New Zodiac

[herbal_legends]

Is there a thread about this yet?

What the donkey is going on here? There's a new Zodiac sign.....and most of us are different Zodiacs now! :hairred:


Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18- May 13
Taurus: May 13- June 21
Gemini: June 21- July 20
Cancer: July 20- Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10- Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16- Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30- Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23- Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29- Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17- Jan. 20

[Gaudior]

Where did you get that list?

At any rate, it means very little to me as I am into sidereal astrology (Vedic) and not tropical, so my sign, whatever it was (it was cancer) or is now, is going to be different anyway :p

Interesting link, though:

http://io9.com/5733004/your-zodiac-sign-may-have-changed-this-week

The serpent bearer...I remember him from a constellation book. He holds Serpens the Serpent.

[HetHert]

It would make me an Ophiuchun. I keep trying to research what the characteristics are but they seem to be a little hodge podge. Some I can identify with and others not so much.

[7 of Swords]

I signed on with the intention of starting a post about this, so glad there is already one. My questions are as follows: I have read from other sources that there should actually be two new signs instead of just one and if anyone else has heard this? Also are there any astrologers out there who have adopted this new system? (I'm not sure how long this has been floating around.)

Here are some links:
Basically just an announcement with the new date system
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/new-zodiac-sign-dates-oph_n_808567.html#s223863&title=kristin_leigh

And this link refers to the idea of having more then 1 new sign:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943321,00.html

and PS how do we pronounce this new sign?

[Faelon_Moon_Hawk]

Is there a thread about this yet?

What the donkey is going on here? There's a new Zodiac sign.....and most of us are different Zodiacs now! :hairred:


Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18- May 13
Taurus: May 13- June 21
Gemini: June 21- July 20
Cancer: July 20- Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10- Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16- Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30- Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23- Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29- Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17- Jan. 20

I just saw this a friend of mine on fb just posted a link to this article about it http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6217292/a_change_in_the_zodiac_ophiuchus_the.html?cat=9

So I came here looking to see what the folks here thought of it. Astrology has never really been my thing...but I don't want to be a capricorn...i was happy being an aquarius lol.

[EavanStar]

Wait? What? Why did they change? Im not affected but by a very narrow margin. Im proud of my Taurus-ity. (i made up a word! lol)

ETA: I see the article now. I dont like this. As a taurus, I dislike change. Lol. :p

ETA 2: How is the timeframe for Scorpios only 7 days long? I dont get it.

[Avanti]

Wouldn't that only apply to people born now? We are the signs we were born under before the earth moved around and a new sign appeared if that even is the case .

[sparrowspirit]

This entire thing is false.

the zodiac signs are based on tropical sidereal charts which follow the seasons.

the zodiac is in no way abstracted from the moon or the stars, and even while the "zodiac" and itself were based on constellations.... this information doesn't hold true.

it's just scientists trying to come up with something new to disprove or distort.

heh.

I'm still an Aries. not a Pisces. :thumbsup:

[FaeDragon]

I'm still an Aries. not a Pisces. :thumbsup:

Ya, what they said! ^^^

[LifeOnMars]

This entire thing is false.

the zodiac signs are based on tropical sidereal charts which follow the seasons.

the zodiac is in no way abstracted from the moon or the stars, and even while the "zodiac" and itself were based on constellations.... this information doesn't hold true.

it's just scientists trying to come up with something new to disprove or distort.

heh.

I'm still an Aries. not a Pisces. :thumbsup:


Thank you, thank you, thank you, oh my Gods thank you. I've been telling people this all day long. People don't seem to realize that the Tropical Zodiac isn't based off of the constellations but off of the seasons. It's driving me crazy.



I have read from other sources that there should actually be two new signs instead of just one and if anyone else has heard this?

Could you perhaps be talking about Cetus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetus

[HecticEclectic]

...but I don't want to be a capricorn...i was happy being an aquarius lol.[/quote]

I second this! We eccentric Aquarians won't appreciate being labeled down-to-earth Caps! :hyper:

[7 of Swords]

Could you perhaps be talking about Cetus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetus

Yes, that's the one mentioned in that second link on my post.

I follow astrology and read up on it, but I am no astrologer. I have only the most vague notions about how it all works and comes together. The whole idea of the earth drifting out of the old "influences" is just a notion that I have heard brought up here and elsewhere and find it interesting. New signs or not I will leave the astrology up to the proper astrologers.

[Neurotic Daffy kid]

No I don't want to be a fish:wah::wah::wah:

[U-we-tsi-a-ge-ya]

Wouldn't that only apply to people born now? We are the signs we were born under before the earth moved around and a new sign appeared if that even is the case .

I agree,Besides,I'm a proud Sagittarius and quite frankly,despite there being a new Zodiac sign,I plan to stay one.So to those astrologists who think they can change my sign,I say :razz:

[Micheál]

The "new" sign isn't new at all actually, it's something very old. This is from a personal friend of mine's facebook, Bill Duvendack, a professional Astrologer amongst other things in my native St. Louis,

"Hello,
Since I have had several people bring this to my attention, I felt it wise to share a few things to clarify current news stories. My first introduction to this being in the news was in the form of a 'Google Alerts' that I receive daily that details astrological curiosities around the web, and in this alert was a headline of a piece that Fox News did, covering astrological signs and their accuracy. This was then picked up locally by KSDK.

Now that the brief but important back story is addressed, let's move onto actually discussing what is going on!

Currently there are 12 signs used in the zodiac for astrology. That has not always been the case. Astrology as a subject has been around for thousands of years, and agriculture is the only science that is older. This makes sense if you think about it, as people have gazed into the sky as much as they've focused on the physical earth herself.

Because of the age of astrology, it has undergone many, many changes over the aeons, which puts it in a unique position as far as the soft sciences are concerned. No other science can lay claim to this, and because of this, things are seen on a much longer time continuum.

In days long past, there were 13 signs in the zodiac, and this is only true if we consider the most recent codified zodiac. It isn't clear when the 13th sign was dropped from common use in astrology, but suffice to say that by the time of the Middle Ages, twelve signs were already commonly in use. Theories abound as to why it was removed as well. Some speculate that is was removed because of western Europeans' fear of the number 13, also called 'triskaidekaphobia'. Others speculate that it was dropped due to the rise of patriarchy rulership over matriarchal rulership. Whatever the reason is, the 13th sign was removed at some point in the now distant past from common use in astrology.

The name of that 13th sign is Ophiuchus. It is also alternatively known as Serpentarius. Its placement was between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Some traits that are associated with it are regeneration and the idea of a 'snake holder'. Those that are familiar with metaphysical and native symbolism can understand this on a much deeper level. One other fact to note about it is that it was the sign that the Sun took the least amount of time to travel through over the course of the year. So, at some point in the past, it was absorbed into Scorpio. A theory that is out there is that when it was absorbed into Scorpio, the correspondence of the Phoenix came onto the scene as well, as the Phoenix was not an original animal associated with Scorpio, but rather was added later.

And now to address this 'you're not your sign' fear seeds that are out there, that I have seen recently. This is actually hinting at something bigger and more profound that is occurring outside the circles of time. What is being addressed in a sideways fashion is the effect known as the 'Procession of the Equinoxes'.

The Earth is not round. There. I said it, and am proud of saying it. As a matter of fact, the Earth is more like a spinning top in space that bulges out at the middle where the equator is located. It has a wobble to its orbit, as well as a 23.5 degree tilt on its axis. So as the Earth orbits around the Sun, it wobbles on its axis. This wobble eventually adds up. As a matter of fact, it takes approximately 26,000 years for the Earth to go full, with regards to completing this cycle. This 26,000 year cycle is known as the 'Great Year'. What this means is that, in effect, it takes that long for things to come full circle. On a smaller scale, this is witnessed in the fact that each astrological sign takes approximately 2,000 for the Sun to travel through. Basically, the Sun goes through 1 degree of the Great Year approximately every 72 years. I share all of this here because it reveals something that modern science only has limited capabilities to address. It is true that now, due to the procession of the equinoxes, some of the signs are adjusted, regarding the Sun traveling through them.

However, what is not mentioned, but just as important, is the fact that over this 26,000 year cycle, things come full circle and correct themselves, bringing everything into harmony. So let's address this metaphysically to understand the true impact that I am highlighting. Metaphysically, there are a few different things that are going on. First of all, a zodiacal sign is a patterning of energy that is occurring on the astral plane as well as the physical manifestation here on planet Earth. When you have a system that is thousands of years old, you also have millions, if not billions, of people that have put energy into that subject as well. This is more easily understood if one is to think about the fact that older gods can still be worked with effectively because of the strength of the energy poured into them over time, and due to large quantities of people working with them. In Theosophy, this is called a 'thought form'. In the western esoteric tradition, this is called an 'egregore'. I clarify all of this here because each zodiacal sign has this same effect. In other words, when the soul comes into the womb for this lifetime, before it becomes physical, this patterning and impacting of energy occurs on the astral plane. Whether the Sun is actually, physically in the sign that is the patterning of energy is secondary to the fact that the soul is coming onto the physical plane to learn lessons that are associated with a particular zodiacal sign. The physical Sun moves through the 'physical' signs, but the patterning of energy is occurring on the finer planes before physical manifestation.

And this is the final point I would like everyone to ponder: Let's say that you have gone through your whole life believing you are a Gemini, and now you learn that, due to the procession of the equinoxes, you would actually be a different sign. My response to that is: "So what?" From a metaphysical perspective, your soul came down here in physical form to learn lessons associated with developing Gemini energy for its own development. So the question becomes: Where is your attention? On advancing your soul's agenda? Or getting caught up in the spirit of the age, where the Sun and Earth are moving differently due to a cycle that is greater than almost any other facet of science can understand, let alone explain? Quite simply, modern science has very few resources to study things on a 26,000 year cycle. And astrology has the ability to work with this cycle more effectively than almost any other science.

If one were to want to work with where the Sun currently is regarding the procession of the equinoxes, as well as the classical zodiac, I do have a suggestion to consider: Why not work with both? For example, whatever the modern sign may be could best be understood as the way your zodiacal sign is manifesting for you during this physical incarnation.

The procession of the equinoxes does not invalidate astrology, but rather helps to reestablish it as one of the larger sciences out there; a science that studies things in thousands of years cycles. A science that is timeless, and a science that is adaptive, yet maintains its core. "

[Micheál]

You can check him out here as well http://www.kplr11.com/news/kplr-your-zodiac-sign-may-be-differ-01132011,0,3476871.story

[~Runa~]

I thought the Zodiac was based on stars and the constellations or houses, not the earth signs with the stars, or is it both? I'm confused about why the tilt of the earth's polar field would change the Zodiac since it's the same.

[Sharizzy]

Saggittarius? I don't want to be a Saggittarius! I was so happy being Capricorn/Aquarius!

[Gandramu]

Best evidence I can find is personal. I being born on the cusp of Pisces and aries have severe traits of both. No way am I souly Pisces!

[Cloaked Raven]

According to the list, I'm still a Leo but not a Leo-Virgo Cusp.... I LIKE being born on the Leo-Virgo cusp... And my husband would be a Virgo born on the cusp between Leo and Virgo instead of Virgo and Libra...

That list stinks!!! :razz:

[Gaudior]

It's Perez Hilton, but nevertheless, it seems as if it was a big fuss over nothing

http://perezhilton.com/2011-01-14-dont-panic-because-your-zodiac-sign-is-the-same-as-its-always-been/?feat=yes

[Simply Iris]

I don't believe a word of it. I'm still a cancer/Gemini cusp as far as I'm concerned. Besides, even if it were true, it's only your sun sign unless they've gone and changed that, too.

[Know Your Rights]

A) If it's true, I don't think it applies to those born before 2011, therefore, all of us would continue to be the sign we always applied to ourselves.
B) I am NOT going to be a Virgo, darnit! I like being a Libra, thank you very much.

[Kcheez]

Once a pisces, always a pisces, I say. I refuse to be an aquarius.

[Sequoia]

As has already been said,

Your sign hasn't changed.

Tropical Zodiac. Not changed.

Panic/bitching about changes can cease now. :heartthro

[dandalion]

Is there a thread about this yet?

What the donkey is going on here? There's a new Zodiac sign.....and most of us are different Zodiacs now! :hairred:


Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18- May 13
Taurus: May 13- June 21
Gemini: June 21- July 20
Cancer: July 20- Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10- Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16- Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30- Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23- Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29- Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17- Jan. 20

Well... I barely made it to my sign... at least I am still a Virgo

[Know Your Rights]

Sequoia is right, we're making a big to do about nothing. The zodiac hasn't even changed.

[blackfire1985]

I signed on with the intention of starting a post about this, so glad there is already one. My questions are as follows: I have read from other sources that there should actually be two new signs instead of just one and if anyone else has heard this? Also are there any astrologers out there who have adopted this new system? (I'm not sure how long this has been floating around.)

Here are some links:
Basically just an announcement with the new date system
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/new-zodiac-sign-dates-oph_n_808567.html#s223863&title=kristin_leigh

And this link refers to the idea of having more then 1 new sign:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943321,00.html

and PS how do we pronounce this new sign?

"Ophiuchus has been around a long time, and the sun has been going through Ophiuchus for thousands of years."said Minneapolis Community and Technical College instructor Parke Kunkle so its not new just hasnt been used in most zodiacs

[7 of Swords]

If nothing else it has been interesting to see just how strongly people feel about the zodiac and astrology in general. Of course there are varying degrees about how much stock people hold in such practices. But I found it very enlightening to watch how many people (including myself initially) were up in arms, especially those friends of mine who are not pagan whatsoever, and those who follow more "mainstream" paths.

[NeoNomad]

Once a pisces, always a pisces, I say. I refuse to be an aquarius.

Right on. I have to agree. For better or worse... lol

[Micheál]

Aye, just to give an idea about how old Ophiuchus is, the Babylonians had a figure on an agrarian boundary stone with a human upper body, and the lower body that of a scorpion, obviously converging Ophiuchus, and Scorpio. There were four of these figures, known to us as the four kerubic figures(one might be familiar with if possessing Crowley's Thoth Tarot deck), but for the Babylonians a bull representing Taurus, the lion for Leo, and an eagle for the constellation Aquila.

[Agaliha]

As has already been said,

Your sign hasn't changed.

Tropical Zodiac. Not changed.

Panic/bitching about changes can cease now. :heartthro

Yeah, I found this explanation:

Here's what's behind that star sign switch.
Astrology follows two main systems: the Eastern Vedic astrology philosophy and the Western zodiac system that we read about every day in the Daily News.
About 3,000 years ago, when astrology began, the 12 star signs were aligned to the different periods of the year, and both systems had the same starting point for each of the signs.
Western astrology is based on our relationship to the Sun. It is calculated on the position of the Sun's rays to the tropics, and the signs are fixed to the seasons.
The zodiac starts in the sign of Aries at the beginning of spring, or the vernal equinox - at the end of March in the Northern Hemisphere - when the Sun crosses directly over the Earth's equator.
For those who follow the Western system, your star sign stays the same and has all the same irresistible and irritating traits.
Eastern astrology, on the other hand, is based on our relationship to the stars. It is calculated based on the position of the stars, and over a period of time, the Earth has moved enough to allow another constellation to feature in the mix.
This adds an additional sign, called Ophiuchus, which makes 13 signs in total - and for those who follow this system, it changes the dates of the remaining 12 signs.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2011/01/16/2011-01-16_oh_my_stars_phew_astrology_worries_for_naught_here.html



I don't give a crap either way, I never held any stock in astrology. Though in the past I tried to read my birth chart and understand it. I'm nothing like a Libra (oh, the social butterfly, the charmer, etc -- totally not). And I was never one to pay attention to horoscopes, they're all general anyway. I think it's funny how people are flipping out over this though. Heh.

[SilentDreams]

I've been away from MW for a while but found myself racing back here in light of this news!

When I first read about this whole thing I figured it was rather unfounded. But articles started springing up everywhere about this sudden change. But I *knew* there was no way I was suddenly not a Scorpio, it didn't feel right at all. So of course it was off to trusty MW to get some much needed clarification.

Thanks to all who've posted various resources explaining away the misconceptions people are having about the changes going on. Luckily I follow the Western branch of things and can feel comfortable in my sign, knowing it's still MY sign. :thumbsup:

[sunnydawn]

How long has this change been in due for? Could it only apply to those who have been born in recent years?
I will always consider myself to be a creative and artistic Aquarius.

[LifeOnMars]

How long has this change been in due for? Could it only apply to those who have been born in recent years?
I will always consider myself to be a creative and artistic Aquarius.

No. It takes the earth somewhere over 2000 years to change from one sign to the next. I could be wrong, but I don't know if anyone knows for sure when you go from one sign to the next since there's no definite dividing line, but I have a feeling that were this relevant our signs would have changed a long time ago. I got this little chart thingy off of wiki (yes, I am being lazy) showing when one sign changed to the next. I doubt the numbers are 100 percent accurate (again, what do I know?) but it should give you an idea of how long it takes. It won't let me copy + paste, so it says:

Constellation / Year Entering / Year Exiting

Taurus / 4500 BC / 2000 BC
Aries / 2000 BC / 100 BC
Pisces / 100 BC / 2700 AD

Here's the whole article in case you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

Either way, like others have said, there's no relevance to this "change" since the signs are tied to the seasons and not the constellations.

[Greenwolf]

*snort* No way am I even close to being Pisces. My daughter is a Pisces I am an Aries. My fire sign, my element, who I am as a person... I am very Aries. Always have been always will be. Anyone with first hand experience with a classical Aries knows we are so not Pisces! Not even a little ...not even on the cusp! :thumbsup:

[shebear]

I'm originally an Aries; now I'm a Pisces. I accept both of them as my signs. I noticed a very strange thing. When I was younger, I had more qualities of an Aries. Now that I'm getting older, I'm developing more qualities of a Pisces.

[Setkheni-itw]

I'll just repeat that nothing in astrology has changed... the system we use predominantly in the West is primarily based on the seasons and not literal constellations, and serious astrologers know that. This was just a shot at some astronomer trying to debunk astrology, which he can't really do because astrology is a belief system and not a science (therefore it really isn't meant to be proved or debunked, it just is what it is).

In the tropical system I'm a Pisces and in the sidereal I'm an Aquarius. Personally I prefer the sidereal and think Aquarius suits me better. But that's a personal preference, if you like the "old" (in other words, tropical) signs better, use those. Don't let some snotty researcher tell you different.

[Somnious]

I feel pretty silly getting a little bent out of shape about my sign possibly being changed. I am a Gemini! It fits me better than any of the other signs! With that being said, it's good to know that nothing actually changed. :weirdsmil

[ElementalExtacsy]

My basic understanding from all the posts and an internet based refresher in geo/ astrophysics, astronomy, and astrology is that the 13 zodiacal signs arise from the point of reference. There are several equations available to calculate tilt and various other aspects of our constantly changing frame of reference, but I haven't crunched the numbers (nor have I been fortunate enough to find someone who already has and spotcheck their equations and conclusions ;-p ).

Debunking or confirming the implementation of a new sign would require more research it seems than most (myself partially included) in our "information-now" society are willing to perform without sufficient motivation (usually monetary). Regardless of your zodiacal belief system, a revolving and changing frame of reference will ultimately change the outcome of the equation (no matter how slowly it changes). I think it's unfortunate there's so much apparent hostility between astrologers and astronomers, I think the two camps have plenty to teach and learn from each other.

The Eastern (Vedic) system is more dynamic (subject to change) because its frame of reference is astronomical (Literally, lol, and its frame of reference is bigger). The season based Western system fluctuates as well, but the frame of reference is significantly smaller.

Macrocosmic vs Microcosmic is a debate all its own.

I don't think the decision to incorporate a 13th or even 14th zodiacal sign into either system is one that will be made quickly or lightly. The "new" alignment would put me (a cusp Taurus/ Aries) firmly into Aries with some of the permutations of the 2011 breakdown that I've seen posted. Largely, I've found that the daily breakdowns and the astrologic readings I've received are meant as tools for understanding yourself and your environment a little better.

Study of my natal chart has allowed me to explore aspects of my psyche that were mysterious and strange to me. As an eclectic occultist, I don't wholly subscribe to one science or belief system, only the parts of them that ring true to me personally. I would like to discuss these topics further with anyone who's interested and/ or knowledgeable in their chosen field(s).


Thank You,

EE