The Sun in the constellation
Ophiuchus on December 12, contary to coomets of some astrologers.
A
recent article by astronomer Parke Kunkle has had the twitterverse and astrologers in an uproar by pointing out that Sun no longer enters the constellations associated with the
zodiac due to
precession of the equinoxes.
Now, readers of the Panda's Thumb might wonder why a kerfuffle about a pseudoscience like astrology warrants attention on a blog devoted to evolution. However, there is a parallel between how astrologers respond to criticism and how anti-evolutionists respond to criticism. So you might find it interesting (oh, and yes,
astrology is rubbish).
Tropical Astrologers are boasting that Kunkle is wrong, and their system is better than that of
Sidereal Astrologers, because their constellations are defined by the
Vernal Equinox, and
yar-boo-sucks to those silly astronomers (does this sound familiar).
However, in Tropical Astrology the zodiacal sign Aries (for example) actually points to the constellation we call Pisces (all the tropical zodiacal signs are offset from the real constellations by about 23 degrees). Now, most people couldn't find their own constellation in the sky, but I'm sure they would be perplexed to know that Astrological Aries is the constellation known to and ourselves and the ancient Greeks as Pisces (also, the vast majority of horoscopes that people are familiar with are
Sun Sign horoscopes which Tropical Astrologers look down on in the first place). So Parke Kunkle is correct, the Zodiacal signs most westerners are familiar with are not associated with the constellations they are named after (and the Tropical Astrologers have admitted there is no "astro" in their astrology and all the folderol of influences of "watery constellations" and so forth are nonsense).
Yes, zodiacal constellations and actual constellations are two entirely different things. The astrological signs of the zodiac may bear the same names as modern constellations but have little correspondence to either modern constellations or constellations as ancients such as
Ptolemy knew them. Both Astrological Tropical and Sidereal zodiacal signs are sections of the sky 30 degrees long and 14 degrees wide, centred on the Suns path. No matter how big or small the actual constellation, the sign associated with that constellation is one twelfth of the length of the Suns yearly journey. Again, we will pass silently over the fact that the tropical zodiac signs are named for constellations that no longer reside in their 30 degree swath due to precession of the equinoxes.
The other thing exercising the astrologers is whether Ophiuchus should be part of the zodiac. Now, boundaries for the astronomical constellations have varied quite a bit since the time of Ptolemy (whose astronomical constellations had very different boundaries to the zodiacal constellations), but both the modern constellation of Ophiuchus and the ancient Greek
one defined by Ptolemy had Ophiuchus crossing the ecliptic, as do all the other constellations of the Zodiac. Now we have an
astrologer fulminating:
"This is an old hoax. Historically, Ophiuchus has never been listed as a constellation in the sidereal zodiac. It is a constellation out there, but it's off the ecliptic (that is, it's not along the path of the Sun through the sky). I've read that Ptolemy mentions it in his literature as an off-zodiac constellation, meaning that the Sun never travels through it...."
Sorry mate, the Sun does travel through it (and has done so since Ptolemy described it back around 130 AD, and probably even earlier based on the
Farnese Atlas see the image above), as does the Moon and planets, in fact the Sun spends more time in Ophiuchus than it does in Scorpius. It's good that astrologers are so familiar with the sky they get their predictions from.
What's more, several astrologers have suggested that Ophiuchus should be incorporated into the zodiac (see
here,
here and
here). So I wouldn't call the proposal for Ophiuchus to be a Zodiacal constellation a "hoax", Mr. Astrologer.
So, basically Tropical Astrologers are complaining that, err, scientists are accurately describing astrology at the same time demonstrating ignorance of fundamental aspects of the sky (and their own discipline). Again, does that sound familiar?
The Sun in the constellation Ophiuchus on December 12, contary to coomets of some astrologers.
A recent article by astronomer Parke Kunkle has had the twitterverse and astrologers in an uproar by pointing out that Sun no longer enters the constellations associated with the zodiac due to precession of the equinoxes.
Now, readers of the Panda's Thumb might wonder why a kerfuffle about a pseudoscience like astrology warrants attention on a blog devoted to evolution. However, there is a parallel between how astrologers respond to criticism and how anti-evolutionists respond to criticism. So you might find it interesting (oh, and yes, astrology is rubbish).
Tropical Astrologers are boasting that Kunkle is wrong, and their system is better than that of Sidereal Astrologers, because their constellations are defined by the Vernal Equinox, and yar-boo-sucks to those silly astronomers (does this sound familiar).
However, in Tropical Astrology the zodiacal sign Aries (for example) actually points to the constellation we call Pisces (all the tropical zodiacal signs are offset from the real constellations by about 23 degrees). Now, most people couldn't find their own constellation in the sky, but I'm sure they would be perplexed to know that Astrological Aries is the constellation known to and ourselves and the ancient Greeks as Pisces (also, the vast majority of horoscopes that people are familiar with are Sun Sign horoscopes which Tropical Astrologers look down on in the first place). So Parke Kunkle is correct, the Zodiacal signs most westerners are familiar with are not associated with the constellations they are named after (and the Tropical Astrologers have admitted there is no "astro" in their astrology and all the folderol of influences of "watery constellations" and so forth are nonsense).
Yes, zodiacal constellations and actual constellations are two entirely different things. The astrological signs of the zodiac may bear the same names as modern constellations but have little correspondence to either modern constellations or constellations as ancients such as Ptolemy knew them. Both Astrological Tropical and Sidereal zodiacal signs are sections of the sky 30 degrees long and 14 degrees wide, centred on the Suns path. No matter how big or small the actual constellation, the sign associated with that constellation is one twelfth of the length of the Suns yearly journey. Again, we will pass silently over the fact that the tropical zodiac signs are named for constellations that no longer reside in their 30 degree swath due to precession of the equinoxes.
The other thing exercising the astrologers is whether Ophiuchus should be part of the zodiac. Now, boundaries for the astronomical constellations have varied quite a bit since the time of Ptolemy (whose astronomical constellations had very different boundaries to the zodiacal constellations), but both the modern constellation of Ophiuchus and the ancient Greek one defined by Ptolemy had Ophiuchus crossing the ecliptic, as do all the other constellations of the Zodiac. Now we have an astrologer fulminating:
22 Comments
Frank J · 16 January 2011
Actually this is a great opportunity for the DI. With both "classic" YEC and OEC outfits, and fans who didn't "get the memo," constantly undermining their efforts to create an anti-evolution "big tent," the DI could divert at least part of its rhetorical resources to astrology, to offer it a big tent in which to hide from these inconvenient disagreements. Behe already admitted at Dover that if ID qualifies as science, so does astrology.
Mike Elzinga · 16 January 2011
I had to look this one up after I watched the Rachel Maddow Show the other day.
Rachel’s crew had this further confused with a story about the drift of the magnetic north pole and the re-labeling of runways at Tampa International Airport that had its runways labeled with points on the magnetic compass.
John_S · 16 January 2011
Astrology is certainly rubbish. But that said, the astrological signs are merely nominal. In astrology, "Aries" is always the area between ecliptic longitude 0° (which is the vernal equinox) and 30°, regardless of where this falls relative to the observed constellation.
In the last two millennia or so, the equinox (a.k.a. the "first point of Aries") has drifted from the eastern edge of the astronomical Aries, most of the way through Pisces (the "Age of Pisces"); and, despite what we're told in "Hair", the "Age of Aquarius" will dawn in another 500-600 years.
Mike Clinch · 16 January 2011
William Young · 16 January 2011
I would like to know why this is "news," It has been known for centuries.
Mike Elzinga · 16 January 2011
Mike Elzinga · 16 January 2011
Ian Musgrave · 16 January 2011
Helena Constantine · 16 January 2011
Ophiuchus is not part of the astrological system because it was first thought of by the Greeks. The original Babylonian Zodiac did not include it.
Mike Clinch · 16 January 2011
Mike Elzinga · 16 January 2011
Flint · 17 January 2011
Mike Elzinga · 17 January 2011
Mike Elzinga · 17 January 2011
snaxalotl · 17 January 2011
so, the fundamental question is whether we are affected by a particular patch of sky or a particular patch of stars. postgrads everywhere must be leaping at the chance to carefully correlate this information with rigorously defined personality tests
eric · 17 January 2011
Ian Musgrave · 17 January 2011
Deklane · 17 January 2011
Granted that astrology is rubbish, I'd still take an astrologer over a Creationist. Astrology accepts the universe as we know it and is based on one relatively minor addition to standard science: that the stars and planets and their motions have some influence on human affairs. If some form of astrology could be demonstrated to be a correct description of how the universe works, most scientists would be astonished, but it could incorporated into the existing framework without too much heartburn and then studied rationally. It would just be new information added to what is already known.
Creationism isn't just an add-on. To show it to be correct would overthrow what we think we know in astronomy, biology, botany, geology, anthropology, archaeology, physics... am I done yet? Creationism claims that everything we think we know is wrong, and at its worst accuses existing science of being a cynical hoax that all the scientists are knowingly in on. Even *how* we know things is fundamentally flawed in the Creationist view, because the universe isn't what it looks like (see attempts to solve the starlight problem with relativistic bafflegab, or attempts to invoke supernatural causes for things that are safely deep in the past).
Next to that, astrology seems practically benign.
Thanatos · 18 January 2011
A minor/trivial correction as far as the names are concerned. Your (English) names of the zodiac sign the Latin equivalent/translation of Greek.
In Greek many words differ. The same is generally valid for constellations,stars,planets etc.Both for ancient names and modern.
Ie
Pisces(sign/constellation)= (in Greek) Ichthyes (or Ichtheis),
Jupiter(planet)=(in Greek) Zeus,
Mars(planet)= (in Greek) Ares,
Milky way galaxy = well, it's the Greek equivalent of the English "our galaxy".Otherwise it would be the Galaxias Galaxias (Galaxy Galaxy or Milky Way Milky way)...
Though nowadays some -not so well educated people- call it "milky-yu-ey galaxias";
milky-yu-ey = a somewhat phonetic transliteration to english of the somewhat phonetic transliteration back to modern greek of the english translation of the greek word galaxias(galaxy) :D .
[/offtopic]
John Stockwell · 19 January 2011
Just Bob · 19 January 2011
mrg · 19 January 2011
Astrology is dippy. Creationism is obnoxious.