How Does The Zodiac Signs Work

Early astronomers witnessed the Sun passing through the Zodiac signs in a year’s time, spending roughly a month in each. As a result, they determined that each constellation covers 30 degrees of the ecliptic.

However, due to a phenomenon known as precession, the positions of the constellations we see now have changed.

The zero point of the Zodiac used to designate the beginning day of spring in the Northern Hemisphere. The vernal equinox happens when the ecliptic and celestial equator collide, according to astronomers.

The zero point existed in Aries around 600 BCE, and it was known as the “first point of Aries.” (See Figure 1). The constellation Aries covered the first 30 degrees of the ecliptic; Taurus covered the next 30 degrees; Gemini covered the next 60 degrees; and so on for all twelve constellations of the Zodiac.

The Earth wobbles around its axis in a 25,800-year cycle, which ancient astrologers were unaware of. The gravitational attraction of the Moon on Earth’s equatorial bulge causes this wobble, known as precession.

This wobble has led the junction point between the celestial equator and the ecliptic to migrate west along the ecliptic by 36 degrees, or nearly one-tenth of the way around, over the past two and a half millennia. This indicates that, in relation to the stars beyond, the signs have moved one-tenthor almost a month around the sky to the west.

For example, persons born between March 21 and April 19 are considered Aries. During much of that time, the Sun was no longer in the constellation of Aries. The Sun is actually in the constellation of Pisces from March 11 to April 18! (See Illustration 2) See also Figure 3, which depicts the equinox precession from 600 BCE to 2600 CE.

The dates when the Sun is truly within the astronomical constellations of the Zodiac, as defined by contemporary constellation borders and corrected for precession, are listed in the table below (these dates can vary a day from year to year).

When precession is taken into consideration, your zodiac sign will most likely be different. And if you were born between November 29 and December 17, your zodiac sign is one you’ve never heard of before: Ophiuchus! After Scorpius, the eliptic crosses across the constellation of Ophiuchus.

Visit the Birthday Sky program to view what the sky looked like on your birthday and to learn more about your “true zodiac sign.”

Constellations Image Gallery

What are the zodiac signs that are uncommon?

The 12 zodiac signs each have their own set of personality qualities and are unique in their own way (they each even have a corresponding tarot card and connection to your health). Nothing, however, compares to being the rarest. You might be wondering what the rarest zodiac sign is.

Aquarius is the sign that persons born between January 20 and February 18 belong to. According to Lisa Stardust, a New York City-based astrologer and author of Saturn Return Survival Guide: Navigating This Cosmic Rite of Passage, “the least amount of births occur in January and February, making Aquarius the rarest zodiac sign.”

Do astrological signs have any bearing on romantic relationships?

When two people are in a relationship, their preferences, likes, and dislikes are more likely to be shared. Relationships persist for as long as the spouses tend to stay together or as long as their objective is satisfied. Most relationships will last longer if both partners are committed to living a long life and having a family.

If the sole objective of a relationship is to provide physical pleasure, it is unlikely to continue long. As a result, there is no link between zodiac signs and breakups because everything is determined by the partnership’s goal and individual traits.

Who is the creator of the zodiac?

According to NASA, the Babylonians had already constructed a 12-month calendar based on the phases of the moon when they created the zodiac. Despite the fact that they identified 13 constellations that make up the zodiac, they decided to leave one out so that the zodiac signs would coincide better with their 12-month calendar.

But, before all of you Aries, Cancers, and Leos start making fun of your new Ophiuchus friends, keep in mind that the addition of this 13th constellation shifts every zodiac sign’s time frame slightly, which means that, while I’ve loved my life as a textbook Pisces, I discovered that I’m now an Aquarius after doing my research. (Gasp!)

Although 3,000 years old, this information reappeared this year when NASA disclosed scientific data regarding the Earth’s axis, which has moved and no longer points in the exact same direction as it previously did, affecting the amount of time each constellation is visible in the sky.

The astrology community (and Twitter) went crazy, and many ardent followers assumed NASA was involved “added a sign to the zodiac, causing havoc with the signs we’re all familiar with. That, however, is not the case. NASA omitted an astrological symbol from the design. They wrote a Tumblr blog entry about it “I’ve just done the math. If you want to point the finger, it should go to the ancient Babylonians for leaving Ophiuchus out of the picture in the first place.

What makes Pisces so unique?

The 12th and final sign of the zodiac calendar is Pisces. It is ruled by the planet Neptune and is symbolized by a pair of fish (as well as Jupiter). Pisces, like Scorpio and Cancer, is a water sign; nonetheless, Pisces is known for being more relaxed and amiable than the other water signs. Water signs, on the other hand, are noted for having strong emotions and being “wishy-washy” at times.

Pisces personalities are recognized for being one of the most empathic zodiac signs, and they will go to great lengths to ensure the happiness of those around them. They’re also creative, and they employ their great imaginations to come up with concepts that few others would.

When things don’t go their way, these giving souls can get gloomy, and their generous attitude makes them readily used by less selfless sorts. If they’ve been hurt too many times, Pisces can become emotionally locked off. Pisces, on the other hand, are generally sympathetic, considerate, and sensitive to their own and others’ feelings.

Justin Bieber, Elizabeth Taylor, George Harrison, and Jack Kerouac are all notable Pisces.

Is it true that many believe in astrology?

Christine Smallwood’s fascinating piece, “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.

Which zodiac is the most intelligent?

Aquarius is the zodiac sign with the highest intelligence. Uranus, the planet of invention, creativity, and expanded consciousness, rules them. As a result, this air sign does more than just process information and spit it back out: they evaluate, comprehend, and expand on it. “They’re creative, unconventional, and frequently ahead of their time,” Kovach adds. “They have a good understanding of how upcoming trends work and may have a picture of the future that others don’t.”

Which zodiac has the easiest time falling in love?

These are the zodiac signs that have an easy time falling in love. Cancerians are the most emotional of all the zodiac signs, and they are quickly moved by any kind act. It takes them less than a week to fall in love.

What are the three zodiac signs that are extremely rare?

Some may consider this sign to be the rarest because it is rarely utilized, but when most people ask which signs are the most and least common, they truly mean within the range of the 12 zodiac signs we are most familiar with.

Despite the fact that Aquarius is the least common zodiac sign, there are many renowned Aquarians.

Shakira, Corazon Aquino, Toni Morrison, Laura Dern, and more… Alicia Keys, Paul Newman, Jackie Robinson, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Galileo Galilei, Shakira, Corazon Aquino, Toni Morrison, Laura Dern, and more…