New Zodiac?

[Aakosir]

Rena Zefie

Sanguina Cruenta

Rena Zefie

I believe that is too only affect people who are born during and after this year, 2011. Ive heard gossips we have moved into another galaxy or something creating the new zodiac. I will stand by and believe i am my zodiac because i have been all my life and it suites me very well.

Moved into another galaxy? What? Like, literally?

....what are these people smoking?!

lol. They said the position of the earth changed, we moved or something, and a new zodiac was added.

The earth only tilted a few degrees. It didn't move anywhere.  

[Aakosir]

Viz_22

Esiris

Aakosir

I believe it is over 2000.

Is that like being over 9000 in terms of astrology?

Lulz, nice one. No, but it's been around just as long as the other signs. So, 1800 isn't right and I honestly thought it was more like 3000.... But eh, doesn't really matter I guess...

The entire Western zodiac is over 2000 years old. They originally had the extra sign, but removed it because it didn't fit in to the year well.  

[The Falling Leaf]

I think that it's total BS. Luckily it only took effect to those born in 2009 to present. I am so not a Taurus. I'm completely a Gemini at heart. ^.^  

[Esiris]

Aakosir

The earth only tilted a few degrees. It didn't move anywhere.

They could be talking about the procession of the equinox.

Aakosir

The entire Western zodiac is over 2000 years old. They originally had the extra sign, but removed it because it didn't fit in to the year well.

Do you have any more information on the history of the different established signs and old writings about that stuff?  

[Aakosir]

Esiris

Aakosir

The earth only tilted a few degrees. It didn't move anywhere.

They could be talking about the procession of the equinox.

Aakosir

The entire Western zodiac is over 2000 years old. They originally had the extra sign, but removed it because it didn't fit in to the year well.

Do you have any more information on the history of the different established signs and old writings about that stuff?

Here's three that all have very similar information.

1

2

3

Although they do not mention the "new" sign.

Here is something from my college's database

Quote:

• The zodiac is the band of constellations the Sun appears to pass in front of during the year, as the Earth orbits the Sun. It lies along the ecliptic.

• The ecliptic is the plane (level) of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The Moon and all planets but Pluto lie in the same plane.

• The Ancient Greeks divided the zodiac into 12 parts, named after the constellation they saw in each part. These are the signs of the zodiac.

• The 12 constellations of the zodiac are Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces.

• Astrologers believe that the movements of planets and stars in the Zodiac have an effect on people's lives, but there is no physical evidence whatsoever.

• For astrologers all the constellations of the zodiac are equal in size. The ones used by astronomers are not.

• The Earth has tilted slightly since ancient times and the constellations no longer correspond to the zodiac.

• The orbits of the moon and all the planets (except Pluto) lie within the zodiac.

• The dates that the Sun seems to pass in front of each constellation no longer match the dates astrologers use.

 

[oOGarrettOo]

I really don't think the "new sign" is going to affect anyone who doesn't follow that particular zodiac procession. There's no "Oh, you have to do it because you were born after 2009." That's just silly and unrealistic.

And honestly, I don't see someone's zodiac affecting how anyone lives other than to be used as a cheesy pick-up line in a bar.  

[Esiris]

Aakosir

Here's three that all have very similar information.

1

2

3

Although they do not mention the "new" sign.

Some of those sources contradict each other- and because none of them even mention the 13th sign, it's hard to tell if it's included in their conclusions.

I think I'd have an easier time sorting through them if they had footnotes. sweatdrop

Quote:

Here is something from my college's database

This part seems interesting- I'm not an expert, but I think there are some astronomical errors- even if they are small ones. whee

I'm not sure the talk about the elliptic is true- because some planets have nodes. I don't know much about astrology or astronomy- but I thought a node was what happens when a planet dips above or below the elliptic.

Quote:

For astrologers all the constellations of the zodiac are equal in size. The ones used by astronomers are not.

The Earth has tilted slightly since ancient times and the constellations no longer correspond to the zodiac.

The dates that the Sun seems to pass in front of each constellation no longer match the dates astrologers use.

Aren't there some kinds of astrology that go by the physical stars instead of the tropical astrology that the articles mention? I think I saw something about this in a different guild.  

[blindfaith^_^]

I'm a Taurus either way, so I don't care pretty much at all. I'd be interested to see if astrologers alter their horoscope predictions based on the "new horoscopes". It's something worth watching for fun anyhow.  

[Aakosir]

Esiris

Aakosir

Here's three that all have very similar information.

1

2

3

Although they do not mention the "new" sign.

Some of those sources contradict each other- and because none of them even mention the 13th sign, it's hard to tell if it's included in their conclusions.

I think I'd have an easier time sorting through them if they had footnotes. sweatdrop

Quote:

Here is something from my college's database

This part seems interesting- I'm not an expert, but I think there are some astronomical errors- even if they are small ones. whee

I'm not sure the talk about the elliptic is true- because some planets have nodes. I don't know much about astrology or astronomy- but I thought a node was what happens when a planet dips above or below the elliptic.

Quote:

For astrologers all the constellations of the zodiac are equal in size. The ones used by astronomers are not.

The Earth has tilted slightly since ancient times and the constellations no longer correspond to the zodiac.

The dates that the Sun seems to pass in front of each constellation no longer match the dates astrologers use.

Aren't there some kinds of astrology that go by the physical stars instead of the tropical astrology that the articles mention? I think I saw something about this in a different guild.

But they all have the same information about the Western zodiac being created by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Mesopotamians.

I'm not sure what nodes are, but I'm sure I can find something. And these articles have to go through many professors before they are even allowed to be published.

Yea, but that's not Western. That has some funky name and isn't well known. I wish I could find it again. It's completely different than Eastern and Western.  

[Esiris]

Aakosir

But they all have the same information about the Western zodiac being created by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Mesopotamians.

confused One of them talked about the Egyptians.

I'd feel more comfortable if the articles had footnotes- that way we could see if this is someone rehashing good information from good sources or if it's bad history that's popular.

Aakosir

I'm not sure what nodes are, but I'm sure I can find something. And these articles have to go through many professors before they are even allowed to be published.

I've seen some articles on Wicca published by similar sources that claim Wicca is ancient. sweatdrop

Aakosir

Yea, but that's not Western. That has some funky name and isn't well known. I wish I could find it again. It's completely different than Eastern and Western.

If it's not Eastern or Western- where did it come from?  

[Aakosir]

Esiris

Aakosir

But they all have the same information about the Western zodiac being created by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Mesopotamians.

confused One of them talked about the Egyptians.

I'd feel more comfortable if the articles had footnotes- that way we could see if this is someone rehashing good information from good sources or if it's bad history that's popular.

Aakosir

I'm not sure what nodes are, but I'm sure I can find something. And these articles have to go through many professors before they are even allowed to be published.

I've seen some articles on Wicca published by similar sources that claim Wicca is ancient. sweatdrop

Aakosir

Yea, but that's not Western. That has some funky name and isn't well known. I wish I could find it again. It's completely different than Eastern and Western.

If it's not Eastern or Western- where did it come from?

It's hard to find good articles with footnotes.

I'm sure you do know that Wicca isn't ancient, but actually pretty recent and from Gardner. The influences are old, but Wicca isn't. I guess people just group it together *shrugs*

I'm not sure, exactly. I wish I could find that article too. It had a brief explanation on it and what it was called.  

[Esiris]

Aakosir

It's hard to find good articles with footnotes.

I'm sure you do know that Wicca isn't ancient, but actually pretty recent and from Gardner. The influences are old, but Wicca isn't. I guess people just group it together *shrugs*

I'm not sure, exactly. I wish I could find that article too. It had a brief explanation on it and what it was called.

Finding good reasources can be a real pain. One of the things being here has taught me is that not all sources are created equal. xp

There are still people who teach that Wicca is an ancient religion- even at the college level.  

[Aakosir]

Esiris

Aakosir

It's hard to find good articles with footnotes.

I'm sure you do know that Wicca isn't ancient, but actually pretty recent and from Gardner. The influences are old, but Wicca isn't. I guess people just group it together *shrugs*

I'm not sure, exactly. I wish I could find that article too. It had a brief explanation on it and what it was called.

Finding good reasources can be a real pain. One of the things being here has taught me is that not all sources are created equal. xp

There are still people who teach that Wicca is an ancient religion- even at the college level.

That's why I like to cross reference. So that way I have some information that is common.

I know there are a lot of people who are very mislead about Wicca. I was too until I joined a guild. Then I did some research of my own. But those other people are fluffs or trolls and think they know it all rolleyes I have seen soo many arguments that are between a high member and knowledgeable of a guild versus someone who can't even spell Wicca or private correctly...  

[Esiris]

Aakosir

That's why I like to cross reference. So that way I have some information that is common.

I know there are a lot of people who are very mislead about Wicca. I was too until I joined a guild. Then I did some research of my own. But those other people are fluffs or trolls and think they know it all rolleyes I have seen soo many arguments that are between a high member and knowledgeable of a guild versus someone who can't even spell Wicca or private correctly...

I try and be careful when it comes to relying on common knowledge. sweatdrop  

[Aakosir]

Esiris

Aakosir

That's why I like to cross reference. So that way I have some information that is common.

I know there are a lot of people who are very mislead about Wicca. I was too until I joined a guild. Then I did some research of my own. But those other people are fluffs or trolls and think they know it all rolleyes I have seen soo many arguments that are between a high member and knowledgeable of a guild versus someone who can't even spell Wicca or private correctly...

I try and be careful when it comes to relying on common knowledge. sweatdrop

Yea. I was originally looking in my culture book, but surprisingly there is nothing in there about the zodiac. It's art and its culture, bascially.