Quote:
Originally Posted by daz
Gee, why the need to resurrect the continuing disconnect between astronomy & astrology? If we go back 1000 years, we find the two branches considered as one.
The biggest difference as far as I can tell is that astronomers use the heliocentric model & astrologers (mainly) the geocentric. Both are equally valid.
Having said that, I tend to the view that most modern day astrology is "pop psychology" & shouldn't be taken seriously.
Anyway, for those of you who are interested, the following link explains why Ophiuccus is not included as a zodiac sign:
https://marklerner.wordpress.com/201...in-the-zodiac/ |
So Astrologers aren't *wrong per-se, they just don't actually mean Aries when they say 'Aries'? So...why say Aries, rather than something that actually says what it is, like the twelfth part of a circle?
In CDC I had to go back to about 3700BC before the date the sun actually entered Aries lined up with the horoscope times (March 21). But the
wikipedia article says 2000 years is the time they were both aligned.
Even so, if people are going to claim that the stars, planets or magnetic field has an effect on human personality types, they're going to need to present a falsifiable hypothesis and prove it with decent data, like every other scientifically valid idea. Saying 'Oh, but we don't *mean 'Aries' when we say 'Aries'' is awkward because obviously it *used to mean Aries. That's why they used the name in the first place. But now it doesn't. Hmmm.
Markus