Stars Remain In Their Usual Places; People Panic

asheller writes "The Star Tribune tells us the zodiac signs have shifted. Earth's wobble has shifted the signs, a new one's been added and many of us have changed signs. Formerly a Cancer, I've apparently been upgraded to Gemini and am now married to an Ophiuchus, a new sign. What's yor sign? The new Zodiac Chart is pretty interesting." Here are some priceless reactions to this celestial development. As long as the Chinese Zodiac is unaffected, I'll still be able to accurately judge people based on when they were born, so please indicate in comments your (new) sign and birth year animal, so we'll be able to know where you're coming from.

Comments

I ain't no Virgo

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me Libra, or give me death!

Re:I ain't no Virgo

[bazmail]

A-men to that. Screw this Virgo crap.

Re:I ain't no Virgo

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I got cancer!

Re:I ain't no Virgo

[EdIII]

Virgo maybe not, virgin most definitely yes.

Says the AC on Slashdot :P

Why don't you try "popping your cherry" and get a Slashdot ID. I'll even give you a cigarette for afterwards.

Re:I ain't no Virgo

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Yeah because nothing sceams 'stud' like registerring an account on Slashdot.

Re:I ain't no Virgo

[hack slash]

I got Ophiuchus!

What do I win?

Re:I ain't no Virgo

[sourcerror]

Give me cancer or give me death ... oh wait!

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only

[McTickles]

You could care less? so in fact you do care ?

I, however, salute your attempt to care less...

for the last time it is: "I could'NT care less"... meaning it is impossible for you to care even less about something

I could care less means that you care and could actually care less, someday...

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only

[Anonymous Coward]

for the last time it is:

I strongly suspect you're wrong :p

a new personality!

[ArgumentBoy]

Cool. I get a new personality. Just what my wife wanted for Christmas.

Re:a new personality!

[xded]

Shouldn't just matter how stars *were* aligned when I was born? If signs change, they do for newborns...

Ok, I will stop being rational about this...

They gave me cancer

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Prepare to be sued.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only

[Abstrackt]

Muphry's Law strikes again.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only

[McTickles]

Of course not, being a righteous prick is what i live for :D

--
http://www.twilightcampaign.net/

Re:Hilarious, but isn't /. meant to be serious?

[jfengel]

It's a bit of a stretch, but science is part of news for nerds. The fact that there's a disturbingly large portion of the public who's gullible enough to buy into the most appallingly stupid idea in millennia is kind of on track.

The articles cited aren't spoofs. The AP is perhaps the world's most important news service. Depressingly, the fact that people bought into it is real news.

(Now, I could turn around and question whether the number of people who actually bought into this was significant enough to merit it being real news. So there's a separate story on whether the wire services manufactured something from a relatively small number of stupid people. But sadly, I think it's pretty clear that the dimwits have a pretty substantial caucus.)

But the ecliptic hasn't moved.

[Late Adopter]

The ecliptic from the Earth's perspective is constant (by definition), and the Sun's travel across the ecliptic is about as constant. Astrologers don't REALLY believe that constellations occupy precisely 30 degree chunks of the ecliptic, with Aries starting precisely at the vernal equinox. The constellations were just a conventional way to label those segments.

What's slightly more disconcerting about this article is that Astrology knew about this long long ago. They have a name for when a new constellation reaches the vernal equinox, it's the beginning of an "Age". You know, like the "Age of Aquarius"?

Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit, but even within its own formulation this article should have no impact on it.

Re:But the ecliptic hasn't moved.

[AlienIntelligence]

Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit

I agree with all of that except the "zero." Astrology makes people interested in astronomy, which is of enormous scientific merit.

Honestly... citation please?

As a former astronomer that took his personal time to head up monthly
star parties at our observatory in Moorpark, I can fully attest that the
only thing Astrology does for the 'common person' is fuck up the last
bit of astronomical sanity they could possibly have.

And the saddest thing to see from TFA is how people "don't believe it", lol
like they have the option to disbelieve a fact. Whooo. Wow.

Yes, folks, when you pull your head out of the sand... there's fresh air
to breathe.

-AI


*edit, yeah, I know people have the option to disbelieve a fact.

Re:But the ecliptic hasn't moved.

[syousef]

Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit

I agree with all of that except the "zero." Astrology makes people interested in astronomy, which is of enormous scientific merit.

On the other hand, Its predictions and arguments have zero scientific merit, and adherence to its principles is evidence of ignorance, stpudity, or fraudulent intent.

That's like saying mass murder is good because it makes people interested in police work. Talk about zero merit.

Re:But the ecliptic hasn't moved.

[jc42]

The ecliptic from the Earth's perspective is constant (by definition), and the Sun's travel across the ecliptic is about as constant.

This brought to mind an image of hundreds of astronomers grinning and chuckling as they read it. ;-)

The ecliptic, generally defined as the plane of the Earth's orbit around the sun, is hardly a constant for most astronomers' purposes. There are all sorts of variations happening to the Earth's orbit over time, and most of them have been measured to at least several decimal places. For example, the Earth is strongly affected by the Moon, whose orbit is inclined by a bit over 5 degrees to the ecliptic, producing a quite measurable up-down motion of the Earth relative to the supposed plane of its orbit (which isn't nearly a plane due to this motion). Over longer periods, larger up-down wiggles in the Earth's motion are induced by Jupiter and Saturn (and all the other planets, but those are the two biggies). Jupiter and Saturn have orbits inclined 1.3 and 2.5 degrees relative to the Earth's orbit, so their pull has a small vertical component that's quite measurable, and causes slow changes in the Earth's orbit over the years.

As for the Sun's "travel" around the ecliptic, that presumably means its apparent motion in the sky due to the Earth's rotational speed. If you look that up, you'll find that the current estimate of the Earth's mean orbital speed is 29.78 km/s, but this varies from 29.29 km/s at aphelion (~ July 4) to 30.29 km/s at perihelion (~ Jan 3). This 1 km/s difference is about 3% of the orbital speed, so the Earth's orbital speed is only "constant" to one decimal place, but not to two places. The sun's apparent motion relative to the background stars would be the same as these numbers, and calling a 3% speed variation a constant would get you laughed out of amateur astronomer clubs.

Over longer periods of time, these variations in the Earth's orbit are fairly large relative to the current numbers. And, of course, there's the problem of the solar system's motions around the galaxy, which include interactions with all the nearby stars. Astronomers have accurate measurements of the "proper motion" of at least several hundred of the closest stars, none of which is quite in a constant position relative to the solar system. Their gravitational pulls on us produce small variations in the orbits of everything in the solar system, adding to the general chaos that gives large error bars to orbital predictions more than a thousand or so years in the future.

Actually, I read an interesting article a few years back that gave numbers for the effects on the Earth's orbit from the passage of several large near-Earth asteroids, and also for a few of the recent mass ejections from the sun. These also have a measurable effect on the Earth's orbit, which add up over the eons. This makes the concept of the "ecliptic" as a fixed plane an extreme over-simplification. The ecliptic is actually a very fuzzy concept. It describes a roughly planar volume that's a few thousand km thick (over a few years' time), and which slowly warps over eons. The Earth's actual position relative to this fuzzy volume varies in a complex manner that requires some extremely difficult calculations involving all the other massive bodies in the vicinity (including those near-Earth asteroids, which aren't entirely known, and solar mass ejections, which aren't predictable at all).

  But I suppose it's all constant enough for an astrologer. ;-)

Bad astronomy

[wizardforce]

I think that Bad Astronomy summed it up perfectly.

I know EXACTLY what sign *I* was born under!

[JimMarch(equalccw)]

It said "Maternity Ward"...

Re:really...

[Amorymeltzer]

Yup. Anyone who has taken a cursory glance at an astronomy or a biology or really any science book knows astrology is absurd. More than anything, I think this story is worthwhile for pointing out how big a place astrological signs and their "meaning" still have in our world. Hopefully this helps push it out.

In actuality, people have known this for millennia. The precession of Earth's axis has been known about since the Greeks, and is pretty basic astronomy. The wobble of our axis takes about 26,000 years to go around once, and since the current system has been around in some form for about 2,500 years, that means we've gone 1/10 of the way around. 12 signs, 10% off - that means most people change by one sign, and lo, so it is.

Additionally, constellations are not all the same size, so some should be much more common than others. More to the point, constellations do not form a perfectly connected circle, so many people are born technically between signs. What this means is that astrological signs are, at this point, completely dependent on a man-made calendrical system, which have changed throughout our history, sometimes radically.

Cancer to...

[Brewskibrew]

I was a Cancer before and now I'm an AIDS. WTF?

Re:The zodiac has changed, just like the seasons

[An Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah. You obviously have no idea how the zodiac symbols were really decided. On the day you were born the Sun is sitting in the middle of a constellation. That was how it was determined. You are also ignoring the fact that not only do the zodiac symbols rotate slowly through the calender, because of the exact same second rotational axis, so do the seasons. In 11,500 years, Dec. 21 will be midsummer in the northern hemisphere. I don't know how you'd think it has anything to do with seasons, anyway. Leave it to the superstitious to ignore any actual facts or history.

Uh, yeah. You obviously have no idea how the zodiac symbols were really decided. Western astrology has always used the tropical zodiac which is based on the four seasons, instead of the sidereal zodiac which is based on the location of the sun in the various constellations. I don't know how you'd think it doesn't have anything to do with seasons anyway, I've known that since at least middle school. Leave it to the self-righteous to ignore any actual facts or history.

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

astrologers don't care about this, well, didn't

[spottedkangaroo]

I happen to have paid for astrological readings many times. I don't really think astrology has anything to do with reality or astronomy, not even for a second; but I do enjoy it. It's rather like how I enjoy The Matrix even though it doesn't make any sense at all.

I happened to ask my astrologer about this many years ago (it's not like they just switched a couple days ago) and the astrologer was actually aware that the astrological symbols had changed, but assured me the Zodiac signs did not. It's been totally decoupled for decades and astrologers seem to be aware of it.

It's not like if you learned to precisely measure something (I don't know what it would be); you'd suddenly change all the symbols on your Tarot deck either. Heh. They're all complicated systems of nonsense. They don't really require further adjustments.

I'm sure there'll be TONS of new astrology books coming out because this is suddenly big news for some reason. It may even cause a schism, but it doesn't really matter which system you pick. A really good astrologer reads the man, not the stars.

Astrology not affected

[Suffering Bastard]

I realize this is very likely the least friendly place to express these ideas, but I'll put myself on the firing line for those who may be genuinely interested in what the art and practice of astrology is about.

All the panic and hub-bub about this finding is coming from a great deal of ignorance about astrology. It's like the criticisms that came from Carl Sagan, where someone with a perspective on science is using demonstrably unscientific methods to put down or even berate (in the case of Sagan) the practice of astrology. It's no different than someone without a background in science claiming that all science is fraudulent due to a few fraudulent scientists.

Astrology makes its observations from a purely relative perspective from Earth. The sun *appears* to be in the sign of Aries on the Spring Equinox, so we say the sun is in Aries. Whether it is actually in absolute alignment with that constellation is not the claim, nor is it even relevant. Indeed, tropical astrology (what is predominantly used in the West) doesn't use the constellations at all but puts the zodiac as a fixed wheel around the Earth, so that the Spring equinox is always the first day of Aries, even though over the thousands of years since the Babylonians the constellation that aligns with the sun (from Earth's perspective) has moved to Pisces, and is now moving towards Aquarius, hence the coming "Age of Aquarius". That is of course the result of the so called precession of the equinoxes.

As for the 13th sign, that's old news. Astrologers have been debating the usefulness of Ophiuchus for decades at least.

Astrology is about understanding natural cycles, in particular the ways in which the cycles of planets and stars synchronize with the cycles of individual and collective human events. It is not about absolute claims of prediction based on absolute alignments. Newspaper horoscopes are, on the whole, a fraud, and not consistent with the true intention and purpose of astrology.

Hope that clears things up. There's no crisis in astrology, you're still who you thought you were....or not.

Re:Astrology not affected

[vadim_t]

Astrology is about understanding natural cycles, in particular the ways in which the cycles of planets and stars synchronize with the cycles of individual and collective human events. It is not about absolute claims of prediction based on absolute alignments. Newspaper horoscopes are, on the whole, a fraud, and not consistent with the true intention and purpose of astrology.

Please explain this part. Especially what kind of understanding it brings, and how the synchronization thing works.

Also what predictions are made? Give a few examples

Re:Astrology not affected

[Suffering Bastard]

Please explain this part. Especially what kind of understanding it brings, and how the synchronization thing works.

I am happy to give it a shot. The understanding afforded by astrology is similar to what you might get from a good psychotherapist. It can paint a picture that can reveal insights that are not easily discovered any other way. At it's essence, astrology is simply another language for understanding oneself in context with the surrounding world.

As for how the synchronicity works, well that's the great mystery. It is the point where this philosophy, like all philosophies do at some point, including science, begins to dream. Some like to say the planets "beam" energy to us and influence us. In my view, this is a naive misunderstanding of astrology and human free will. I think of the planets as more like a map. They hint at potentials that can be derived, understood and applied to make life richer and more engaging.

Also what predictions are made? Give a few examples

As I stated, astrology is not about making absolute predictions. It can, however, provide a guidance system for navigating life and, often times, in dealing with a crisis scenario. My own example has to do with a health crisis I experienced in 2008. I began having digestive problems and a great deal of pain and tension in my pelvic floor. At this time, Pluto, in Capricorn, was at a 90 degree angle (a "square aspect" in astrology, an aspect of tension) to my natal Pluto, in Libra. In astrology Pluto rules digestion as well as the area of one's nether-regions, including the pelvic floor. My 6th house (the area of the chart that rules health, among other things) is cusp Scorpio, the sign that Pluto rules. In other words, my chart makes it rather clear that I would suffer health issues in the area of my body that Pluto rules, and these issues were set off just as transiting Pluto began to make an "adverse" aspect to my natal Pluto. Moreover, according to an ancient chart on medical astrology, zero degrees Libra (where my natal Pluto is stationed) represents the pelvis. Note that I did not deduce these factors until after the fact, I had only just begun looking at astrology when my health issues first began.

Also during this time, Jupiter was moving into conjunction with my natal Jupiter in Capricorn (what is termed a "Jupiter return"). Because my Jupiter is in the 8th house (the house of money, inheritance, taxes, among other things) I had already wondered if the Jupiter return would bring about an inheritance or some kind of money windfall. As it turned out, my grandfather passed away at this time and left me a sizable inheritance, much more than I had assumed he had saved.

This post is already long winded, so I'll skip other examples. Again, no one made any hard predictions, but the clear relationship between astrological interpretation and my own life experience cannot be ignored, not by me at least. So I have looked to astrology for a greater sense of context and guidance, and it has been of valuable help.

For astrology to really work, it does require a surrender of one's bias against phenomenon that cannot be directly sensed by physical senses. It requires an acceptance of at least the possibility that there is greater intelligence at work than what our human brains can initially perceive; that the synchronicity of "as above, so below" can only exist if a universal consciousness is extant. Modern science has difficulty getting around its perceptual biases because it requires direct physical proof to stake a claim. This is of course as it should be. However, that does not mean that what science cannot falsify does not exist, such as a higher governing intelligence (note I am not referring to "God" in the religious sense). For my money, my direct experience trumps any scientific journal or academic teaching. My direct experience is also mutable. I don't claim to know anything with absolute certainty, and I hold all other sources of kno

Re:really...

[Seumas]

Erm. I don't think you really need to take even a single glance at a science book to know astrology is absurd. It's just common sense. Kind of how I don't need to read a math text book to stop and say "hey, I suspect that numerology may be bullshit!".

What's horrifying is when you realize how many people out there waste their time with it as an amusement -- or worse, how many people actually believe in this shit and live their life around it. Google something like "which zodiac sign is more likely to be OCD" and you'll see long Yahoo! Answers (the biggest waste of internet use in existence) discussions that will make you want to slit your wrists.

Re:Old signs shouldn't be affected?

[mrsquid0]

That is true, for anyone who is 2000 years old.

Re:Ignoring Science?

[E 99]

This isn't news to any astrologer. As the article says, this is a 2000-year-old story. This was a conscious decision made by the forebearers of Western astrology to use a tropical (seasonal) astrology instead of sidereal (astronomical) astrology. They knew what they were doing. The only question is why to keep calling it astrology if it has nothing to do with the stars. Meanwhile, Hindu and other Eastern astrology is sidereal, and has always been based on where the sun actually is in the constellations.

The Huffington Post

[afabbro]

Headline: "What You Need to Know About The New Zodiac Sign"

The Huffington Post is staffed by and written for idiots. No further proof is needed.

Re:This a re-org for the foreign offices only

[leuk_he]

From your article "That's because Western astrology strictly adheres to the tropical zodiac, which is fixed to seasons. "

that is a simple one. The seaon one is born is affects people. e.g. baby's get more light in the summer in their first 3 months when born in the start of the summer.

In school the child born in march are a half year older then thos born in august, but are put in the same class (at the age of 5 that is is a huge difference. ) and will affect their behaviour.

And yes there are real studies on this.

And yes, unless you are karma capped your karma can rise from this.

Re:The zodiac has changed, just like the seasons

[Sir_Lewk]

You obviously have no idea how the zodiac symbols were really decided.

Who gives a shit? It's all bullshit.

Re:Zodiac hasn't changed

[bigstrat2003]

If I vetted technical hires, stuff like this would instantly disqualify applicants. If they believed in claptrap like this, $DEITY knows what other gibberish they'd use to explain their incompetence in the future.

And if I vetted hiring decision-makers, you would be instantly disqualified for this, because you fail to understand that a person can be a complete moron in one area, while still know what they're doing in a separate area. You still have to test them on their actual merits, you can't just throw them out because of your preconceived notions.

Re:The real fraud here is

[bmo]

I'm sorry, but your last two sentences are BS. And your first sentence sounds like a lot of butthurt, honestly.

If "neutral discussion" means accepting Astrology on par with Science in a discussion, I think you have the misapprehension that all ideas have equal weight in discussions. They don't. There are good ideas with evidence behind them, and there are those that have not gathered any hard evidence in the past 3000 years. Guess which one is Astrology?

--
BMO

Your fellow Ophiuchus!

[KingSkippus]

Hello from your fellow Ophiuchus! I was a little depressed about losing the macho points associated with having the only zodiacal symbol that was armed with a weapon until I looked up what "Ophiuchus" is. The serpent bearer, represented by a guy clutching his snake. (No, that's not a euphamism; but even if it were, it'd still be a hell of a cool sign.)

According to the definitive authority on the matter (Wikipedia):

According to Roman era mythography, the figure represents the healer Asclepius, who learned the secrets of keeping death at bay after observing one serpent bringing another healing herbs. To prevent the entire human race from becoming immortal under Asclepius' care, Zeus killed him with a bolt of lightning, but later placed his image in the heavens to honor his good works.

That's the same Asclepius whose staff (with the serpents) is the modern symbol of medicine.

I'll let others argue over whether the new Zodiac is valid (well, as "valid" as the zodiac can be...). As for me, I don't mind being an Ophiuchus. Maybe we should insist that we be referred to by its old name, Serpentarius.

Re:Your fellow Ophiuchus!

[tragedy]

Actually the staff of Asclepius only has one serpent. For some reason, the US medical industry especially, uses a staff with two serpents and wings, the Caduceus. Apparently, that symbol was used by a medical publisher and became a default symbol. The Caduceus was the symbol of Hermes (although it may date back before greek culture), who was the messenger god and also god of liars, thieves and of the dead who were passing from life to the underworld. Depending on your opinion of doctors, you might think that's spot on, or you might think it's bad advertising for their profession.

Re:The real fraud here is

[ThePeices]

Western Astrology being based upon equinoxes does not change the fact that astrology, in all its forms, is still superstition. It does not have any scientific merit or physical evidence to support its claims.

We do not have to read too much about astrology before the superstition/magic element becomes obvious.

You can change the details, but fundamentally, it is still based upon superstition/magic.

Re:The real fraud here is

[Austerity Empowers]

We also dump on creationism and Intelligent Design, and can't be bothered to read on them either. Take your righteous indignation and get in line behind the animists and the homeopaths.

Changed sign

[miketee]

So, I'm a Libran now? I suppose that's OK, on the balance.

Re:Zodiac hasn't changed

[Surt]

I only claimed the evidence was better than for Santa Clause.