Spectrum Computing

Hi all,

just a poll where you can enter your own Zodiac Sign...

I predict there will be one Zodiac Sign which reflects "Peoples Spectrum Life" the most
We will see, if I´m right here (I'll keep my prediction to myself for now).



(Source Reference: Background from: Graphic from: https://www.deviantart.com/peachysic/ar ... -186691516
and Zodiac Signs Overview Graphic from: https://www.rawpixel.com/image/9975647

I don't see the "I don't believe on those things" option.

Also, this is the 1.0 version of Zodiac... what happened to the 2.0, 13 signs version? There was some discussions about that some years ago, but I didn't remember seeing it used anywhere.

zup wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:57 am I don't see the "I don't believe on those things" option.

Nah me neither but I do like what Douglas Adams had to say about it:

Douglas Adams wrote:In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing the indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people.

I think that’s from Mostly Harmless.

zup wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:57 am Also, this is the 1.0 version of Zodiac... what happened to the 2.0, 13 signs version? There was some discussions about that some years ago, but I didn't remember seeing it used anywhere.

Yes, astrology doesn’t account for Earth’s
axial precession. In the 2000 years since the Babylonians drew up their astrological charts, the sun’s position relative to the constellations is off by 1/13 (or out by one sign).

zup wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:57 am I don't see the "I don't believe on those things" option.

@zup Well, simple don´t chosse an option

zup wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 5:57 am Also, this is the 1.0 version of Zodiac... what happened to the 2.0, 13 signs version? There was some discussions about that some years ago, but I didn't remember seeing it used anywhere.

>v2.0, 13 signs version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac) will simply not get equally distributed in the polls result as it is based on shorter date periods than the "normal" Zodiac signs. The poll-option here in the forum has no option to recalculate results or enter formulas.

We shouldn't take the poll here too seriously

btw. I voted myself now and wonder because it has not the result I expected. But we have to wait some hundreds vote to see if there´s one Zodiac sign which is ahead of the others.

This poll reminds me of these fine screens from the program Specola from magazine Run #7.

Luzie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 6:23 pm ... to see if there´s one Zodiac sign which is ahead of the others.

Probably no, we cover "all the spectrum" of the zodiac.

what happened to the 2.0, 13 signs version

I'm interested a little bit in such stuff so let me explain.

Zodiac signs are related to groups (constellations) of stars that really exist and are located in the sky at the ecliptic - the apparent path of the Sun across the celestial sphere over the course of the year.

As you say there are actually 13 constellations in the ecliptic but one of them is ignored in the astrology.
The ignored, "forgotten" constellation is called Ophiuchus or Serpentarius. It occupies only a very small part of ecliptic, partly that's why it is ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus

It's also a simplication to assume that all signs occupy equal parts of ecliptic, it isn't so in the reality.

Also assigning stars to constellations is a bit arbitrary, just like assigning names to them. Cancer or Leo don't really look like crayfish or lion and you needed a lot of imagination (or wine, or both) to call them so.

The western astrology that we know has its roots in Babylon and Babylonians didn't make Serpentarius a separate constellation. It remains so today, the astrology is actually quite "immune" to any new empirical facts

Ralf wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 9:23 pmthe astrology is actually quite "immune" to any new empirical facts

That phrase deserves a prize

Dara O'Briain has a brilliant take on this. He points out that, from a scientific and statistical point if view, if you really must take everyone in the world, divide them up into arbitrary groups based entirely on the circumstances of their birth (i.e. nothing they themselves have any control over), then assign highly personal characteristics that you expect each group to conform too, you'll find that rac1sm is much better at doing that than astro1ogy.
And then takes great pains to point out that he's not advocating either of the two...