Your Astrological Sign May Not Be What You Think It Is

[Mirai Doft]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html

Shocking news if you believe in horoscope shit (I don't). But I liked being leo, now I'm a stupid crab =|

[Rai]

Bah. Screw the stars. They never mattered to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, the zodiac is cemented on those original dates. That's all the majority of the world will ever go by anyway. This sounds just like the people that insisted the new millenium didn't start in 2000 because there was no year zero. Long story short, nobody cares except pedantic nerds.

[JG]

This sounds just like the people that insisted the new millenium didn't start in 2000 because there was no year zero.

From 1 to 999 does not equal 1000.  This is simple mathematics and anyone who celebrated on 1/1/2000 just can't count.  And if you want to get really specific, the new millenium should have been celebrated in mid-January 2001, since the previous millenium started in the Julian calendar.  We lost about two weeks when we converted to Gregorian. (I don't know the exact number of days difference off the top of my head.)  I bet the writer of that article didn't take this into account, which would have pushed the signs back closer to their classical dates.


And if I'm supposed to be a Capricorn now, does that mean I've become horny? 

[Rai]

The writer of that article is basing the current real dates on the actual night sky, so if you were to go out at night where there was no light pollution, you'd be seeing Saggitarius up there, as opposed to Capricorn as traditionally advertised. The difference in lost calendar days only makes a difference if you insist that it's still December or something becasue of that, in which case, good luck convincing the whole western world to go along with it. The point is, the significance of these dates are just abstract concepts only useful for categorizing other things according to the system as it's currently calibrated. Just as millions of people now classify themselves as Aries even though that constellation wouldn't show up over their heads at night for a few weeks after they were born, and more people went out and partied like it was 1999 on December 31st 1999 rather than December 31st 2000, or people go out and party at all on December 31st of any given year really, it's all just because that's the way we do it, and there's no reason to try and change it for all the good it would do.

[JG]

 

... so if you were to go out at night where there was no light pollution, you'd be seeing Saggitarius up there ...

Not for several more months.

... millions of people now classify themselves as Aries even though that constellation wouldn't show up over their heads at night for a few weeks after they were born ...

And not for about 13,000 years.


Astrology is based on when the sun is "in" a given constellation - where it would appear during the day, not what constellation is visible at night.  If the sun wasn't so unbelievably bright during the day, you could see your sign's constellation about 30 degrees off to the side.  And 2,200 years ago it would have appeared right behind the sun.  But given the extreme brightness, it is impossible to see your astrological sign in the sky during your birth month from anywhere on Earth's surface and won't be physically possible for at least the next 4,000-5,000 years, when it'll start rising very low on the horizon during your birthmonth. In fact, it'll take about 11,000 years before your sign's constellation is directly overhead at night on your birthday.

So short of looking at old photos, you can't see Sagittarius again until about late May or early June.  If you go out at night and look up you'll presently see Aries, Taurus, and Gemini high in the sky (along with the most recognizable winter constellation, Orion).  Pisces is setting and Cancer is rising. (Assuming of course, you're in the northern hemisphere; if you're in the southern your sky would be dominated by different constellations like Carina while the astrological constellations would appear lower in the sky toward the northern horizon. Orion will still be the most recognizable.)

[bfg00]

As the resident astronomer I should make an in road on this one.  Astronomers, eastern astrologers and most western astrologers (up to the point when astronomy and astrology split into seperate fields) knew about the precession of the Earth for about 2200 years now.  Any one who actually looks at the night sky and does so over a long enough baseline will notice the drift.  For whatever reason western astrologers took to using the dates established by the Babylonians rather than taking the actual dates.  Thus western astrologers have not paid attention to the actual position of the stars in quite some time, which in my mind was always odd.

Anywho, JG00 is right the sign you are in western astrology corresponds to which constellation the Sun was in when you were born. Actually the dates quoted in the article are the correct astronomical dates as of the year 2000.  You can confirm this by doing the observations yourselves (a fun little science/observing project) or you can check it out using your favorite planetarium software (I like Stellarium http://www.stellarium.org/).  You can see that in the next week we will transfer between Sagittarius (which happens to be where the center of the galaxy is) to Capricorn according to the IAU definition, which means you should see the Sun be in between those do constellations.

Note this does not constitute an endorsement on my part of astrology.  Astrology is bunk and has been proven as such.  I just find it hilarious that it has taken this long for the effect of precession on the zodiac to get as much attention as it has. Astronomers have been pointing it out for years, though I guess it was only recently that it hit the ears of a person who actual wanted to make a big deal of it.

[JG]

You can see that in the next week we will transfer between Sagittarius (which happens to be where the center of the galaxy is) to Capricorn according to the IAU definition, which means you should see the Sun be in between those do constellations.

Like I said, you can't actually see it.  But even the ancient world was smart enough to know it was happening.

[bfg00]

Exactly.  It pretty easy to figure out what Zodiacal Sign the Sun is in if you have a complete map of the night sky.  You just look at what signs you expect to be at opposition when the Sun is in them and expect them to rise when the Sun sets.  Or you can look at what signs would be adjacent.

We don't nearly give enough intellectual credit to the ancients.  They were actually knew quite a bit about how the night sky works.  I mean look at the Antikythera Mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism) or even better the Lego version of it:

It's based on math and tables generated by the Babylonians who predate its making by 500-1000 years.  The Chinese had extremely accurate measures of the night sky.  They in fact were far more observant of changes than the west was.  They actually have the most complete supernova and nova cataloge on record.

[JG]

This is the most epic Youtube video I have ever seen.  I almost want the diagrams so I can build my own.

[bfg00]

This is the most epic Youtube video I have ever seen.  I almost want the diagrams so I can build my own.

I know and that more ridiculous thing is that the original device was even smaller than that being the size of a book.