It’s official: the stars weren’t quite aligned for much of 2021, but there’s still reason to be optimistic about January 2022. Indeed, because the zodiac signs have altered, your horoscope may not be what you believe it is. Furthermore, NASA has introduced a fresh new zodiac sign to the mix. So, have your zodiac sign’s dates shifted? Continue reading to discover out…
In This Article...
Why do the signs of the zodiac change throughout time?
Even if you don’t believe in astrology, Kunkle’s prediction exposes an intriguing cosmic phenomenon. Because of a 26,000-year-old process known as “precession,” the stars appear to migrate over time. The wobble in the Earth’s rotation is to blame for this.
Why are people suddenly so interested in astrology?
Although horoscopes and birth charts are just the top of the iceberg, there’s no disputing that many people are fascinated by the stars and planets. So, why does it feel like everyone these days is interested in astrology? Experts believe astrology appeals to individuals for a variety of reasons, including its ability to help people cope with stress and uncertainty during difficult times or get a better understanding of themselves.
Why do the dates of the zodiac signs differ?
The finding was first announced by NASA in a blog post earlier this year, explaining that when the ancient Babylonians developed the zodiac over 3,000 years ago, they wanted dates on the calendar to match to star constellations. However, there were 13 constellations to consider, and they were using a 12-month calendar. As a result, they abandoned Ophiuchus.
NASA also pointed out that the Earth’s axis no longer points in the same direction as it did when the constellations were first drawn, therefore all of our signs now have various date ranges.
To put it another way, astrological turmoil. NASA’s science nerds don’t seem to mind that they’ve turned our lives upside down. “Here at NASA, we study astronomy, not astrology,” they said in a statement last week. We didn’t make any changes to the zodiac signs; we simply did the math.
Why are the signs of the zodiac incorrect?
The main reason astrological signs don’t align with the zodiac is due to precession, a wobble in the Earth’s spinning axis. The Earth bulges somewhat at the equator as a result of its rotation, similar to how a skater’s skirt fanned out as she spins. The Moon’s and Sun’s gravitational pulls on the bulge, causing the Earth to wobble like a top. Over the period of 25,800 years, the wobble causes the Earth’s axis, which is the center line around which it revolves, to swing in a leisurely circle.
The view of the zodiac from Earth is altered as a result of this movement, with the constellations appearing to slide to the east by around a degree per human lifetime. Hipparchus of Nicaea discovered precession with his naked sight approximately 150 B.C., though it was gradual.
The vernal equinox, or the first day of spring, was in Aries in ancient times. It went into Pisces circa 100 B.C. due to precession, where it is today and will remain until 2700 A.D., when it will move into Aquarius, and so on. It will finally return to Aries after 25,800 years, and the cycle will begin again.
Astrology and its predictions about fate and personality can be entertaining as a game. The subject, on the other hand, has no scientific foundation. It’s the equivalent of the board game “Monopoly” in the real estate market.
Astrology draws attention away from the planets’ very real affects, namely their gravitational interactions with one another, which create true changes in the shapes, sizes, and tilts of their orbits. Past ice eras on Earth were most likely triggered by such shifts. Direct impacts between Earth and celestial bodies can result in dramatic changes, such as the 66 million-year-old impact of an asteroid off the Yucatan Peninsula, which resulted in the extinction of dinosaurs and the advent of mammals.
Astronomical studies will someday allow such events to be predicted, however astrological forecasts will lead to nowhere.
Is there any variation in your Big 3?
No, it’s more like once every 30 years or so. (Thank G, you’ve got some time to think about it.) “Each sign has 30 degrees, and the advanced sun moves less than a degree per year, so this shift is really slow,” Montfar explains.
What are the new zodiac signs for birth?
It all started with a story that had been resurfaced. Ophiuchus, or the serpent-bearer, is the 13th zodiac sign found by NASA. Anyone born between November 29 and December 17 is an Ophiuchus, not a Scorpio or a Sagittarius. Scorpio’s window would be reduced to just seven days, and the entire astrology chart would alter, resulting in different star signs for some Pisces, Leos, and Libras. As astrology fans on the internet began to panic, NASA stepped in to gently correct the record.
Is it true that many believe in astrology?
Christine Smallwood’s fascinating article, “Astrology in the Age of Uncertainty:
Astrology is currently experiencing widespread popular acceptability that has not been seen since the 1970s. The transition began with the introduction of the personal computer, was expedited by the Internet, and has now reached new levels of speed thanks to social media. According to a Pew Research Center poll from 2017, about a third of Americans believe in astrology.
Astrology, like psychoanalysis before it, has infiltrated our collective vernacular. At a party in the 1950s, you could have heard someone talk about the id, ego, or superego; now, it’s normal to hear someone explain herself using the sun, moon, and rising signs. It isn’t just that you are aware of it. It’s who’s saying it: folks who aren’t kooks or deniers of climate change, who don’t find a conflict between utilizing astrology and believing in science…
I ran a short Google search and discovered the following Pew report from October 2018:
The religion breakdown was the only thing that surprised me about this table.
I had the impression that mainline Protestants were the rational ones, but they believe in astrology at the same rate as the overall population.
But, hey, I guess they’re ordinary Americans, so they have average American ideas.
Only 3% of atheists believe in astrology, which is also unexpected.
This makes sense, yet it seemed reasonable to me that someone may not believe in God but believe in other supernatural things: in fact, I could see astrology as a type of replacement for a traditional religious system.
But it appears that is not the case.
Brian Wansink has been compared to an astrologer who can make astute observations about the world based on a combination of persuasiveness and qualitative understanding, and then attributes his success to tarot cards or tea leaves rather than a more practical ability to synthesize ideas and tell good stories.
Does Brian Wansink, on the other hand, believe in astrology?
What about Marc Hauser, Ed Wegman, Susan Fiske, and the rest of the bunch who call their detractors “second-string, replication police, methodological terrorists, Stasi, and so on?”
I doubt they believe in astrology because it symbolizes a rival belief system: it’s a business that, in some ways, competes with rah-rah Ted-talk science.
I wouldn’t be shocked if famous ESP researchers believe in astrology, but I get the impression that mainstream junk-science supporters in academia and the news media feel uncomfortable discussing ESP since its research methods are so similar to their own.
They don’t want to be associated with ESP researchers because it would devalue their own study, but they also don’t want to put them under the bus because they are fellow Ivy League academics, so the safest plan is to remain quiet about it.
The greater point, however, is not astrology believing in and of itself, but the mental state that allows individuals to believe in something so contrary to our scientific understanding of the world.
(OK, I apologize to the 29% of you who don’t agree with me on this.)
When I return to writing on statistical graphics, model verification, Bayesian computation, Jamaican beef patties, and other topics, you can rejoin the fold.)
It’s not that astrology couldn’t be correct a priori:
We can come up with credible hypotheses under which astrology is real and amazing, just as we can with embodied cognition, beauty and sex ratio, ovulation and voting, air rage, ages ending in 9, and all the other Psychological Science / PNAS classics.
It’s just that nothing has come up after years of rigorous research.
And the existing theories aren’t particularly convincing: they’re speculative world models that may be good if the purpose was to describe a real and enduring occurrence, but they’re less so without actual data.
Anyway, if 30% of Americans are willing to believe such nonsense, it’s no surprise that a significant number of influential American psychology professors will have the kind of attitude toward scientific theory and evidence that leads them to have strong beliefs in weak theories with no supporting evidence.
Indeed, not only support for specific weak theories, but support for the fundamental principle that pseudoscientific views should be treated with respect (although, oddly enough, maybe not for astrology itself).
P.S.In defense of the survey respondents (but not of the psychology professors who support ideas like the “critical positivity ratio,” which makes astrology appear positively sane in comparison), belief in astrology (or, for that matter, belief in heaven, gravity, or the square-cube law) is essentially free.
Why not believe these things, or not believe them?
Belief or denial in evolution, climate change, or unconscious bias, on the other hand, can have social or political consequences.
Some opinions are purely personal, while others have a direct impact on policy.
I have less patience for famous academic and media elites who aggressively support junk science by not just expressing their trust in speculative notions supported by no real data, but also attacking those who point out these emperors’ nudity. Furthermore, even a hypothetical tolerant, open-minded supporter of junk sciencethe type of person who might believe in critical positivity ratio but actively support the publication of criticisms of that workcan still cause some harm by contaminating scientific journals and the news media with bad science, and by promoting sloppy work that takes up space that could be used for more careful research.
You know how they say science corrects itself, but only because individuals are willing to correct themselves?
Gresham’s law is also true, but only when people are willing to distribute counterfeit notes or money they think is counterfeit while keeping their lips shut until they can get rid of their wads of worthless stock.
P.P.S.Just to be clear:I don’t think astrology is a waste of time, and it’s possible that Marc Hauser was onto something real, even while faking data (according to the US government, as mentioned on Wikipedia), and the critical positivity ratio, ovulation, voting, and all the rest…
Just because there isn’t enough evidence to support a theory doesn’t mean it’s untrue.
I’m not trying to disprove any of these assertions.
All of it should be published someplace, along with all of the criticism.
My issue with junk science proponents isn’t simply that they advocate science that I and others perceive to be rubbish; they can also be wrong!
However, they consistently avoid, deny, and oppose valid open criticism.
P.P.P.S.Remember that #notallpsychologists.
Of course, the problem of junk research isn’t limited to psychology in any way.
Professors of political science, economics, sociology, and history, to the extent that they believe in astrology, spoon bending, or whatever (that is, belief in “scientific paranormalism as describing some true thing about the natural world, not just a “anthropological recognition that paranormal beliefs can affect the world because people believe in it), this could also sabotage their research.
I suppose it’s not such a big problem if a physicist or chemist believes in these things.
I’m not attempting to shut down study into astrology, embodied cognition, ESP, beauty-and-sex-ratio, endless soup bowls, spoon bending, the Bible Code, air anger, ovulation and voting, subliminal smiley faces, or anything else.
Allow for the blooming of a thousand blooms!
Given that a sizable portion of the populace is willing to believe in scientific-sounding notions that aren’t backed by any good scientific theory or evidence, it should come as no surprise that many professional scientists hold this viewpoint.
The repercussions are especially evident in psychology, which is a vital field of study where theories can be hazy and where there is a long legacy of belief and action based on flimsy data.
That isn’t to say that psychologists are awful people; they’re merely working on difficult challenges in a field with a long history of failures.
This isn’t a critique; it’s just the way things are. Of course, there is a lot of excellent work being done in the field of psychology. You’ll have to work with what you’ve got.
What’s the deal with astrology’s resurgence?
Astrology, formerly thought to be the domain of New Agers trapped in the 1970s, is experiencing a renaissance. A rising number of people are looking to astrology to help them gauge relationship compatibility, comprehend friendship dynamics, and make life decisions, particularly millennial women. What, though, is causing this surge in popularity? Ali Roff Farrar explores and discovers that, perhaps, we’re all simply looking for answers in a confusing world…
