No, your astrological sign hasn't changed
When I saw Thursday evening that this goofy story on the "changes" in the dates and names of our astrological signs was the most popular item on our Web site, I told our editors that it was badly garbled, and mostly wrong.
There was nothing they could do. It was inserted by editors in Chicago, and Baltimore had no
control over it.
It apparently began with a legitimate astronomer, interviewed on a TV station, who noted that the sun is not really passing through the constellation, or astrological "sign" that one would think, based on the dates published in the newspaper every day for as long as anyone can remember.
That means many of us were not really born under the signs we thought we were (if we thought about it at all). And some of us (myself among them) were born under a sign we'd never heard of -Ophiuchus (left).
That much is astronomical fact. But the story on the TV station's website was pretty confused, and once everyone else began picking it up, it became hopelessly garbled.
The bottom line is this: This "drift" in the sun's apparent position relative to the background stars and constellations has been known and understood by ASTRONOMERS and ASTROLOGERS since the Greek astronomer Hipparchus figured it out in 134 BC.
It's called the "precession of the equinoxes." And since 600 BC, it has moved the actual position of the sun against the background constellations about a month out of synch with the astrologers' traditional frame of reference.
Astrologers who use the dates and positions dictated by Near Eastern astronomers hundreds of years before the Christian Era are well aware of it, and they don't care. They're not going to change the dates they use, and they're not going to add a "13th sign" - Ophiuchus - to the Zodiac.
I first became aware of this particular disconnect between astronomy and astrology in 2004, and I wrote a story about it for The Sun. I've pasted it in below. Read and learn, as I did.
By Frank D. Roylance, Baltimore Sun, First published Dec. 31, 2004
Let's get one thing straight. I don't believe in astrology. But the daily horoscopes seem harmless enough back there with the funny pages, offering sensible, all-purpose advice.
For example, The Sun's syndicated astrologer recently urged those born under Pisces to "back up computer files, and make sure your cell phone battery is charged." No argument there.That said, I confess that I can't wait until the next time somebody asks my astrological "sign." That's because I've been spending a lot of time with a computer program for backyard stargazers called Starry Night, published by Imaginova. It's a powerful tool for anyone curious about the night sky - like having Carl Sagan's ghost beside you on a magic-carpet tour of the night sky, and of all time and space.
I've discovered something deep inside this fascinating software that should kick the astrological legs out from under millions of believers. Although it probably won't.
First, those dates you see in the newspaper, bracketing each of the 12 astrological signs? They're all wrong. And, because of something called the "precession of the equinoxes," they've been getting more and more out-of-whack since about 600 BC, when the astrological system was concocted.
Second, because the dates are all wrong, almost nobody living today was actually born under the sign they think they were. Which means they've been reading - and taking - the wrong advice all their lives. No wonder the world is a mess!
Third, and this is the most delicious part, those of us born between Nov. 30 and Dec. 17 aren't Sagittarians, as we have always believed. We were born with the sun in the constellation - get this - Ophiuchus.
That's right: Ophiuchus, the serpent-bearer. It's pronounced Offy-YUK-us, and I had never heard of him either. No syndicated astrologer has ever offered a lick of advice to any of us Ophiuchans. But Starry Night displays his constellation big and bold, with his foot stuck right there between Scorpio and Sagittarius.
What does it mean to say the sun is "in" a constellation? Well, remember that the sun is always perched in the sky against a backdrop of stars and constellations. We can't see the stars in the daytime (except briefly during a solar eclipse) because the sun's too bright.
But we know the constellations are there. We can even see them in our night sky six months later, when the Earth has moved to the opposite side of the solar system.
Think of the setup as a circular room with 12 portraits hanging on the wall. Each painting represents a constellation of stars. The sun is at the center of the room. As we (Earth) orbit around it, the sun appears to move in the opposite direction relative to the portraits in the background. Over one year, the sun seems to move through the full circle of paintings - all 12 constellations of the zodiac.
Now I always believed I was born with the sun in Sagittarius (the guy with the bow and arrow). But it turns out, according to Starry Night, that nobody born on Dec. 10 has been a Sagittarian since 1582.
When I set Starry Night's controls for my birth date, Dec. 10, and run the years backward, the computer puts all the heavens in motion. I can watch the sun move slowly eastward each Dec. 10 until 1582, when it finally pops back into Sagittarius - where it had been since at least 600 BC.
Likewise, when I run the years forward from Dec. 10, 2004, the sun "precesses" - creeps slowly westward on the screen each Dec. 10 until the year 2770 or so, when it finally crosses from Ophiuchus into Scorpio (the scorpion).
Who knew? Have astrologers been keeping this secret for 2,000 years?
Not exactly. They're well aware of precession. And they're rolling with it.
"When empirical data begins to disagree with a belief system, we reach a moment ... where you're either going to go with the data or with what you believe," said Holiday Mathis, who writes The Sun's astrology feature.
Whether the western astrological zodiac matches up with the stars or not "is a moot point," she said. "The archetypes are only as meaningful as we attribute meaning to them. If they do not resonate inside of a person, then astrology is not for that person."
The western astrologers' zodiac starts in whatever constellation the sun happens to be in on the vernal equinox - the first day of spring. They simply call it Aries (the ram), and apply all of Aries' relevant influences to their recommendations - regardless of what constellation the sun is really in. But more on that in a minute.
According to Starry Night's "SkyGuide," the eminently readable text that serves as the user's guide and companion, the ancient astronomers who first formalized western astrology hadn't yet discovered "precession."
They only saw that as a year went by, the sun moved along a celestial trail called the "ecliptic," slipping through a series of 12 constellations. Back then, the sun began its year at the vernal equinox when the sun really was in the constellation Aries. It spent about a month in each subsequent "house" before returning to Aries the following spring.
Starry Night puts the sun in motion for you, and you can watch it glide through the year, from Sagittarius to Capricorn to Aquarius and so on, all the way around the sky. The ancients believed that our lives are influenced by whichever constellation the sun was traversing at the time we were born.
Which scientists dismiss as poppycock, of course.
"It's disturbing that people may be basing life decisions on something that ridiculous," said Dan Caton, a professor of astronomy at Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C., who has written columns in the Charlotte Observer debunking newspaper astrologists.
There's no basis in science for a connection between the position of the stars and planets and the course of human lives, he said. And repeated statistical studies have found no evidence for such a connection.
If the stars did influence our lives, he agreed, precession should become a concern - yet astrologers ignore it. But he insisted that "precession doesn't even matter. It's a third-order effect on a mechanism that's not there."
It was the Greek astronomer Hipparchus who figured out in 134 BC that the astrologers' celestial frame of reference was moving. The spinning Earth wobbles slowly around its axis, like a slowing toy top, because of the gravitational tug of the moon. That wobble rotates in a 25,800-year cycle that gradually pushes the vernal equinox westward around the sky, throwing off all the zodiac's original dates.
Since 600 BC, it has moved about 36 degrees, or one-tenth of the way around the zodiac. That's almost a whole month. It's like taking all the Beltway exit signs and moving each one to the next ramp.
So, while newspaper astrologers still insist that anyone born on June 30 is a Cancer (the crab), those people were actually born with the sun in the constellation Gemini (the twins). The "real" Gemini now goes from June 20 to July 20. Then the real Cancer starts and lasts until Aug. 9.
Precession also allowed the late-autumn sun to slip into all-new constellation territory, which is how Ophiuchus barged into the lineup between Scorpio and Sagittarius.
It gets even squirrelier. The astrologers divided the sun's path along the ecliptic into 12 even segments - one per constellation. But constellations aren't all the same size, and it takes the sun longer to cross some than others.
For example, it takes the sun from Sept. 16 until Oct. 30 to make its way across Virgo - that's 45 days. But it dashes through Scorpio in just a week, from Nov. 23 until Nov. 29.
Now, if you believe that the positions of stars and planets influence your life, wouldn't it be important to know which constellation the sun was really in on your birthday, or any other day?
Turns out it's not.
Astrologers such as Mathis say they use the "tropical zodiac," which means they start their celestial year from the vernal equinox and call it Aries, no matter where the sun really is among the constellations.
From there, they simply measure out each subsequent "sign" in 12 segments of 30 degrees each. The actual positions of the stars and constellations don't matter anymore. Their names are used as a matter of convenience and, as Mathis says, "mythology and storytelling."
If nothing else, this little lesson demonstrates that there's a vast universe of both stars and ideas out there, with all kinds of surprises.
For information on Starry Night, visit www.starrynight.com.








Comments
Read it
Posted by: mari | January 14, 2011 11:41 AM
I would just like to note that Indian astrologers, who have a somewhat different system than Westerners, do in fact account for precession, so that a person we call an Aries they call a Pisces, and so forth.
Also, the precession of the equinoxes is the origin of the astrological "ages". Popular musicals notwithstanding, we are in the Age of Pisces until the sun no longer rises against the sign of Pisces at the vernal equinox--which it will continue to do for about another 600 years.
Posted by: M.T. Webster | January 14, 2011 11:42 AM
If you want to get a cutting edge book on Astrology that revolutionizes our understanding of it - get this book by Jade Sol Luna : http://www.amazon.com/Asterian-Astrology-System-Alexander-Great/dp/0615424813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295023643&sr=8-1
Very cool!
Posted by: David | January 14, 2011 11:48 AM
Thank you for shedding light on this! My husband called me from work to inform me that I'm not really a Gemini. I kind of flew off the handle initially, but then calmed down and figured I'd investigate this myself. Not a Gemini...right.
Posted by: Cy Governs | January 14, 2011 12:10 PM
So what I take from this is if I choose to believe in the fictional then I am the same zodiac I've always known... but if I choose to believe in the fictional that coincides with astronomical data then my zodiac has indeed changed...
Well, here's to change then
Posted by: Q | January 14, 2011 12:24 PM
Actually, according to your December 31, 2004 article, we are not in fact the zodiac signs we thought we were. Your headline states the opposite conclusion from the evidence you present in your article. The fact that the procession may not actually matter in terms of its effect on our lives on earth, does not change the objective, scientifically-substantiated reality, that its occurrence changes the sun's position relative to the constellations. It doesn't make sense to invent an artificial system of astrology that does not reflect reality. It may be true that some people will cling to their false beliefs in spite of data to the contrary. This does not mean we should all be forced to deny well-established, scientific facts. If the sun's position relative to the constellations was factually in a different place than we previously believed, causing us to all have new signs, that's just the way it is. Therefore, we do have new astrological signs, and we can each individually choose to take it or leave it.
FR: The choice is between the "sign" you were actually born under, or the one western astrologers say you were born under and use in their advice columns. You can also choose an eastern school of astrology that follows the actual astronomy. Or you can dismiss it all as hogwash. From a scientific standpoint, the whole debate is pretty meaningless.
Posted by: JKMD | January 14, 2011 12:57 PM
My husband called me from work to inform me that I'm not really a Gemini. I kind of flew off the handle initially, but then calmed down and figured I'd investigate this myself. I told him I'll always be a Gemini. He is totally crazy.
Posted by: tamorning@msn.com | January 14, 2011 1:18 PM
None of us have any astrological signs, because astrology, as a system, is meaningless.
Posted by: Librarylady | January 14, 2011 2:31 PM
actually all this is for sidereal astrologers. so if you follow sidereal. your sign has changed. if you follow western astrology based on seasons. then you're the same sign.
FR: Precisely.
Posted by: shorty | January 14, 2011 4:06 PM
I'm guessing Librarylady is a Scorpio or a Capricorn. ;->
Posted by: Dahlink | January 14, 2011 4:11 PM
Let's see.
1. I can believe in the false belief of sidereal astrology; or
2.I can believe in the false belief of western astrology; or
3. I can believe in science.
I think I'll pick no. 3, Frank.
Posted by: Mike | January 15, 2011 12:36 AM
In a universe with an infinite number of stars attributing anything to "patterns" seen from one speck of dust is laughable.
Posted by: Cato | January 15, 2011 7:37 AM
This is actually one of the better articles on the topic I've read - except it doesn't point out that astrology is 3,000 superstitious garbage - so it doesn't matter what sign you want to cling to.
Posted by: KC | January 15, 2011 11:09 AM
There is no way that I could be any sign other than a Scorpio.
Posted by: Michelle Brown | January 15, 2011 11:32 AM
just wait till everyone finds out that the NORTH STAR (Polaris for us) hasn't always been the north star.
Here's to the rein of VEGA
Posted by: StarmanJER | January 15, 2011 11:52 AM
Fascinating that "Chicago had us put it in there." Reminds me of season 5 of The Wire.
Posted by: April | January 15, 2011 3:21 PM
Oops meant to write "3,000 year old garbage".
Michelle - you are not getting it - you never were a Scorpio nor any other "sign". You are a unique individual that is the product of your upbringing, education, your friends , family and the experiences you've had in your life. Do not spoil that with ridiculous labels.
Posted by: KC | January 15, 2011 9:24 PM
Actually it is not really your birthdate that matters, it is your conception date.
FR: And we all know that, right?
Posted by: John20723 | January 15, 2011 10:41 PM
Rational people have known since the beginning of astrology's supernatural claims that it is bogus. Like all religion, it is a powerful tool to enable the clever to control and extract money from the not-so-clever. And the State of Maryland licenses this fraud! Not surprising that it still works three millennia later; humans seem to be genetically wired for superstition. Perhaps one day there will be an in-utero gene therapy to cure that and wire us for critical thought. Newspaper astrologers having to make an honest living. No more bogus wars. Liars everywhere lose their grip on the gullible. By the way, it's not just scientists who say it's poppycock; every rational person knows there is no giant goat living in the sky!
Posted by: David Illig | January 16, 2011 12:17 PM