Friday, January 14, 2011

Zodiac rearranged?

The internet is buzzing with the news that the zodiac has been rearranged, says K Fox Of course, the stars are the stars and the signs are the signs, like yesterday. Nothing was 'rearranged'. They are talking about the difference between sidereal and tropical astrology and every astrologer knows about the differences between the systems and about the sign of Ophiucus. I quote Wikipedia:

"The difference between sidereal and tropical astrology is in the opinion whether the system as defined by Ptolemy in the 2nd century should be fixed to the seasons, i.e. the orientation of the Earth relative to the solar system, or to the background stars, i.e. the orientation of the Earth relative to the galaxy. Tropical astrology chooses the former, sidereal astrology the latter option. Both systems coincide for times close to the historical definition of the Zodiac, i.e. Classical Antiquity"

The tropical zodiac starts with Zero Aries (see the post about Aries Point) on March 21 (spring time). Spring doesn't start on April 19 (that is where Zero Aries is in the Sidereal zodiac).

K Fox also mentions a 13th sign: Ophiuchus. It is not part of the tropical astrological zodiac now. Maybe it should? Read what Betty Matteson Rhodes thinks of Ophiuchus.

Astrology is the art  of interpreting the astrological picture of the sky at the time and place of a certain event. Astrologers are to decided what is in that picture of the sky. The contents of the picture (the chart) depend on culture and on views in time in history. And astrology is more than sunsigns. In fact, I hardly use them in my posts on this blog. In whatever system the aspects and the midpoints remain the true basics of astrology.

But apparently, the discussion is a hype on the internet today, started by an astronomer. Again. There is nothing new under the sunsigns:)...

Even the Washington Post writes about the 'new' zodiac signs...
And here is Star about it...

Also  visit:

No comments: