decided to put this ...here.

beam · 15th January 2011, 02:31 PM

The ancient Babylonians based zodiac signs on the constellation the sun was "in" on the day a person was born. During the ensuing millenniums, the moon's gravitational pull has made the Earth "wobble" around its axis, creating about a one-month bump in the stars' alignment. The result? "When (astrologers) say that the sun is in Pisces, it's really not in Pisces," said Parke Kunkle, a board member of the Minnesota Planetarium Society. Indeed, most horoscope readers who consider themselves Pisces are actually Aquarians. So instead of being sensitive, humane and idealistic, they actually are friendly, loyal and inventive. Or not.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/astro ... z1B7AUMjab

**ButterflyWoman** · 15th January 2011, 02:36 PM

I've known about this for years. I learned it in an astronomy class. It's part of what made me come to the conclusion that astrology was not really predictive of anything at all. *shrug*

**CFTraveler** · 15th January 2011, 09:35 PM

Since we don't base our astrology on sidereal time, but in zodiac time, I'm still a Leo. So I don't care. Or, no it's not.

**ButterflyWoman** · 16th January 2011, 07:02 AM

Zodiac time? A special time continuum where zodiac signs stay the same no matter how much the earth wobbles or the universe expands. Kewl.

**CFTraveler** · 16th January 2011, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by CaterpillarWoman

Zodiac time? A special time continuum where zodiac signs stay the same no matter how much the earth wobbles or the universe expands. Kewl.

It's not a special time continuum, it's a special (based on the earth) place continuum- the precession of the equinoxes. In the tropical zodiac, the start of Aries is fixed to one equinox, and Libra the other. That hasn't changed, so there.

**ButterflyWoman** · 17th January 2011, 01:40 AM

Well, okay then.

**Beekeeper** · 17th January 2011, 08:12 AM

This is what Johnathan Cainer says on the topic and, so, I remain a Libran.

http://www.cainer.com/features/ophiuchus/ophiuchus.html

**ButterflyWoman** · 17th January 2011, 01:50 PM

The thing I don't get is why is this suddenly getting all this attention NOW? I mean, I've known about the changes in the earth's wobble and changes in alignment between the earth and the stars and Opheucus since at least the early nineties (learned it all in an astronomy class). This has all been common knowledge for decades.

Why is it just NOW getting international media attention, I wonder?

**CFTraveler** · 17th January 2011, 05:12 PM

Something must have happened that someone wants to redirect our attention to. Or something like that. Or, like Mr. Cainer says, it's about publicity:

"To the ancient Greeks, and the Babylonians before them, there was no separation between astronomy and astrology. The two subjects were one. In studying the sky, you would automatically read symbolic meaning into it. You needed to study the sky to a high standard because you needed to make the best possible predictions. Actually, this didn't change until surprisingly recently; the latter half of the 18th century, in fact. The great names in modern astronomy, like Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus and even Newton were just as interested in mystic interpretations as in measuring planetary orbits.

These great astronomers knew perfectly well about the 'two different zodiacs'. They fully understood that you did your astrology with the mathematically equal divisions and that the constellations were for decorative purposes only. They also knew, perfectly well, that those constellations didn't match up with the equal zodiac signs. The 'drift' had begun to happen long before.

This begs a very big question. If Newton 'got it' and Galileo knew all about it, why was it such news to the Minnesota astronomers who planted the story in the papers late last week? What compelled them to declare a thirteenth sign called Ophiuchus and then issue fresh dates for the twelve zodiac signs as a result of their "research?"

Could they really be so ignorant? Or were they, perhaps, determined to stir up as much publicity for themselves as possible no matter how many unfair aspersions this might cast on traditional astrology?

The sad, sorry answer is that their agenda was entirely aggressive. The schism between astrology and astronomy has grown in the last couple of hundred years, from a skirmish to an all out battle. Although so far, all the attacks have come from one side."

**Neil Templar** · 17th January 2011, 05:34 PM

Jessica Murray talks about it here-
http://www.mothersky.com/2011/01/dr-kunkles-clunker/

apparently some Dr Kunkle (yes that's a real name) went on tv (NBC) and got a lot of people talking about it again...