Classical astrology, which dates back about 3,000 years, tells us that there are only 12 Zodiac Signs, but new scientific research tells a different story.
Previously we wrote about the secret of the 13th Zodiac Sign. As stated in the published article, these changes have not yet been taken seriously, and most likely will not be accepted by the community of astrologers and the world association, since traditional astrology has proven its strength over these millennia, and the new teaching can destroy everything that is believed in people and everything that has been proven by experience and observations.
Changes in Zodiac Signs
The new astrology is to blame for everything, whose supporters claim that the movement of the Sun relative to the starry sky has changed because the earth's axis has changed. NASA confirms the fact that the Earth's axis is shifting, but this does not change anything, however, a number of scientific astrologers propose changing the dates of passage through the Signs of the Zodiac.
Now, in their opinion, the updated horoscope should look like this:
- Capricorn: January 20 - February 16
- Aquarius: February 16 – March 11
- Fish: March 11 - April 18
- Aries: April 18 - May 13
- Calf: May 13 – June 21
- Twins: June 21 - July 20
- Cancer: July 20 - August 10
- A lion: August 10 - September 16
- Virgo: September 16 – October 30
- Scales: October 30 – November 23
- Scorpion: November 23 – November 29
- Ophiuchus: November 29 – December 17
- Sagittarius: December 17 – January 20
Please note that a new Sign has been added - Ophiuchus. At the dawn of astrology, it was almost invisible, so it was not taken seriously and was not included in the Zodiac Signs, but now it is more than distinct, so it is proposed to be introduced. Authoritative scientists have fully argued their proposals regarding the shift of the Zodiac zones, but this does not mean global changes, since people are accustomed to the standard horoscope. Classical astrology does not accept changes in Zodiac Signs - at least not yet.
The new horoscope dates created a lot of noise in the world, as people began to wonder which Sign they should classify themselves as - the new or the old. Popular magazines like Cosmopolitan supported the hype and made many people doubt the truth and monumentality of such a science as astrology. Experience and time overcome impulsiveness and the desire for novelty, so for now everything remains the same as it has always been.
If you doubt which Zodiac Sign you and your character belong to, you can take our free Zodiac Sign test and find out how accurate your horoscope has been all along!
13th Zodiac Sign and new zodiac dates
The Earth and the Sun are in a constant dance that lasts 26,000 years. When this time passes, everything starts anew. Over this long period of time, a lot can change in the night sky from the point of view of observation from Earth.
If you follow these changes, then every 150-300 years you need to change the dates of the horoscopes, slightly shifting the Zodiac Signs. The only relevant information is the 13th Zodiac Sign, which is very important. People born from November 17 to 27 can consider themselves Ophiuchus - this is not an independent Zodiac Sign, but rather an addition to the character of Sagittarius or Scorpio. These people destroy what they love. Their fate is often difficult, but in the end happiness always awaits them.
Ophiuchus are fickle, flighty, and fearless. They need time to make their lives more stable and meaningful. They can become anyone - everything is limited only by their imagination. That is why among Ophiuchus you can meet talented actors, directors, cruel rulers and revolutionaries.
Are you trolling? Oh well.
This is your unsubstantiated opinion.Well, yes, but your “it’s just an accident!”, “a couple of hundred people are enough!” and so on - of course, reasoned, supported by calculations and mathematical models. I'm just reading)
You have everything
one of the heaps of myths that surround any ancient structure.and any accuracy is a “coincidence”. I’m sure that even the pillar of Indra you cited as an example also turned out so pure “by itself.”
The problem is that this kind of rhetoric is anti-scientific. Whether you like it or not.
You deny the PND, asserting the principles and motives for recommending buildings.
You are ignoring:
It seems to you now that that window is pointing exactly to that star on the night before an important harvestfacts that there are dozens of structures indicating a specific astronomical event/phenomenon specifically associated with the relevant processes.
With your argumentation, one can easily accuse Lev Nikolaevich of not writing War and Peace. After all, the monkeys could have done this by accident!
The only more or less weighty argument
You “read somewhere once” that the accuracy there is simply impossible, but you don’t remember exactly, you don’t have any sources.- alas, yes. But I read and processed information a LOT, especially when I was young. And, yes, I can’t give specific references to all of my knowledge (especially based on information accumulated in my youth). But, I beg your pardon, can you point out to me exactly the author of the textbook, say, chemistry, that you read at school? Provide links to all scientific articles and dissertations you have ever read? (although, perhaps, you have read about 20 of them - then you can. But my home library alone has more than 400 volumes. I can’t even estimate the number of articles)
Because - yes, I take an article, critically evaluate the premises described there, the topic, methods and documents/materials (now, with the development of electronic means, I still conduct some searches and comparisons using them), and if, in my opinion, the article turns out to be sufficiently “suitable” (scientific, consistent, thorough), I filter out the subjective judgments of the author and remember the main/most clear facts, ideas, results.
My memory, which is still quite good, is enough for me. (however, many scientists act this way, unlike students who do not know how to independently generate “information content,” as it is now commonly called)
However, this is not important, because... You're not looking for controversy, you're looking for something to cling to. Because there were a bunch of examples, and those for which more information could be found (the absurdity of the descriptions is more clearly visible or there are enough sources where the lack of a proper explanation is noted), you chose to “not notice.”
Regarding “nonsense and TK”, including “b)”, I cited several facts, even quite new ones (without referring to the notorious topic of geocentric theory or Newton’s “occultism”). You can google how they treated, quite recently, genetics, Lobachevsky’s geometry, cybernetics (in the USSR), psychology... Very different areas (or branches) of science, which today are more than specific. Again, these are global and vivid examples, but if we take narrower ones (like quantum physics and other theories within the same science), it’s generally quiet horror.
So these are just facts - both sufficiently confirmed by experience (statistically), and clearly explainable from the point of view of sociology/psychology (personal).
A considerable number of “inexplicable” artifacts have long been explainedyes, here are just some (too many) “explanations” at your level of “this is an accident”, “of course” - including the example I gave about “trampled hedgehogs” (quite a scientist, with a bunch of degrees, spoke)
And this in no way compromises science.exactly. This compromises “pseudo-scientists” and those who like to throw around the definition of “scientific community”. He is personally compromising you.
But science, of course, no. This can compromise the average person’s idea of science, careless individuals who present themselves as scientists. But not science as an idea.
Oh yes.
I would like to note that non-scientific statements most often come from people with scientific degrees in completely different fields.– you are very mistaken. Usually, facts that refute established theories and models according to which a certain person (or group) is accustomed to working (and, even more so, if they receive funding for research in this area) are received with hostility.
Plus the classic desire to have a “solid” picture of the world, as a way of maintaining (feeling) the so-called. "comfort zones".
Am I delusional? do you like authorities?
Here's from the materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference for 2010:
One should not hide the fact that the emergence of a new competing theory necessitates familiarization with it, taking time and effort away from productive work according to a well-established template, which causes understandable irritation in the case when a scientist does not see his place in the newly opened field of research.
Moreover, I would say that at the moment there is practically no place left in science for “knowledge in a specific field.” Science is on the border where logic, mathematics, physics, psychology, even biology, etc., begin to strongly “intersect” and intertwine. We come to an understanding (conscious, and not intuitive, as before) that some processes (the principle of their operation) are universal and applicable to most (all?) areas (scientific knowledge). Previously, this concerned mainly logic (analysis and reasoning)
If you do not want to devote yourself to this, this is where your interaction with the object of research should endwrong. If I see a certain fact, I may not devote myself to it. But if someone claims that he has “researched” and “explained,” then I can check his explanation - at least at a minimal level (corresponding to my knowledge of the field). And if at this level, the "explanation" or research methodology is clearly (by definition) unscientific or insufficient, I have the right to point it out.
Again, your thesis could easily be returned to you, in the context of this topic: “If you do not want to devote yourself to astrology, this should be the end of your interaction with the object of research.”
Oh, well, you probably excluded consistency from the principles of scientific knowledge...)
However, neither such an exception nor our long correspondence cancels these principles. Or the possibility of their use in astrology (or anywhere else)
But yes, I already spent a lot of time on you. For this I dare to bow out,
NASA decided to publish data that may surprise and upset many horoscope lovers. According to the aerospace agency, all modern horoscopes are wrong and do not correspond to the actual state of affairs. Since horoscopes were invented, the starry sky has changed a lot, and today all the signs of the Zodiac have shifted. Moreover, experts have officially confirmed that in fact there are not 12 signs of the Zodiac, as was believed all this time, but thirteen.
On their website, NASA scientists said that all horoscopes used today are long outdated and do not correspond to the position of celestial bodies in the 21st century sky. All zodiac signs have shifted a long time ago, and therefore all the conclusions regarding horoscopes, predictions, determinations of fate, and so on, which astrologers deal with today, simply cannot be correct.
Horoscopes, according to historians, were invented approximately 4,500 years ago, and have remained virtually unchanged since then. At that time, the ancient Sumerians identified 12 sectors with such constellations through which the Sun runs year after year, such as: Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Scorpio, Virgo, Leo, Gemini, Libra, Cancer, Sagittarius, Capricorn and Aquarius. Initially, these zodiac constellations served to correctly calculate the time of sowing, harvest, time and, probably, some religious ceremonies and events. Later they began to believe that the position of the Sun in the zodiac signs can influence a person’s fate, after which people began to be determined by their birthday under one or another sign, and also events in the world and the life of each person were determined by the signs of the Zodiac. Four and a half thousand years have passed since then. Surprisingly, people simply stopped determining the present position of the Sun relative to celestial bodies, otherwise they would definitely be able to see that these positions change over time. Instead, zodiac astrology was left unchanged. It has existed in this form for several millennia.
Researchers prove that if such a calendar were invented today, it would be radically different from what we have. For example, previously the point of the spring equinox always fell on the constellation Aries, and today on the constellation Pisces; the Sun today lingers in the constellation Virgo for 45 days, and in the constellation Scorpio for only six days. In addition, the dates of the passage of the Sun through the constellations have shifted greatly. As a result, we get that the one who considered himself a Capricorn all his life turns out to be not a Capricorn at all, but a Sagittarius, and the one who believed that he was a Gemini was actually born under a completely different sign - Taurus, which puts the whole astrology is highly questionable.
NASA researchers also proved that at the time of the creation of the Zodiac circle there were indeed 12 constellations, but about two thousand years ago they were joined by the 13th constellation - Ophiuchus, which is not taken into account in astrology today. Ophiuchus dates: November 30 - December 17.
How the signs of the Zodiac have changed and how they are distributed today by month and exact dates
Was:
Became:
Video. The existence of the 13th sign of the Zodiac is officially recognized:
Do you want to learn how to give a relaxing and healing massage? Find out how to properly massage your back and neck on the “How to Do It Correctly” website. Detailed lesson with photos and videos.
Classical astrology, which dates back about 3,000 years, tells us that there are only 12 Zodiac Signs, but new scientific research tells a different story.
Previously we wrote about the secret of the 13th Zodiac Sign. Today it's time to remember him again. True, it is not known whether astrologers will take Ophiuchus seriously, since traditional astrology has proven its strength over these millennia, and the new teaching can destroy everything that people believe in, and everything that has been proven by experience and observations.
Changes in Zodiac Signs
According to scientists, over many centuries the movement of the Sun relative to the starry sky has changed because the earth's axis has changed. NASA confirms the fact that the Earth's axis is shifting. In this regard, a number of scientists propose changing the dates of passage through the 12 main zodiac constellations. Taking into account the 13th constellation - Ophiuchus, which, thus, can now officially become the 13th Sign of the Zodiac.
Now, in the opinion of scientists, the updated horoscope should look like this:
- Capricorn: January 20 - February 16
- Aquarius: February 16 – March 11
- Fish: March 11 - April 18
- Aries: April 18 - May 13
- Calf: May 13 – June 21
- Twins: June 21 - July 20
- Cancer: July 20 - August 10
- A lion: August 10 - September 16
- Virgo: September 16 – October 30
- Scales: October 30 – November 23
- Scorpion: November 23 – November 29
- Ophiuchus: November 29 – December 17
- Sagittarius: December 17 – January 20
Please note that a new Sign has been added - Ophiuchus. At the dawn of astrology, it was almost invisible, so it was not taken seriously and was not included in the Zodiac Signs, but now it is more than distinct, so it is proposed to be introduced. Authoritative scientists have fully argued their proposals regarding the shift of the Zodiac zones, but this does not mean global changes, since people are accustomed to the standard horoscope. Classical astrology does not accept changes in Zodiac Signs - at least not yet.
The new horoscope dates created a lot of noise in the world, as people began to wonder which Sign they should classify themselves as - the new or the old. Popular magazines like Cosmopolitan supported the hype and made many people doubt the truth and monumentality of such a science as astrology. Experience and time overcome impulsiveness and the desire for novelty, so for now everything remains the same as it has always been.
If you doubt which Zodiac Sign you and your character belong to, you can take our free Zodiac Sign test and find out how accurate your horoscope has been all along!
13th Zodiac Sign and new zodiac dates
The Earth and the Sun are in a constant dance that lasts 26,000 years. When this time passes, everything starts anew. Over this long period of time, a lot can change in the night sky from the point of view of observation from Earth.
If you follow these changes, then every 150-300 years you need to change the dates of the horoscopes, slightly shifting the Zodiac Signs. The only relevant information is the 13th Zodiac Sign, which is very important. People born from November 17 to 27 can consider themselves Ophiuchus - this is not an independent Zodiac Sign, but rather an addition to the character of Sagittarius or Scorpio. These people destroy what they love. Their fate is often difficult, but in the end happiness always awaits them.
Ophiuchus are fickle, flighty and fearless. They need time to make their lives more stable and meaningful. They can become anyone - everything is limited only by their imagination. That is why among Ophiuchus you can meet talented actors, directors - and at the same time cruel rulers and revolutionaries.
We wish you good luck and advise you not to take internet and magazine articles about changes in Zodiac Sign dates seriously. The astrologer community has not yet accepted and most likely will not accept any changes in the coming years, because it is not relevant and can cause a huge amount of controversy. Be happy and don't forget to press the buttons and
20.09.2016 13:43
We often read horoscopes to learn more about ourselves and the essence of those around us. ...
