Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
OfflineJonBoyNCTx
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/07/16
Posts: 63
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Crazy how signs are so accurate
    #23769263 - 10/25/16 08:45 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

So I almost thread jacked someone lol then decided to respect there post; some people don't like add randomness. Lmao

So I'm a Taurus my girlfriend is an Aquarius and I know one of my best friends is also a Taurus. It's funny how we do carry a lot or all of those standard characteristics. I know I and my girlfriend you go threw the list and it's like yep yep yep yep lol. I wonder how that is or how why. Why are people born in April more likely to be stubborn as fuck or super loyal to those they care about. Just crazy random add stoned thought

Carry on


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBoomBoom
Nuke worker-Its a blast!
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 1,198
Last seen: 11 days, 12 hours
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: JonBoyNCTx]
    #23769296 - 10/25/16 09:01 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I thought all the signs shifted after the change of the zodiacs and after nasa discovered a 13th sign. I have always been a Taurus as well but after this new shift Im not sure what I am now.

I know I'm not a little bitch like my next door neighbor.


Edited by BoomBoom (10/25/16 09:02 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJonBoyNCTx
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/07/16
Posts: 63
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: BoomBoom]
    #23770109 - 10/25/16 01:49 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Lol. I have no idea I'm just learning but every time I read anything about me as a cusp Taurus based of like birthday and location and what not it is a nail being hit with a hmmer


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinealfonseelrick
Mycopath


Registered: 09/09/15
Posts: 606
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: BoomBoom]
    #23771768 - 10/25/16 10:45 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

........


--------------------
Im just a fictional character everything stated by me is purely fictional and simply lies, those who like me are liars who where bribed or blackmailed in some way Muahahaha :stoned:


Edited by alfonseelrick (10/26/16 12:46 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system Flag
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: alfonseelrick]
    #23772028 - 10/26/16 12:38 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Without knowing the first thing about astrology, I'm amazed at how clear life gives us signs to guide us, if we ready pay attention. It's fucking mindblowing. DMT is especially good at making them seem clearer, for a short time.


--------------------
Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJonBoyNCTx
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/07/16
Posts: 63
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: Jokeshopbeard]
    #23772606 - 10/26/16 08:32 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I've never done dmt but shrooms defiantly make me feel the earths energy. And i can't say I "buy in" into astrology but I'll be damned if it just doesn't sound like there talking about me specifically


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system Flag
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: JonBoyNCTx] * 1
    #23774738 - 10/26/16 08:51 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

DMT is VERY similar to psilocybin. The effect is just more concentrated on DMT.

I would highly advise it if you've never tried it.


--------------------
Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoneKildatReason
Chemical in the body
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/25/05
Posts: 1,061
Loc: Green Country
Last seen: 12 days, 3 hours
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: Jokeshopbeard]
    #23782090 - 10/29/16 08:51 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

This "shift" as mentioned above is really not as the silly articles quoting NASA say..... I don't understand it all well enough to explain, but if you look into it you'll see, that a 13th zodiac is nothing new.... just not accepted as fitting with already established calendar... sheds doubt on entire astrological theories..


--------------------
This was an experiment.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: DoneKildatReason] * 1
    #23783078 - 10/29/16 04:05 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I don't think the physicists or astronomers and other associated media outlets typically understand the ptolomic/geocentric basis of astrology.

Astrology is a form of nature reverence. Its symbology conforms to the divisions of the apparent path of the sun - ie. the mark and subdivision of seasons, which is not arbitrary. Notice how the traditional zodiac signs begin and end roughly on the solstices and equinoxes? Then it further subdivides them into months (which also elegantly corresponds to the phases of the moon - which is why the word month is derived from "moon"). This is the astrologer's basic reference point.

This is why it is not the fixed constellations that astrologer's derive meaning from. There is a difference evident, enough, as astronomers say. Astronomers (or anyone talking about a 13th sign anyway) should be aware of this, even if they are not astrologers. People who believe in astrology do not say the appearance of the stars in their apparent position and view from earth, is a force like an apple falling on Newton's head. They were markers. When early people drew signs and symbols in the stars, (the 12 figures and forms of animals and heros, which astrologers know), they were roughly marking the time of year, and what people observed in nature, and they were in that position long enough for people to develop this mysticism or mythology. What is esoteric about astrology is that this is not just indicating something like weather of a time and place, but nature itself. This is important to these arguments, because the constellations were signs, largely signifying this.

For instance, Pisces, an astrological sign is the archetype, not the rough shape and configuration of stars, that looks like two fishes to ancient people. The nature of pisces, people gathered, which we understand as going along with a story and image, is what is known as Pisces, the signified, not the signifier. The nature of Pisces is going to be closer to the seasons and earth rythms, or "nature" more than how the stars indicated this. This nature reverence is not the entirety of astrology, but it is a good part of it.

Based on the phenomenon of precession, adding a 13th sign, is as ridiculous as adding a month or another 30 degrees to the zodiac.  It does not fit in the year! These people literally want to force something it seems like. But if astrologers were to reinterpret the signs according to fixed constellations (the tradition) of our days they would do so in the 360 degrees and twelve divisions.

So theoretically, a Pisces (I am a pisces for instance) would be possibly completely different in its constellation, a little different in what a drawn constellation might express, but to anyone sincerely invested in traditional astrology, (or charitably trying to understand its theory) the sign would remain the same, in spite of precession, or "shift" of relatively constellations. Really there is no such thing as a shift, in "signs", just like there is no 13th sign that comes into view. There is what astronomers call precession, and other constellations coming into the ecliptic (the sun's apparent path).

Although astrology should rightly be seen as controversial to the skeptical minded in many ways, it should not be questioned in this particular sense. The idea of a 13th sign is either a particularly lazy reading of the scientific literature, or more likely an uncharitable, if not pernicious misreading what astrology itself purports as sun signs.

Personally. I would not assume my references by dogmatic authority, but understand what I am saying if I want to talk about a "13th" (geocentric - geometrically conceived) "sign"


Edited by Kurt (10/29/16 05:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: Kurt]
    #23783275 - 10/29/16 05:27 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Is a zodiac constellation a star sign? If not, why not?

Sign - Constellation: They are very different things. The term ‘zodiac constellation’ applies to a group of stars that lies in the area of sky measured by the zodiac. Different cultures, and even the same cultures at different periods of history, have recognized varying numbers of constellations in this region of the sky, as adjustments were made to constellation boundaries. However, the zodiac itself, being a mathematical division of an astronomical circle, has only ever been divided into twelve equally spaced ‘zodiac signs’. The words ‘constellation’ and ‘sign’ depict different things.

A constellation can be visibly seen. It is a grouping of stars that appear together in the sky, as the word constellation suggests (it derives from the Latin con, ‘together’ + stellas, ‘stars’).

A sign communicates information. Zodiac signs, sometimes popularly called ‘star signs’, are determined by astronomical principles. The astronomers who originated the zodiac system also worked as astrologers and sought to attach and extract more than purely astronomical information from them; however, zodiac signs never have, and never will be visible - nor are they expected to make a close astronomical alignment with the constellations whose names they share. This would not be possible because constellations vary greatly in size whereas zodiac signs do not.

It is worth considering that when the Babylonians developed their zodiac they recognised seventeen visible constellations that lay in the area measured by the zodiac. The reduction of the number of their constellations was done over time to facilitate astronomical measurement, and in response to the increased importance of the zodiac. But note that the constellation boundaries were adjusted to ease association of constellations with zodiac signs, not vice versa. The twelve-fold design of the zodiac is never changed to reflect alterations of constellation boundaries.

Why does the BBC tell us “The astronomical zodiac actually contains thirteen star signs - the twelve that we're familiar with plus another one, called Ophiuchus”?
This information is incorrect and based on Dara O’Briain confusing constellations with star signs, and also failing to distinguish between the ecliptic and the zodiac. What would be correct to say is that the ecliptic passes through thirteen constellations. These do not constitute star signs.

Following the redefinition of constellation boundaries by the International Astronomical Union during the 1930s, the ecliptic currently passes through thirteen officially recognised constellations: the twelve constellations historically described as ‘zodiac constellations’ (because either the whole or greater part of them falls within the zodiac belt), plus the constellation Ophiuchus, which mainly lies outside it.

Serpent bearer Ophiuchus is not a new constellation: it was catalogued with many others in Ptolemy's 2nd-Century treatise, Almagest, (an astronomical text of huge historical standing), where it is referred to as Septentarius, ‘the serpent holder’. It was always realised that the ecliptic cuts through a small part of this constellation, but it is a very large constellation, the majority of which the zodiac fails to embrace, so it was not considered a ‘zodiac constellation’. The clarifying account by the editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2014) gives a very accurate and reliable explanation of what the zodiac is and why the Sun “regularly passes through one constellation (Ophiuchus) that is not considered a member of the zodiac”. [9]

Regardless of where the boundaries of Ophiuchus are placed, astrologers have always taken meaningful associations from the stars of this and other constellations. Astrological interest focuses on the brightest and most culturally significant stars in the sky, and the meaning attributed to them has been acquired over many centuries. This long-established meaning is not lost according to what division of the zodiac a star falls in, or if the boundaries of the constellations are adjusted, although this might give rise to new cultural associations that become meaningful for astrologers over time. [For the astrological meaning attributed to Ophiuchus and its stars, see: www.skyscript.co.uk]


Why is news of a thirteen-sign zodiac like an urban myth that keeps circulating, even though it is not true?


The BBC has a habit of raising this story to promote their astronomy programmes and in many ways has acted as the source of it. The astronomically incorrect description of Ophiuchus as an ‘astrological sign’ first drew prominent media attention in Britain on January 20, 1995, following the BBC's Nine O’Clock News announcement that “an extra sign of the zodiac has been announced by the Royal Astronomical Society”. The story made the headlines of the Times and Telegraph the following morning.

News of this supposedly thirteen-sign zodiac quickly travelled across the world, being featured (on the strength of the BBC's reputation) on NBC news in the US, and making countless sensational newspaper headlines throughout Europe, Canada, Brazil and Australia. Investigation into the source of the story revealed there had been no such announcement. [11] The BBC had merely misreported the International Astronomical Union's old decision, in the 1930s, to alter the officially recognised boundaries of constellations that cross the ecliptic. The Nine O’Clock News announcement was made as part of the BBC's promotion for a forthcoming programme on astronomy that featured the zodiac and explored the issue of ‘precession of the equinoxes’ (a technical theme that few members of the public would be likely to get excited about without some kind of public interest attachment). Despite complaints, the BBC made no attempt to set the record straight or to explain why their highly profiled news story was so factually flawed and misleading.

A similar situation occurred in January 2011 after international media blazed with reports that astronomer Parke Kunkle had claimed Ophiuchus was the zodiac's ‘thirteenth sign’. The original story, published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, went viral and suffered increasing misrepresentation as this sensational detail became repeated by countless news organisations. The internet swiftly gained a host of new articles showing how the ecliptic crosses Ophiuchus, and referring to it as the thirteenth sign of the zodiac.

In response to the unexpected avalanche of publicity, Kunkle issued a statement to say that he had not reported that the zodiac ought to include thirteen signs instead of twelve, but was only mentioning that there were thirteen constellations. [12] Again, the rather boring details of this clarifying statement failed to attract any significant media attention, although the BBC - at that time - did publish an article which stated that the issues do not affect our understanding of the zodiac system used in the West. This concluded: “For all those people that believe in astrology or set some kind of lesser emotional store on the signs of the zodiac, they can rest easy. The Tauruses are still Taurus and the Arieses are still Aries”. [10]

The zodiac is no longer a preferred system of astronomical measurement; so many individual astronomers who comment on this matter make no use of it, and have a poor understanding of its history, definition and purpose. Many have been influenced by these kinds of sensationalised media reports, and so do not realise how inappropriate it is, astronomically, to refer to a constellation as a ‘star sign’. Many more will now be influenced by the BBC's new BBCiWonder webpage, which was published in association with the BBC's Stargazing Live astronomy programme, and presents content that appears to be shaped by their own promotional interests rather than educational purposes.

http://www.astro.com/astrology/aa_article150701_e.htm




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCowboy Buckie
General
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/18/14
Posts: 93
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: Kurt]
    #23785932 - 10/30/16 03:35 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

anyone try the Mayan astrology?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJonBoyNCTx
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/07/16
Posts: 63
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
Re: Crazy how signs are so accurate [Re: Cowboy Buckie]
    #23797318 - 11/03/16 11:31 AM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Man I'm sorry I know you put a lot of time into that post and I truely hope it helps some one; but I have a traumatic brain injury from Iraq. I can't read. Well I can but not text like books and stuff like that anymore. My brain kinda shuts down. I'm sorry. Thanks though


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Christianity before Christ - Jesus, Horus, Krishna, and the sun MAIA 10,393 19 12/19/05 12:32 PM
by MAIA
* 13th zodiac - the serpent bearer kotik 1,457 3 01/26/07 01:15 PM
by Middleman
* Hindu Prophecy from the Bhagavad Gita, Puranas blaze2 4,863 11 04/13/07 04:43 AM
by eve69
* Heaven is coming to earth *the sequel*
( 1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 )
zorbman 178,039 1,020 03/15/18 06:53 PM
by BrendanFlock
* The Lucifer Rebellion
( 1 2 all )
Telepylus 5,670 25 06/06/07 02:04 PM
by backfromthedead
* July 23rd and the Sirius connection LiveByFreedom 4,801 2 07/24/06 01:07 PM
by Icelander
* Zeitgeist....wanna try and poke holes?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
ZShroom 7,094 60 01/08/08 10:54 PM
by wyldeman007
* Duality Trap
( 1 2 all )
leery11 6,198 22 06/08/06 05:44 PM
by Telepylus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum
610 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.