Most notable amongst the "new" zodiac sign is that its appearance doesn't cause your zodiac sign to change. You are the same sign you were born under.

Most of Western Astrology is founded on the Tropical Zodiac, where each constellation is derived by the movement of the seasons. This is the sign that most often appears in newspapers for horoscopes, and it's more than likely what sign you consider yourself, if you were born in the west.

Similar to but distinct from this is the Sidereal Zodiac, which takes its signs from the constellations rather than the seasons. The dates of each sign change slowly over the years, and it's primarily used in eastern Vedic astrology, which those in the west /don't/ use, but is the focus of all the attention regarding Ophiucus.

I don't take the Zodiac too terribly seriously, I just wanted to say this:

Fuck yeah, Leo.

>>8781

I was Leo but now I'm Cancer... I feel so decieved.

>>8780

Yeah, I was so relieved when I found out that this applied to Sidereal astrology. When I first heard of this occurrence, I had assumed that it was Tropical. Thankfully I am still a Scorpio.

>>8783

You're still Leo.

Still a cancer!

Oh look, your entire merry mystic circlejerk has been debunked. Again.

>>8859
Except not. The only thing more ridiculous than the amount of people claiming that astrology had been completely changed by this "news" was the amount of people claiming that astrology had been completely debunked by it. If you demonstrate that you misunderstand a particular system while at the same time trying to claim that it's been debunked, it makes you look more like a dogmatic asshole who's more keen on "taking people down" rather than ever employing the scientific method. You're giving actual rationalists a bad name.

>>8860

Even if this doesn't debunk astrology, it has been debunked to death in the past. Here's an article I found by astronomer Phil Plait:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, here is the summary, taken from the article itself (although this is a little bit vague, so you should probably just read the article itself):

-There is no force, known or unknown, that could possibly affect us here on Earth the way astrologers claim. Known forces weaken too fast, letting one source utterly dominate (the Moon for gravity, the Sun for electromagnetism). An unknown force would allow asteroids and extrasolar planets to totally overwhelm the nearby planets.

-Astrologers tend to rely on our ability to remember hits and forget misses. Even an accurate prediction may be simple chance.

-Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit. They are indistinguishable from chance, which means astrologers cannot claim to have some ability to predict your life's path.

-There is harm, real harm, in astrology. It weakens further people's ability to rationally look at the world, an ability we need now more than ever.

>>8875

You're not wrong, you just missed the point completely.