You May No Longer Be A Cancer :D

Actually it applies only if you follow Sidereal Astrology which takes into account the positions of specific constellations. This news is not new and has nothing to do with 2009, its been in effect for thousands of years and was discovered hundreds of years ago.

Western astrology follows the tropical zodiac, which is fixed to the seasons and thus based on the sun not the constellations.

The article which caused all of this drama is taking advantage of people's ignorance and presenting this as "new" information. The western zodiac has not changed. Move along people, nothing to see here.

There are two camps of thought among western astrologers about the "starting point", 0 degrees Aries, in the zodiac. Sidereal astrology believes that the starting point is at a particular fixed position in the background of stars, while tropical astrology (which is adopted by the majority of Western astrologers) believes that the starting point is when the position of the Sun against the background of stars coincides with the Northern hemisphere vernal equinox (i.e. when the Sun position against the heavens crosses over from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere) each year.

As the Earth spins on its axis, it "wobbles" like a top, causing the vernal equinox to move gradually backwards against the star background, (a phenomenon known as the Precession of the equinoxes) at a rate of about 30 degrees (one Zodiacal sign length) every 2,160 years. Thus the two zodiacs would be aligned only once every 26,000 years and were aligned about 2,000 years ago when the zodiac was originally established.

This phenomenon gives us the conceptual basis for the Age of Aquarius, whose "dawning" coincides with the movement of the vernal equinox across the cusp from Pisces to Aquarius in the star background.

Tropical astrology is based on the idea that early astrologers (mid-to-late first millennium BCE) defined the star signs according to the seasons in which the sun rose in them; it wishes to preserve the seasonal associations of those star signs by laying out new horoscopes against a first-millennium sky. For tropical astrologers therefore it is irrelevant that the solsticial points (tropics) have drifted from one constellation to another over the millennia, due to the precession of the equinoxes. The underlying philosophy remains unchanged in spite of precession, because it is based on the Earth's (and therefore our) relationship to the sun, not to the stars. The names of the zodiacal constellations that became the star signs are supposed to suggest the characteristics of (the sun in) each segment of the year. Thus, Aries (House 1), representing the sun just returning to the northern hemisphere at the vernal equinox, symbolises unruly beginnings; Leo (House 5), representing the powerful sun of mid-summer, symbolises fertility and self-display; Sagittarius (House 9), representing the retreating or meditative sun close to the winter solstice, symbolises the search for understanding.

Wait, if the inaccuracy is based on the "wobble" effect due to earth's spinning on its axis, wouldn't the zodiacs essentially fluctuate over several thousand years at a time?

It changes by a day every ~70 years. It's been wrong for well over a thousand years.

Essentially yes.

yeah I know, I don't really care. I'm just annoyed that out of no where they suddenly decide to change them cause some *** hat said he thought they were wrong.

It's like saying 'The calendar is wrong, we actually have 13 months in a year now'.

The International Fixed calendar (also known as the International Perpetual calendar, the Cotsworth plan, the Eastman plan, the 13 Month calendar or the Equal Month calendar) is a proposal for calendar reform designed by Moses B. Cotsworth who presented it in 1923 providing for a year of 13 months of 28 days each, with one day at the end of each year belonging to no month or week. Though it was never officially adopted in any country, it was the official calendar of the Eastman Kodak Company from 1928 to 1989.

different from the way we do it...so it must be wrong!

Just because tropical astrology is adopted by the majority of Western astrologers doesn't really amount up to *** :/
Just because the "western zodiac hasn't changed" doesn't mean that people who are used to the western zodiac shouldn't be made aware to it :/
And it doesn't mean that western astrology is right and all other astrologies are wrong :/
i'd rather go by star locations though.

also:

TL;DR-
Western Astrology=mythology
Sidereal astrology=actual maths.
why have symbols correlating with constellations without...correlating them to constellations :/
guess people will believe what they want to believe.
still about as accurate as a fortune cookie in regards to the horoscopes.


So since a lot of people are ignorant to the fact that there are two astrologies in the first place should be a good sign that, there is something to see here, regardless if it's nothing new.
dimissing it just because it's not new is silly.
what's not new to you may be new to many others, it was made a bit apparent yesterday :/

If your way was right, we would be doing it that way already.

What I'm saying is people are in an uproar over nothing. Whatever, have fun with it.