http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...oph_n_808567.html#s223863&title=kristin_leigh
What's your opinion on this changes and their effects?
What's your opinion on this changes and their effects?
Zodiac Changes
- Thread starter Raccoon Love
- Start date
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Astronomers don't control what astrologists use. Astrologists control with astrologist use. What I have read so far is that most astrologists said that this does not effect much at all. Some may intergrate the system, but many won't (including me).
This isn't the first time this has shown up either, it's popped up several times before (not exactly like this) and astrologists do not focus on it. The current system works for astrology.
This isn't the first time this has shown up either, it's popped up several times before (not exactly like this) and astrologists do not focus on it. The current system works for astrology.
Well it's obvious that the zodiac system is not based on anything that is static. Like IndigoSensor said, astronomy doesn't dictate astrology. Although I am not one who believes in astrology, I think those who do better stick to the old system because it's probably more "accurate." I personally think if there is any correlation at all between a person and natural phenomenon (in terms of describing personality of a sign) it has something to do with the season in which the person is born, not the stars.
I wonder if this would only affect the people born after the change.
Either way, I'm no Gemini, tyvm. Cancerian pride! :tongue1:
Either way, I'm no Gemini, tyvm. Cancerian pride! :tongue1:
A lot of this zodiac changing stuff is really a load of BS. 1, astrologer do what we want! Also, these changes were based on both a poor conception of the constellations and of astrology. When astronomers are navigating the sky, they use diagrams that put boxes around the constellations so that the really tiny and dim things can have an address in the sky. However, these are rarely good depictions of what the constellations look like. It was these boxes that this dude used to determine the timing for the new zodiac. In the instance of Ophiuchus, the box around him very much crosses the ecliptic (the path of the sun). However, if you look at the actual stars, he really hardly even touches it (some draw him with the end of his leg over the ecliptic, others don't depending on whether they include this one kind of dim star in the main constellation or not). What the original astrologers did is they divided the ecliptic into twelve even segments (which is more religious then accurate), and named each by the nearest constellation that was fully on the ecliptic.
so, essentially, everyone should kind of just hush up about this.
so, essentially, everyone should kind of just hush up about this.
The idea that the stars actually control one's fate or personality to a significant degree is ludicrous. I could see how the time of the year when one is born and thus the climate and available nutrients at various states of development could be important though. To whatever degree it is accurate beyond confirmation bias and how it effects the opinions of those raising you the star signs themselves are not relevant. Other stars with the same environment would be the same.
I am a Scorpio, and with those changes I would be a Libra. I don't really feel much like a Libra at all, but I definitely am a fence sitter on a lot of issues, which is apparently a pretty Libra-esque sort of trait.
That said, I only read up on astrology for fun.
That said, I only read up on astrology for fun.
I read the descriptions of both Libra, as it was before the change, and Virgo, as it is after the change from this site (whose servers are apparently crashing). Interestingly enough, I do identify more with Virgo. Actually, reading the descriptions seemed to me to almost match typical INFP and INTx type profiles, respectively.