If you read the whole article, the whole thing is just a lot of meaningless hoo-ha over nothing, even to astrologers. The cited reasons for the "shift" don't affect Western astrology, which is what we're all talking about here.
Quote:
But this is an annoying red herring for astrologers.
They point out that this precession only affects "sidereal" astrology, a system commonly used in India and by other people with an interest in "Vedic" astrology. In this system signs do shift.
"People might be Aquarian under the tropical system but a Capricorn under the Vedic system," says astrologer Russell Grant.
But in the "tropical zodiac", the system used by Western astrologers, there are fixed sectors of the sky through which the movement of the sun, moon and planets is tracked to create the basis for horoscopes.
"The tropical zodiac is fixed and immovable. It is static - whatever happens to the Earth's axis."
These sectors of the sky use the equinoxes as reference points, not the constellations upon which the star signs are based.
|
Quote:
The suggestion of a 13th sign - "Ophiuchus" - is also dismissed by astrologers. They point out that the Babylonians consciously chose 12 signs.
In other systems there have also been signs for "Arachne" and "Cetus the Whale", notes Grant.
Both the effect of precession on the zodiac and the presence of a 13th sign are stories that crop up in the press every few years, Grant explains.
|
Quote:
|
But for all those people that believe in astrology or set some kind of lesser emotional store on the signs of the zodiac, they can rest easy. The Tauruses are still Taurus and the Arieses are still Aries.
|