You're not who you think you are.

Hi everyone, this is my first thread so bear with me please


My name is HerMisfits and today I will talk about star signs!

I'm sure a large percentage of you know your star signs, and many even probably follow their sign or feel they closely resemble its personality description. Some of you also probably read your horoscopes daily!

Recently I had my co worker - an Aquarius read out her personality description, stating how it matched her perfectly! From the untidy room - to the obsession with fixing things.

I pointed out to her , you know, the zodiac was put together so long ago, you're probably not an Aquarius.

''Uhh January 26.. I'm sure I know my sign.. ''

And she would be right, if we went back 2500 years.

Even though the suns path crosses the sky , it doesn't do so in the same manner it would have at the time the Zodiac was established.

For example were now one would be determined an Aquarius, if you look at the suns path, you will find the suns path is still in the constellation of Capricorn. Therefor some one born between January 21 and February 14 would in fact then be a Capricorn. And an Aquarius would then be February 15 - March 14.

Here's a list to find your true sign -


Aries - April 15 - May 15

Taurus - May 16 - June 15

Gemini - June 16 - July 15

Cancer - July 16 - August 15

Leo - August 16 - September 15

Virgo - September 16 - October 15

Libra - October 16 - November 15

Scorpio - November 16 - December 15

Sagittarius - December 16 - January 14

Capricorn - January 15 - February 14

Aquarius - February 15 - March 14

Pisces - March 15 - April 14

A lot of people relate and connect with their star sign. Including myself at some point. It begs the question - do those who really believe their sign represents them perfectly , would it still represent you?
I think we're all free to think and live and grow how we choose, I dont believe star signs really determine who we are. I do believe we came from the universe and are connected to it. But to use a tool established by our own race to assist in giving the relative location of stars, planets, the path of the sun, how does that in turn become representative of our personalities?


I would like to hear from those who really follow their star signs, or read their horoscopes. Do you still believe you are the same sign, how does being moved to another sign affect you? Do you think you would follow your horoscopes still?

Thanks! And until next time, HerMisfits xo

reply to post by HerMisfits


Cancer? but i like being a Leo! off to rethinking things.

no one should follow any horoscopes. they are all written by failed journalists that work at smut gossip magazine publishers.

reply to post by Bisman


I agree Bisman. In fact many invitations are sent out to so called astrologers for talks with astronomical communities. Rarely has an invitation ever been accepted to discuss or define any claims made by any astrologist.

reply to post by thishereguy


haha! I actually really followed my sign a while back, and felt like quite the cheat when I found out I wasn't that.

reply to post by HerMisfits


Hello

Had to laugh as I am an Aquarian and any idea of my being Capricorn - you would be having a laugh. Still both are governed by Saturn if you still look to the traditional night rulership, but I can assure you I am pure Uranian through and through.

I do take your point and you are right, however, I wonder if because the zodiac would have taken so many, many years to perfect and therefore well into the natural movements of earth, despite where we are today, we have such a long time period from the past that we are still reflecting and manifesting the 'old' zodiac positions. Another thing I would mention is that one appears to movve back a sign which takes a positive sun to a negative or vica versa. This is also something that needs to be considered as I have Capricorn friends and they are very different with their 'negative' suns to my positive sun.

Also, despite the sun sign you are a mix of sun, moon and rising signs and its that blessed trinity that embodies to a greater extent who you are than just your sun. Suppose you have a tight square or opposition to your sun, you will not reflect the purity of a sun not in tight aspect, especially of a malefic.

In the past the rising sign was considered to be the strongest and the personality judged by that - ideas more on as we evolve. I do look forward to many more discussions on this subject and congratulate you to you first thread.

I view horoscopes 2 ways, either self-fulfilling prophesy or so general that it could apply to all 7 billion people. Besides, I liked my "old" one better. But you are right, the alignments have drifted and the zodiac should be updated IMO.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Hi Shiloh, and thanks.

Congrats on being a Capricorn

I think on some basis I will agree with you. I believe we more so accurately, if ever connected to any constellation more so relate to it based on the planets and suns placement at the time and not the constellation itself.

However with that said, even if the placement you are given for say, a birth chart, you would have to re-do it with the new sign to get it ''accurate''.

I would like to know more on it too

reply to post by jhilyard


Yup, I think it also adds to credibility. You say that it's general as in to fit 7 billion people. Now even if I where naive and followed these general horoscopes, I think it will add more credibility if the horoscope actually matched the current sidereal zodiac.

reply to post by HerMisfits


Oh no! I'm still who I thought I was! I was looking for a more glamorous sign, but still a pisces, I'm afraid.
Whatever happened to the 13th zodiac sign? Did that not get incorporated into charts or have I just made that up?

Nice thread, HerMisfits, I like it!

B x

reply to post by beansidhe


Hi Beansidhe,

There is a 13th, ad 14th and even 15th if you look hard enough! But in this case the 13th would be Ophiuchus. There is various reasons and politics behind not using this sign.

Some astronomers use it when there is an irregularity in the dates regarding the other 12 constellations, therefore any thing left would be given to Ophiuchus to make up for it. So he is like the casual employee really.

Also adding Ophiuchus officially to the zodiac then disrupts the order of things, the sky is divided equally into 12 parts, and this has been the palette when discovering many things within our universe and the position of the sun and planets. Adding it now would cause a massive revision.

Another reason for this constellations dismissal could also lay in the fact that allowing Ophiuchus to be part of the Zodiac will open the flood gates of debating and introducing other signs, which again disrupts the flow and order.

Thanks for reading and commenting

reply to post by HerMisfits


Actually, you are who you think you are, unless you happen to be one of the unfortunate souls lost in the idiocy of astrology. Otherwise, you are exactly who you think you are, and anyone you want to be, at any given moment. All it takes is will.

Fate is weak. Will is strong.

Anthropomorphising the night sky , then making banal, generic & baseless predictions about the future from it, is neither science nor technology.

Take it to the hokum section.

reply to post by Tidnabnilims


Hi Tidnabnilims,

I don't know where this ''take it to'' is.

However I do urge you to actually read the thread and comments. This is not to do with ''Oh my star sign is'' , in fact it is refuting the relevance of astrology when it comes to astronomy. And I see you agree to this with your comment above.

Kindly leave the quick and negative responses at the door. Do not comment on a thread you haven't, evidently, even read.

This is scientific and it is to determine the bonds or beliefs we have regarding astrology and the question raised is, knowing your actual star sign isnt the one you even believe in, would you still follow, and why? When the zodiac was done to benefit the study of astronomy, sun paths, moon and planets.

reply to post by HerMisfits


I read it, for someone refuting astrology as a science you arent doing any refuting, more perpetuating that its real by postulating your theory of people being the 'wrong' sign. They are no sign, it means nothing, its a pointless thread in the wrong forum. if you want to refute astrology you wouldnt be talking about extra signs and what to do with leftovers. You would say 'its bunkum, i'm not even going to bother writing a thread about how this fairytale is inaccurate - its a fairytale'.

The details of something made-up dont matter, its all made-up.

Its definitely not science or technology.

reply to post by Tidnabnilims


You seem to be confusing star signs and constellation.


These are all constellations, the zodiac and the constellations named within it are a star map of the sky, in order of when the sun crosses them. This is so the sky is sectioned into 12 angles, 30 degrees each which scientifically assists in giving us the accurate positions of the planets, moons and their positions.

I am not understanding where you are coming from.

Ophiuchus itself is also a constellation. The question regarding it is why it is not also added to the zodiac. Its because we already have the sun path and accurate position of the sky, having another pointer is irrelevant.


I am talking about the sky .... and when the sun crosses constellations, in this current time. The times listed are not astrological. They are astronomical. So I am really unsure what point you are trying to raise.

Again I will point out all this information is scientifically and astronomically correct. It is not based on astrology. Infact is is rather giving the ACCURATE times our sun crosses the constellations listed in the zodiac.

Which again I remind is a an astronomical tool. Not an astrological one.

reply to post by HerMisfits


I have been living a lie all along.....Damn shame

reply to post by HerMisfits


So you arent talking about what star sign people are, and how they arent the one they think they are ?

So your point is astrology is meaningless because its astronomically incorrect, as well as obvious mythology?

So why not say that.

It still belongs where any other astrology thread is, as you are not revealing anything new to science, merely using it as a method to discuss astrology in a science forum.

I would like to hear from those who really follow their star signs, or read their horoscopes. Do you still believe you are the same sign, how does being moved to another sign affect you? Do you think you would follow your horoscopes still?

This is not the target audience you are looking for - Dreams & Predictions will garner more response to your inquiries

These are all constellations, the zodiac and the constellations named within it are a star map of the sky, in order of when the sun crosses them. This is so the sky is sectioned into 12 angles, 30 degrees each which scientifically assists in giving us the accurate positions of the planets, moons and their positions.

Wrong, the sky is divided into 88 constellations for use in astronomy, your constellations are only related to the zodiac and astrology

In 1929, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) officially defined 88 constellations across the span of the sky. Formally cementing these boundaries allows astronomers to communicate about the regions of the sky they study. The official constellations are in fact rectangular slices of the heavens holding the stars within it. Included are the individual groupings. For instance, the constellation of Ursa Major contains all of the stars around the shape known by the same name.

Here is some information about naming constellations, including the giraffe and the air pump, what star sign are they again ?

reply to post by HerMisfits

You're not who you think you are.

That's right! I'm who ever you want me to be!

So, what if your soul is old, and goes by the traditional signs? Maybe your born under a particular sign, only as a reminder as to the lessons your suppose to learn in this lifetime, not to be taken as a literal daily guide?


Just a thought.