posted January 13, 2011 07:03 PM            

Under the revised zodiac, the following dates would apply:

Capricorn: Jan. 20 - Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16 - March 11
Pisces: March 11- April 18
Aries: April 18- May 13
Taurus: May 13- June 21
Gemini: June 21- July 20
Cancer: July 20- Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10- Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16- Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30- Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23- Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29- Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17- Jan. 20

Full article here
http://www.thirdage.com/news/new-zodiac-sign-ophiuchus-new-zodiac-dates_1-13-2011?

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted January 13, 2011 07:10 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted January 13, 2011 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anonymoose:
vertiver, pretty much. Someone was probably unhappy with their sign and figured they'd just switch. I bet it was a virgo....

---

posted January 13, 2011 08:08 PM            

It`s all about finding balance and harmony in your self .What ever sign you may be .

Welcome!
------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted January 13, 2011 08:12 PM            

If its not included in most versions of the zodiac, then maybe there is a reason for that. Are there any astronomers in LL who can actually verify they've seen Ophiuchus and that it actually exists?

I'm not suprised the sun is in a different constellation than it used to be, there is after all a 1/12, or 1/13... chance of it being in the same sign 3000 years later.

I'm not saying it couldn't be possible but I am highly skeptical.

To prove it;

1) Evidence showing Ophiuchus exists as a constellation, i.e. give a random person a telescope in the street and point them at it. Of course you could point to anything and say its Ophiuchus. That can be said of Aries or any other constellation though, so... new constellations are always being discovered.

&

2)Proof that it was considered, in the birth of astrology, by its founders. This will be impossible to come by, because we have no records from those time periods.

Until stronger evidence is provided I don't believe it. I'm empirically based though in this discussion as you might've been able to tell. Truthfully, similar arguments can be made for astrology as it is taken on these boards but i'm hypocritical and don't care about that.

posted January 13, 2011 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by littlecloud:

What a Leo thing to say.

---

lol I'm a Libra well, apparently not anymore.

posted January 13, 2011 08:12 PM            

I also find this hard to believe, but does anyone have any more evidence to prove for or against this? Surely if this has only just knocked things off-kilter, then IF this is to be believed, it would only affect people born since whenever this Moon-disruption happened. So whatever the case is, it's got to be unlikely that people will suddenly start acting like other signs. Or even gradually! If Linda's ideas (which she expresses at the beginning of Sun Signs) are to be believed, then when we take our first breaths on this earth the influence of all the planets is marked upon us like a seal in wax or something and no change to the universe thereafter could make any difference to that surely?

As for if this is correct and future generations will be affected, I have no idea. Anyone else?

I sure hope not.... I mean, a whole new sign???? Just, what?!!

posted January 13, 2011 08:33 PM            

Why would one cling to a given sign or reject one? How many would embrace a new potentially exciting change up? An opportunity to reinvent a way of thinking or feeling.

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~