|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:54 pm
I will be going from a Sagittarius to a Scorpio. But I match the Sagittarius personality! Nothing like a Scorpio!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:17 am
rae-chan-sensei See also: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/ Basically, all I'm getting out of this is that you are what zodiac sign you feel you align with based on whatever system you use. I feel that I am a Scorpio, so use that system since that's the one I grew up with and that's the one that seems to be used in the West. But perhaps one of you has always been "I don't fit with my zodiac sign" and then you find out you really weren't that sign by this new system. It's all up to you who you identify with. But, of course, I also still firmly believe that Pluto is a planet because science is crazy, and I believe that you can make news say whatever you want it to say whether it's right or wrong, so don't take my word for things. whee Pluto Thing: What you may or may not be aware of is that There are 5 moons in our solar system bigger then Pluto, including Earth's moon. Pluto also isn't perfectly rounded and over all is too small to have cleared all of the asteroids and other space matter around it. For all these reasons it was demoted to a Dwarf Planet status. Pluto is the second largest Dwarf Planet, second to Eris. Hopefully you understand things better now! heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:24 am
Mama Orca Lotus There is some debate among astronomers as well taht only those born on and from 2009 have the zodiac change, due to the fact that ophiuchus has just come into alignment with the earth. (except for the fact that stars can't move, so honestly I dont' see how this is scientifically correct). Other astronomers believe that everyone's zodiacs have changed due to ophiuchus has been there, and the planet has just been off tilt and making everyone think one thing or another. Honestly, its not the astrology I'm interested in, I'm interested in the astronomy of all of this. In terms of astronomy, your birth stars have changed, and that can't be fixed. I was born in the constellation Virgo, and whatever you were born in you can't change. In terms of astrology, your sign is based upon what you want to believe. I, personally, don't base myself off of my sign, cause if you think about it, you are a mix of several different signs. Like me, I am a Libra, but also a bit of virgo, capricorn, and Taurus the most. I'm just a science nerd, so I'm completely interested in what they have to say. Well yes and no, Stars move around in space very quickly (our galaxy, for example, is in constant motion) but they don't orbit around anything (as far as we know). However, the Earth moves much more (from a visual stand point) and that's how we see things so differently at certain times a year. The Earth is rotating around the sun and our heavens change according to that. The zodiac and horoscopes have been wrong for years, they're simply finally getting an update. This isn't new to science this is simply new to the internet. Horoscopes and the zodiac are simply getting an update in accordance to how our solar system works. Hopefully that clears things up, please just ask if you have any more questions. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:26 am
Pale Melodies I agree with Mama. You are bound to that sign the day you are born. Even tho I always will consider me being a Leo, Cancer fits me more then my Leo sign.. Perhaps adopt 2 zodiac signs? The stars you were born under haven't changed, horoscopes have been incorrect for a very long time, this current list has the correct stars you were born under, it's simply a late update. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:18 am
dragon_1212xp rae-chan-sensei See also: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/ Basically, all I'm getting out of this is that you are what zodiac sign you feel you align with based on whatever system you use. I feel that I am a Scorpio, so use that system since that's the one I grew up with and that's the one that seems to be used in the West. But perhaps one of you has always been "I don't fit with my zodiac sign" and then you find out you really weren't that sign by this new system. It's all up to you who you identify with. But, of course, I also still firmly believe that Pluto is a planet because science is crazy, and I believe that you can make news say whatever you want it to say whether it's right or wrong, so don't take my word for things. whee Pluto Thing: What you may or may not be aware of is that There are 5 moons in our solar system bigger then Pluto, including Earth's moon. Pluto also isn't perfectly rounded and over all is too small to have cleared all of the asteroids and other space matter around it. For all these reasons it was demoted to a Dwarf Planet status. Pluto is the second largest Dwarf Planet, second to Eris. Hopefully you understand things better now! heart It's not that I misunderstand the science. I simply grew up with Pluto being a planet, so when I sing the planet song I still include it. Just like when I sing the 50 states in alphabetical order, there will always be only 50 for me no matter what happens in the future. I know the science, but I do this for fun for me. No need to be condescending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:52 am
dragon_1212xp Pluto is the second largest Dwarf Planet, second to Eris.
Wait... Where did Eris come from? eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:18 pm
Eris is what sparked the whole "Pluto" debate. Eris was discovered in 2005, and it was found to be larger then (then Planet) Pluto. A whole debate sparked demanding a solid definition of the planets. The definition came to be a celestial object with enough self gravity to make itself perfectly round and has cleared it's area of surrounding matter other then moons. Pluto and Eris did not fit this definition and so the new class of Dwarf Planet was created in 2006 (by the IAU assembly). Currently there are MANY candidates for the "Dwarf Planet" classification but as of right now there are 5. Ceres (located between Mars and Jupiter) and Eris, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake (all located after Neptune).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:29 pm
Oh, okay. >.< That's right, I forgot Pluto had a twin sister.
Lol, someone should write that into their fanfic. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:13 pm
Because everyone keeps insisting that this is new: Quote: The idea of introducing Ophiuchus as a sign of the zodiac dates to the 1970s and was popularized in Japanese sidereal astrology from the late 1990s by Walter Berg's The 13 Signs of the Zodiac.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:49 pm
Quote: Taking the current constellation boundaries as defined in 1930 by the International Astronomical Union, the ecliptic itself passes through an additional thirteenth constellation, Ophiuchus, situated between Scorpius and Sagittarius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:31 am
August 2nd, 2008 so I'm a Cancer. Or a Leo. Or a Rat. My mother never aligned me to signs. So maybe it's more of the Cancer AND Leo AND Rat. *shrugs*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Hector K Beryl August 2nd, 2008 so I'm a Cancer. Or a Leo. Or a Rat. My mother never aligned me to signs. So maybe it's more of the Cancer AND Leo AND Rat. *shrugs* You're a muffin. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:59 pm
Whatever. Astrology always has been and always will be baloney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:36 am
End of this article http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/01/13/horoscope_change_zodiac/index.htmlUPDATE: It's all fake! Sort of. Professional astrology and author Matthew Currie contacted Salon to point out the fact that this kind of story is nothing new. Apparently, the Minnesota Planetarium Society is engaging in what Currie quickly called a "straw man argument" constructed to debunk the field of astrology. Currie makes this basic distinction. Astrology is NOT astronomy and vice versa. The two fields diverged a long time ago and today, the very term "Zodiac" is used differently within each discipline. Currie explains the two meanings of the Zodiac: The Zodiac, the twelve divisions of the sky made up of the horoscope signs, and the Zodiac, the band of constellations in the sky, are two different things. This is how a lot of skeptics of astrolgoy trick people to convince themselves and others that there's nothing to astrology. But in reality, we're talking about two different things. So it might be safe to assume that the ASTRONOMERS in Minnesota recalibrated the Zodiac made up of the constellations while the ASTOLOGERS actually all agree on the twelve divisions. Are you as relieved as I am?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
