :smalleek:


Side note: Does this mean I'm no longer a badass centaur? Now I'm some dude holding a snake?

Annnnd now that sounds weird. :smallamused:

It doesn't mean much. (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/01/13/astrological-sign-of-the-times/)

[onthetown]

I'm still a Virgo. My birthday is September 19, so before I was 3 days away from being a Libra and now I'm 3 days away from being a Leo. However, given that astrology is based on observations made thousands of years ago and they don't update it nearly enough, I'm probably something totally different anyway.

So no excitement for Townie. :smallfrown:

[RebelRogue]

I'm not much of a believer, but according to this (http://www.cainer.com/) dude, the new zodiac thing is nonsense.
Of course he says so! He's making money scamming people into believeing all this nonsense.

[IsaacTheHungry]

LOL, its about time people noticed. As an astromomer I have know this for over 10 years. I hate to laugh but to know this all you had to do was look at the sky for a bit. true, it is most noticable in the winter so people don't watch the sky as much then.

I have run a many of outdoor sky shows and have been asked to show people there Zodiac and i would have to tell then it is not there becasue the Zodiac is over 2000 years out of date. some would get mad :smallsigh: like it was my fault.

Despite that i don't belive in this stuff, at lest you will now have the tecnically right sign so i can't use that as an excuse as why i think its mumbo jumbo.

Time to think of a new argument againt it :smallbiggrin:

[Mando Knight]

What's this, you say? The 'Zodiac has shifted' thing is a load of baloney? Thank goodness. I was shocked when my local news station told me that I was now a Taurus. Not that I believe in that astrology stuff, of course- the stars couldn't care less about us- but at the same time I quite prefer being a Gemini.

Everyone prefers being a Gemini. :smalltongue:
<- (Is a Gemini)

[Ravens_cry]

Despite that i don't belive in this stuff, at lest you will now have the tecnically right sign so i can't use that as an excuse as why i think its mumbo jumbo.

Time to think of a new argument againt it :smallbiggrin:
Don't worry, as I am sure you know, there is plenty of other baloney behind the proverbial deli counter. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html)

[Haruki-kun]

Everyone prefers being a Gemini. :smalltongue:
<- (Is a Gemini)

Well, I just went from being a Pisces, which is a Femenine Introvert sign, to being an Aquarius, which is a Masculine Extrovert sign.

I'm OK with this. :smallcool:

Disclaimer: Actually, I've no idea what this means, I just find it funny.

[Derjuin]

Everyone prefers being a Gemini. :smalltongue:
<- (Is a Gemini)

I like Scorpio :smalltongue:

I think my sign was dictated by the tropical dates or something - they look more familiar than older versions of the sidereal ones.

According to this new set of dates, though, I'd be a Libra...I don't know what I'd do if I were a Libra. I'd probably go calibrate some gallows or something........

[Zaydos]

I grew up with the tropical dates not the sidereal in the first place. If you're using tropical dates then it's based on the philosophy that things are linked to the time of the year and not the stars overhead anyway and that the two just coincided. If you're using sidereal there's a reason the thirteenth sign wasn't included in the first place but beyond that I'm no expert.

Also everything says I'm an introvert which flip-flops as far as feminine/masculine goes. I liked it when I could look at stuff about me in the zodiac and Chinese zodiac and online tests and they all agreed. I don't feel like changing to the sidereal now.

[Temotei]

I like being Gemini better, so I'm staying Gemini. :smallcool:

[Castaras]

Personally, I think I'll blame Castaras.

What'd I do this time? :smallamused:

So according to that I'm no longer pisces and am now Aquarius.

Screw that ... I like being fishies.

[absolmorph]

What'd I do this time? :smallamused:

So according to that I'm no longer pisces and am now Aquarius.

Screw that ... I like being fishies.
Same. Being a cup bearer sounds like less fun than being two fish.

[Keld Denar]

Me: Hey baby, what's your sign?
Her: New book, or old book?
Me: What? I don't know that!

*is flung off the bridge of doom*
All hail the great and mighty Monty Python, source of all D&D jokes!

[Ravens_cry]

I just realized something: 13 is an unlucky number so we should a fourteenth sign and call it the Barrel-Rider.

10 points to anyone who gets the reference.
You came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over you.:smalltongue:

[Blynkibrax]

I was under the impression that these new zodiac signs are only in effect if you were born after 2009, which, I'm assuming none of us here are...

[Destro_Yersul]

as I see it, this is a matter of seperating facts from myths.

Fact: The Earth wobbles on its axis
Myth: Astrology means something

Fact: When Destro was born, Libra was the astrological sign in use for his Birthday
Myth: This in particular means something Very Important that would upset his enitre world if it changed

Fact: Destro is going to keep using Libra if anyone asks, even if it has changed
Myth: Destro is not a stubborn bugger

:smallwink:

[RebelRogue]

Fact: When Destro was born...
For a moment there, before I looked at you username, I thought you were showing off your knowledge of obscure GI Joe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destro) trivia :smallbiggrin:

[Blynkibrax]

I, for one, have mixed feelings about the changes. While I loved being a Leo - because, let's face it, we all know it's the best sign - I don't think I'll mind being a Cancerian, because it's a crab and crabs are made of win. They're like the grumpy old man of the sea that does right by you. An entire species of Carl Fredricksens.

[Mando Knight]

Myth: Destro is not a stubborn bugger

Stubbornness to the level of near stupidity is one of my best qualities. :smalltongue:

Of course, there are those who could make an argument (possibly a good one) as to why I ought to be a Taurus like the Sidereal zodiac says, but in the end they're wrong.

[AsteriskAmp]

I just realized something: 13 is an unlucky number so we should a fourteenth sign and call it the Barrel-Rider.

10 points to anyone who gets the reference.

We don't want Lake town attacked, again. Damn you Smaug.

Don't see the importance of a shift that will not even be considered by newspapers.

[Zevox]

Aw, how cute - an astronomer was polite enough to point out some of astrology's mistakes without pointing out the ones that make it entirely pointless. That must have taken some real self-restraint.

Zevox

[Amiel]

So, apparently I'm a Serpent-Bearer (precluding the fact that I was born before 2009, unless of course I'm a genius that I don't know about); the Serpent-Bearer sounds like someone who was desperate for a good time.

Next thing you know, the astrologers will be announcing and claiming astrology to be a science :P

[IsaacTheHungry]

Aw, how cute - an astronomer was polite enough to point out some of astrology's mistakes without pointing out the ones that make it entirely pointless. That must have taken some real self-restraint.

Zevox

You have no idea how hard it was to not say more in my earlier post :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Raziere]

I ain't changing mine. :smallannoyed:

me neither. I like being Gemini Water Rooster.

Chinese Astrology for the win.

[T.G. Oskar]

Joining to the bunch of people who don't care about the Zodiac shift, joining the group of people that knew it from before, and only here to point a wee little something...

Noticed that, of all signs, Scorpio has the smallest of all ranges? There's gonna be even fewer Scorpios, because while everybody gets like 20 days worth of qualification or something, Scorpios get only 6 days.

If I cared a bit more, I would say "Nonsense! Scorpios are being discriminated!" But all I could say is "well, apparently the guy who made the report had a Scorpio ex-girlfriend or something"...Who knows, probably the reporter's ex-girlfriend was Vriska! Who's joining the lake of fire and brimstone along with Kefka, mind you.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

So I'm...a Leo now? :smallconfused:

Didn't expect that. Roar.

[Rockphed]

I just realized something: 13 is an unlucky number so we should a fourteenth sign and call it the Barrel-Rider.

10 points to anyone who gets the reference.

I'll pass on the 10 points, and instead say this: 13 is, in the numerology to which I ascribe most clearly, a rather auspicious number. Also, note how the year is about 13 lunar months. The other things divided into 13 bits that are important include, but are not limited to, the states involved in the American revolution.

[Keld Denar]

Also, number of cards in each suite in a deck of cards. SPOOOKY cards!

[Temotei]

They're like the grumpy old man of the sea that does right by you. An entire species of Carl Fredricksens.

I just watched that movie again. :smallamused:

[Trixie]

I laughed at this.

Hm? :smallconfused:


So according to that I'm no longer pisces and am now Aquarius.

Screw that ... I like being fishies.

Join the club :smallamused:

Though, in my country, that sign was for some reason the most embarassing. Or maybe it was just my imagination as a kid.

[22Charisma]

So wait, a bunch of people who like to play a game where they fight make believe monsters using make believe magic are complaning that the zodiac is make believe? There has to be some sort of irony in there somewhere. :smallwink:

That being said, I refuse to go to Virgo. Come on, libra fits me down to a "T". Good thing that the regular Zodiac isn't the one that's changing.

[Knaight]

So wait, a bunch of people who like to play a game where they fight make believe monsters using make believe magic are complaning that the zodiac is make believe? There has to be some sort of irony in there somewhere. :smallwink:

Nah, the irony only comes in if we start treating D&D as reality. Whereas horoscopes are actually widely believed.

[Serpentine]

So wait, a bunch of people who like to play a game where they fight make believe monsters using make believe magic are complaning that the zodiac is make believe? There has to be some sort of irony in there somewhere. :smallwink:Nope. Cuz we know we're playing make-believe, and don't (usually) base life decisions on it :smallwink:

[For'Ninniach]

Well, I'm a Capricorn now. (http://www.telegraphbuzz.com/new-zodiac-sign-dates-1945/) And apparently Ophinicus gets the full zodiac treatment.

Capricorn: Jan. 20 – Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 – March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18 – May 13
Taurus: May 13 – June 21
Gemini: June 21 – July 20
Cancer: July 20 – Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10 – Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16 – Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30 – Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23 – Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 – Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17 – Jan. 20


And astrologers all over the world cry. Or say that they follow vedic astrology.


If someone hasn't clarified this: if you were born after 2009, your zodiac sign has changed. If you were born <2008 Then no, your zodiac sign has NOT changed.
Only if you follow the eastern zodiac it would change after 2009.
The western zodiac (the ones listed above) traiditionally follow the seasonal calendar, but then were later incorporated with the star calendar.

To go into a little more depth:
(if you follow the star calendar)
This argument can go two ways.
1. Become a capricorn, or whatever your new sign is.
2. Stay a (whatever you were before). The stars that coincide with your birthday where in the sky on your birthday, but they won't be anymore. I personally am going this route. The taurus zodiac star thingy was NOT in the sky when I was born. The cancer sign was.

It's kinda hard to explain, but basically if you follow star charts, you ARE now a capricorn.

[PirateMonk]

Stay a (whatever you were before). The stars that coincide with your birthday where in the sky on your birthday, but they won't be anymore. I personally am going this route. The taurus zodiac star thingy was NOT in the sky when I was born. The cancer sign was.

I'm pretty sure the stars don't change that much within a normal human lifetime. If for some reason you're into astrology but care about what the stars are actually doing, it doesn't matter whether or not you were born before 2009.

[Haruki-kun]

What PM said. The problem is that the Zodiac's been off for about 2000 years already.

[For'Ninniach]

I'm pretty sure the stars don't change that much within a normal human lifetime. If for some reason you're into astrology but care about what the stars are actually doing, it doesn't matter whether or not you were born before 2009.

The stars have shifted thirty degrees since the original zodiac was established.

It does in fact,
because after 2009 the previous zodiac wasn't in the sky on your birthday. All I know now is that in 1995 the crab was still in the sky (if only by a few degrees) when I was born, and now it's not from June 22nd to July 22nd anymore.
It's all complicated.

P.S. Here's a link: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/has-your-horoscope-changed-2439951/

[PirateMonk]

The stars have shifted thirty degrees since the original zodiac was established.

It does in fact,
because after 2009 the previous zodiac wasn't in the sky on your birthday. All I know now is that in 1995 the crab was still in the sky (if only by a few degrees) when I was born, and now it's not from June 22nd to July 22nd anymore.
It's all complicated.

P.S. Here's a link: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/has-your-horoscope-changed-2439951/

If it took a few millennia for the stars to shift thirty degrees, how did they shift noticeably in fifteen and a half years?

[For'Ninniach]

If it took a few millennia for the stars to shift thirty degrees, how did they shift noticeably in fifteen and a half years?

I don't believe I've said that,
I believe that I meant this:
when they first discovered the zodiacs, the stars were on one side, and now they're on the other. And it took 2,000 or so years to shift all the way to the other side. It shifted a half of degree or so to completely disappear from the sky during June 22 to July 22nd. So, all I'm saying, there was barely a smidgen of the crab in the sky when I was born, or that's what I'm making an educated guess about. Sorry if you are misunderstanding my statements.

[Ted_Stryker]

I don't believe I've said that,
I believe that I meant this:
when they first discovered the zodiacs, the stars were on one side, and now they're on the other. And it took 2,000 or so years to shift all the way to the other side. It shifted a half of degree or so to completely disappear from the sky during June 22 to July 22nd. So, all I'm saying, there was barely a smidgen of the crab in the sky when I was born, or that's what I'm making an educated guess about. Sorry if you are misunderstanding my statements.
Part of the confusion arises because you're garbling the distinction between tropical astrology and sidereal astrology, and the role that precession of the equinoxes plays in distinguishing the two systems.

**Warning -- A bit of an astronomy lecture follows.**

Tropical astrology: Zodiacal signs are determined by how far the Sun is from the vernal equinox, starting at the vernal equinox and going in the direction that the Sun moves through the Zodical constellations. If it's within 30 degrees of the vernal equinox, it's Aries, 30-60 degrees is Taurus, and so on.

Sidereal astrology: Zodiacal signs are (roughly speaking) defined by which Zodiacal constellation the Sun is in.

The equinoxes are defined astronomically by the intersection of the celestial equator, which is just the earth's equator projected onto the sky, and the ecliptic, which is the path the Sun traces out on the sky relative to distant stars. These two circles are tilted with respect to each other by the same angle that the earth's spin axis is tilted from the plane of its orbit. It takes the Sun one year to make one circuit on the ecliptic. The vernal equinox is the one where the Sun passes from the southern celestial hemisphere to the northern. (If you think about it, when the Sun is at one of the equinoxes, that's when you get day and night to be equal length.)

It turns out that the position of the equinoxes is not exactly fixed with respect to distant stars, because the direction that the earth's spin axis points traces out a circle. This is called precession. It takes around 26,000 years for the circle to be traced out on the sky, and the equinoxes move with this precessional motion, and that's why it's called precession of the equinoxes. It's this effect that causes the difference between tropical astrology, which is tied to the vernal equinox and thus the seasons, and sidereal astrology, which is tied to the actual positions of the Zodiacal constellations.

Of course, astrology is pretty much bunkum, IMO, but there is a bit of astronomy to be learned in having the distinction between the two systems explained.