i feel like the whole world's gone sideways
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac-signs/ (http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/13/horoscope-hang-up-earth-rotation-changes-zodiac-signs/)
I don't buy it.
saw that coming a mile away.
i'm on the fence myself.
;D
Haha looks like I'm stuck being a Leoooooo anyhowwww..... oh the stars they are just boggling.......
RAWR (http://assets0.muziboo.com/user/picture/59605/thumb/lion.jpg?1292252846)
oooh, apparently there's only a very small sect of folks who remain the same. lucky you! i have to become this whole new person now :-\ ;)
I am still a pisces...
Quote from: ynwa on Jan 13, 2011, 10:42 PM
oooh, apparently there's only a very small sect of folks who remain the same. lucky you! i have to become this whole new person now :-\ ;)
Hehehehhe well it was nice knowin ya! But I'm positive I'll just love any new incarnation you might undergo! :-*
Star studies always pick at my curiosity, no matter how far-fetched or nutso they may be... not saying I believe everything I ever lay my eyes on, but it always interests me what people come up with. And it'd be a lie if I said I didn't go through a phase of buying 3-4 books on astrology and figuring out my 'astrological tables,' and what-have-you :-X Who's to say what's really goin' on or what any of it means or
if any of it means, anyways... ::) Hehe but I can't help but notice how much Leo comes up in all that bih'niss :-X Since I've already gone there, I might as well go ahead and add that my charts have me down as having 5 or 6 of my planets in line with the Leo constellation at the time of my birth. So who knows what all that means, whatevvvvv.... anymore I just stick to tracking the new and full moons and occasionally tracking where the planets are at and what exactly I'm looking at in the night sky :-X
WHOA, NEW FACE EXPLOSION! (probably caused by that suddenly-found planetary reverse-a-grade! ;)) :coffee: :coffee:
I was a Scorpio and now I'm a Libra. >:( I definitely have more Scorpio traits so I'm just gonna stick with that sign.
I was a Libra but now it seems I'm a double rainbow? ;)
Apparently I'm now a Gemini. I'm in two minds about that.
Still a Taurus! Whatever...
Guess I am now an Ophiuchus....sucks just learned how to pronounce Saggitarius correctly.
If Rob Brezsny says it's hooey, that's good enough for me. I remain a Sag :)
Every year or so, another astronomer erupts into the mainstream media with a portentous announcement about how the astrological signs aren't aligned with the actual constellations. Often the supposed 13th sign, Ophiuchus, is also invoked as a further proof of how delusional astrologers are.
What it means, according to the astronomers, is that astrology is invalid. Most of the people who think they're Tauruses are actually Aries. Most Scorpios are really Libras. And so on.
That latest misguided authority is Parke Kunkle, a board member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society. "When [astrologers] say that the sun is in Pisces," he intoned, "it's really not in Pisces." His ravings hit the Internet yesterday, on Gawker (http://bit.ly/i1VxqE (http://bit.ly/i1VxqE)) and the Minneapolis Star Tribune (http://bit.ly/f7hWwW (http://bit.ly/f7hWwW)), among other places.
I understand that scientists like him don't like to lower themselves to the task of actually doing research about how astrology works. But if they're going to snidely cast aspersion against it, they should at least learn it well enough to know what they're talking about.
Here, briefly, is the lowdown on what certain astronomers are too lazy to find out for themselves.
Thousands of years ago, when astrological and astronomical thinking were based on insufficient data, the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Due to the precession the equinoxes, astrological signs do not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then.
But that 's irrelevant to the majority of modern Western astrologers. In our work, the astrological signs are not defined by, nor do they have anything to do with, the stars or constellations. We're completely focused on what happens in our own solar system. Our relevant data are the movements of the planets within a zone defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun.
The key demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes and solstices. At the Northern Hemisphere's vernal equinox, which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries. At the Northern Hemisphere's summer solstice, the sun enters into the sign of Cancer. The locations of the constellations are irrelevant; the "influence of the stars" isn't considered at all.
When Parke Kunkle triumphantly says, "There is no physical connection between constellations and personality traits," as if he has finally stamped out the delusions of us astrologers, he doesn't realize that we agree with him completely.
Quote from: johnnYYac on Jan 14, 2011, 12:40 PM
Still a Taurus! Whatever...
Same here!I'm being very stubborn about it so I must still be the same. :)
Quote from: SaraBananaBear on Jan 14, 2011, 02:28 AM
I was a Libra but now it seems I'm a double rainbow? ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D SBB
Also, nice find Lady!!
I guess I'm a pisces now. Oh well.
Quote from: ALady on Jan 14, 2011, 04:00 PM
If Rob Brezsny says it's hooey, that's good enough for me. I remain a Sag :)
Every year or so, another astronomer erupts into the mainstream media with a portentous announcement about how the astrological signs aren't aligned with the actual constellations. Often the supposed 13th sign, Ophiuchus, is also invoked as a further proof of how delusional astrologers are.
What it means, according to the astronomers, is that astrology is invalid. Most of the people who think they're Tauruses are actually Aries. Most Scorpios are really Libras. And so on.
That latest misguided authority is Parke Kunkle, a board member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society. "When [astrologers] say that the sun is in Pisces," he intoned, "it's really not in Pisces." His ravings hit the Internet yesterday, on Gawker (http://bit.ly/i1VxqE (http://bit.ly/i1VxqE)) and the Minneapolis Star Tribune (http://bit.ly/f7hWwW (http://bit.ly/f7hWwW)), among other places.
I understand that scientists like him don't like to lower themselves to the task of actually doing research about how astrology works. But if they're going to snidely cast aspersion against it, they should at least learn it well enough to know what they're talking about.
Here, briefly, is the lowdown on what certain astronomers are too lazy to find out for themselves.
Thousands of years ago, when astrological and astronomical thinking were based on insufficient data, the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Due to the precession the equinoxes, astrological signs do not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then.
But that 's irrelevant to the majority of modern Western astrologers. In our work, the astrological signs are not defined by, nor do they have anything to do with, the stars or constellations. We're completely focused on what happens in our own solar system. Our relevant data are the movements of the planets within a zone defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun.
The key demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes and solstices. At the Northern Hemisphere's vernal equinox, which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries. At the Northern Hemisphere's summer solstice, the sun enters into the sign of Cancer. The locations of the constellations are irrelevant; the "influence of the stars" isn't considered at all.
When Parke Kunkle triumphantly says, "There is no physical connection between constellations and personality traits," as if he has finally stamped out the delusions of us astrologers, he doesn't realize that we agree with him completely.
back in high school I remember our humanities teacher doing an experiment with our class involving horoscopes/astrology. he had everyone come up and select a card with their sign on it and a description telling them this and that. after everyone read their sign they were asked whether or not the statement applied to them, and how close it was. the class overwhelmingly said it described them very well. In the end all the cards that were given out were the same card.
I think astrology is interesting when it talks about the galactic center and stuff like that. using it as time makers rather than personal identification explanations or whatever you'd call it.
that shit is saying I should be a capricorn when my whole life I've been living as an aqueerious. all my life, I was brought up to think your astrological sign wasn't a choice. now my mind is blown. I don't want to be Capricorn, I liked the water god dude better.