Let me start off by saying, I don’t believe in horoscopes or the zodiac, although it is amusing, at times, to read a horoscope once a year or two or look up what the “pros” and “cons” of your personality might be.
Still, this is ranking right up there with Pluto no longer being a planet for me…it’s one of those things you know all your life and then, suddenly, it changes.
Can’t say it’ll affect my life much (or at all), but yeah, I can think of SOME people whose worlds will be turned upside down at this news.
As the article states, this has been known for quite some time, among astrologers as well as astronomers. Some people have been compensating for it, I think, and others say to stay with the old signs.
As a skeptic, I think it’s equally valid, whichever philosophy you use.
And if how nearby a body is influences your horoscope, then by rights Cruithne and 2002 AA[sub]29[/sub] and the other resonant near-earth objects ought to be added to the list of planets. But I’m not holding my breath
Is this the same asprecession of the equinoxes? Because if so, astrology debunkers have been talking about it for decades and astonomers have known about it since BC. (Or BCE, if you prefer.) ((And yes, I know that BC, astronomers were astrologers, usually.))
I’ve never heard of an astrologer changing anything due to precession. Many of them are aware of it, they just chuckle when it’s brought up and handwave it away as unimportant.
I just tracked back to the original article too and noticed that it included Ophiuchus. Perhaps the Washington Post ‘simplified’ it to avoid reporting too much change to the system? Being moved to another, recognised, sign is one thing. Presumably getting assigned to a completely new sign would be too much of a difference.
I apparently go from being a Sagittarius, nearly a Capricorn, to being a Sagittarius, nearly a Scorpio. Oddly, I don’t feel this has changed my life… (I quite like being a Sagittarius, so I’m glad it doesn’t change, though!)
