Here is an article i found in Encarta and i was amazed to discover that i may not actually be a Capricorn. I'm not sure how to find out what horoscope i actually am though. Anyone know how to find that out?
Q: My astronomy professor said that due to the Sun’s cyclical orbit around this arm of the Milky Way, the Earth’s perspective regarding the Sun’s apparent transit through the heavens has changed since 2,000 years ago when the “science” of astrology was formulated. As a result of this quarter-turn shift, the Sun is no longer moving through the same constellations of the zodiac as it was before, and calculations are off by one constellation. Thus, instead of being a Cancer, am I actually a Gemini?
A: Yes, it is true the “signs” you see in the newspaper are not the constellations where the Sun actually is at those times of year, because of the precession of the equinoxes. And the Sun goes through parts of 13 constellations in the course of the year.
Furthermore, the idea that there are 12 “signs of the zodiac” is completely arbitrary—other cultures had different numbers of constellations filling the same space. There is simply nothing to astrology, and I hope that readers of this reply will spend their time on the fascinating topics in the science of astronomy instead of wasting time on the pseudoscience of astrology.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Full Version: What is your true Horoscope?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Metaphysics, Psychology & Psychic Phenomena
QUOTE(Blue_Sphere @ Sep 13 2007, 07:29 PM) 
Here is an article i found in Encarta and i was amazed to discover that i may not actually be a Capricorn. I'm not sure how to find out what horoscope i actually am though. Anyone know how to find that out?
Q: My astronomy professor said that due to the Sun’s cyclical orbit around this arm of the Milky Way, the Earth’s perspective regarding the Sun’s apparent transit through the heavens has changed since 2,000 years ago when the “science” of astrology was formulated. As a result of this quarter-turn shift, the Sun is no longer moving through the same constellations of the zodiac as it was before, and calculations are off by one constellation. Thus, instead of being a Cancer, am I actually a Gemini?
A: Yes, it is true the “signs” you see in the newspaper are not the constellations where the Sun actually is at those times of year, because of the precession of the equinoxes. And the Sun goes through parts of 13 constellations in the course of the year. Furthermore, the idea that there are 12 “signs of the zodiac” is completely arbitrary—other cultures had different numbers of constellations filling the same space. There is simply nothing to astrology, and I hope that readers of this reply will spend their time on the fascinating topics in the science of astronomy instead of wasting time on the pseudoscience of astrology.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Q: My astronomy professor said that due to the Sun’s cyclical orbit around this arm of the Milky Way, the Earth’s perspective regarding the Sun’s apparent transit through the heavens has changed since 2,000 years ago when the “science” of astrology was formulated. As a result of this quarter-turn shift, the Sun is no longer moving through the same constellations of the zodiac as it was before, and calculations are off by one constellation. Thus, instead of being a Cancer, am I actually a Gemini?
A: Yes, it is true the “signs” you see in the newspaper are not the constellations where the Sun actually is at those times of year, because of the precession of the equinoxes. And the Sun goes through parts of 13 constellations in the course of the year. Furthermore, the idea that there are 12 “signs of the zodiac” is completely arbitrary—other cultures had different numbers of constellations filling the same space. There is simply nothing to astrology, and I hope that readers of this reply will spend their time on the fascinating topics in the science of astronomy instead of wasting time on the pseudoscience of astrology.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Considering the "source" it is no wonder that the astronomer in question gets his notion of what "astrology" is from the newspaper pop-culture version. That's not astrology ~ but pop-culture astrology he refers to. This is basically the same silly argument used by some astronomers who haven't a clue as to what they are talking about when it comes to serious astrology, that is, the scientific study of time, space, and the correlations to all life and events on Earth.
What is called the Zodiac, and then the constellations, are of unequal length. "The beginnings of the signs," Clauidus Ptolemy wrote, "are to be taken from the equinoctial and tropical points." Some astrologers use the tropical zodiac of signs in apparent terms, as it appears from Earth (tropical) as opposed to that which is constellational. Others use sidereal, and still other practicioners of astrology use both.
Both the tropical and sidereal coincided about the year 221 A.D., and have moved apart at the rate of one-degree every 71.5 years with a retrograde motion on the ecliptic due to the precession of the equinoxes. However, the rule for astrologers in forecasting is to first apply the zodiac as they touch upon the Earth's equinoctial and tropical points.
So, rather than readers wasting their time on listening to so-called "astronomers" pout on about the pop "astrology" from the newspaper they think is the real thing; learn the truth of the astrological sciences. To learn more about the zodiac, and constellational astrology, and their differences of techniques and tabulations of the skies, see ~ http://www.astropro.com/features/articles/...s/precessA.html
Thanks for your reply and the link Theodore.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.