This is dumb. Dinosaurs looks are so diverse. He should have chosen a specific one.
At least narrow it down to clade, like just Theropods or something.
Oh. I wanna steal this.
You don’t have to steel it. It’s a virtual picture. You can download it and share it with everyone, as often as you like, whenever you want. There’s no cost attached in sharing data other than hardware and energy
Yep, OP stole this meme.
Yep, OP
stoledistributed this meme.You wouldn’t download a meme.
But…you mean…my nfts?
Those are copy protected by nobody wanting them.
Enjoy this FREE* meme
*Messaging and data rates may apply
I like your username. Do you mind sharing where it comes from?
Just rolls off the tongue. Like “cellar door”.
That’s true. It sounds like a children’s book character who’s a woodland creature detective
Thank you for this explanation.
Shit. Then who I have been mailing my money to?
cue the meme acquisition notice here
Np, OP also stole it
I would argue that the zodiac is the proto-science of psychology.
This is people trying to find behavioral patterns
Faulty pattern recognition isn’t something we should be holding on to.
It is the alchemy to the chemistry is what they are saying
So not at all based in science? Interesting as a historical curiosity but nothing more?
Interesting because of the psychological insights into not how all people are, but how people make up theories in general. Same way religion has scientific significance in an anthropological sense.
And how many people are still using Alchemy?
“I turned 5 pounds of lead into gold this morning using this one weird trick that chemists HATE! Subscribe to my premium substack to learn more!”
They told us the history of alchemy in chemistry class, it’s good to know the context.
Yes, but no one credible still uses it. Which was the point I was making.
Turns out you can make up any arbitrary distinctions and they just start existing. The question is if they severe any useful purpose.
I can make zodiac 2.0 exist by adding shoe size to distinguish between regular aquarius and aquarius without platypus (above EU 42 is with). So now the Zodiac 2.0 exists with the same predictive power as 1.0.
Don’t worry we already have Zodiac 2.0
And Zodiac 3.0
I’m disappointed none of these are Github links
This one is like a D&D game.
What do you predict for regular Aries this week?
zodiac 2.0
Already kind of a thing, since the constellations the zodiacs were based on have moved since they were “decided”, and no longer match what people continue to use:
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/31/1222132825/checking-your-2024-horoscope-astronomy-explains-why-your-sign-might-have-changed
I usually say “Ophiuchus”
Which is the official 13th zodiac sign that was removed because 13 is a “bad” number
Actually it was not removed. It just wasn’t on the ecliptic plane before standardisation in 1930.
Constellations on sky change from time to time thanks to axial precession.
Username checks out.
That’s the secret sign that gives you the power of chakra energy transmutation. Richie Blackmore of Deep Purple used this power to become a space trucker.
Considering how the universe is full of stuff circling around stuff circling around stuff circling around… the zodiac signs have moved over the last couple of millenias.
Yup, position of zodiac constellations has changed, thanks to axial precession
Not that I believe in astrology, but just because the constellations moved doesn’t mean that humans weren’t able to track them. They still form a ring around Earth and the precession of the Zodiacs still occurs.
I believe the point is not that the zodiacs don’t occur at all, it’s that the time you are born is no longer the same time the original zodiac occured.
The fact humans are able to track them is how we know the zodiacs are no longer accurate. According to astrology if you were born on Dec. 1 for example, you’re considered a Sagittarius… except you’re ACTUALLY a Scorpio, due to the constellations shifting.
That’s like saying Huckleberry Finn doesn’t exist. Just because it’s made-up doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It exists as a concept which billions of people understand.
The Sun’s position on the ecliptic at the vernal equinox is not a “concept”, it’s a physical reality, recognised by the International Astronomical Union.
Actually they do. The zodiac
signconstellation of a day correspond to the constellation over which the sun while be at noon. So you do have a zodiacsignconstellation associated to your day of bird. But depending on how your culture group stars in constellations you might be from a different zodiac. If you want to follow a classical westerner map of the sky, they will be 13 of them.Also, note that the zodiac signs won’t cut the year in equal parts. Some constellations are just bigger than other and the sun path across the sky changes more or less quickly from a day to another depending on the time of the year.
Edit : typo
He made up the sign and constellation Dinosaur.
Yeah, I also didn’t like the wording of the meme. It’s like saying “Santa Claus doesn’t exist”. He does exist, he’s just not a real person, but he exists as a concept and influences millions of people.
He did exist but the time distorted his image and lost any resamblance to an actual person
I’m aware that he’s the basis of the modern Santa Claus (I’ve actually been to Demre), but I would argue that the modern Claus is a separate entity/concept at this point.
Agreed. In France they are considered two different entities. Nicolas was celebrated earlier than Christmas (6 December). This celebration never stopped in the North-East of France and with the revival of tradition-the-way-we-pictured-it-was-before of every thing related to holiday season it growing big in Alsace and Lorraine and it slowly spreading again.
People celebrate “Saint Nicolas” (Santa Claus) and expect the “Père Noël” Father Christmas while celebrating Christmas.
I would go even further : Santa Claus is presented as a actual person that we all know does not exist even though the concept exists. But noone ever pretended that Zodiac are a physical thing, it’s a concept and concepts can’t get more real that being conceptualized.
Whoa — 13 signs that are not each 1/13 years long??
Check out wikipedia. There is two pages each time one for the zodiac sign and one for the constellation.
And if you go to the french version, the dates at which the sun cross the constellation are each time in the introduction. It’s the date of the first paragraph. The ones the second paragraph is the dates is in astrology, for disambiguation. The comparaison are harder with the english articles.
The constellations are made up too so no they don’t
That is not because something is made up that it does not exist. I made up this message hence it exists.
Cultures group stars together in what is called constellations, hence constellations exist.
Dinosaurs don’t exist?!
As a zodiac sign, no they do not.
Isn’t it about time we do something about that? I’m going to write to my congressman.
But dragons do?
No, only ambiguous bones that could be anything and are interpreted to be dinosaurs by old earth creationists making you believe the earth is older than a millennium. Most bones are actually from giants, unicorns and centaurs depending on the color.
Wait only a millennium?
Does this mean Jesus didn’t really exist and his existence is a trick by God to test our faith?
That made me spit out my coffee🤣
While most zodiac signs are inspired by real animals, wtf is an “aquarius”?
In Dutch we don’t use the Latin names for zodiac signs (and we call them “sterrenbeelden”, which means “star images” or maybe “star statues”). Aquarius is “waterman”, which I guess would translate to (surprise) “water man”.
Why? Not sure, but it might be because of Simon Stevin who insisted we use Dutch words for mathematical concepts, and thought up some words like “evenwijdig” (“same distancey”) for “parallel” and “wiskunde” (“certainty knowledge”) for mathematics.
Literally, “water man” is correct. But I would translate it a bit more loosely as “water bearer”.
Most, if not all, names of zodiac signs in Dutchare are literal translations from Latin. But while most people understand that Leo means Lion, how many know Cancer is Latin for crab?
Water bearer makes much more sense, thanks! I did notice the images where a guy carries a jug, but as a kid, I always imagined the water man to be some kind of elemental, and I never consciously challenged that idea. Haha.
Dutch is a strange language.
I agree, and I love how it has these younger words with a vivid etymology, how it shares so many common roots with English, German, the Scandinavian languages, and a serving of French, but also sprinkles of many other languages from its seafaring and otherwise trading history. And I love the grammar rules that allow one to be precise and concise in many things (but there we must definitely bow to German).
Gemini, Virgo, Libra and Sagittarius also are not animals. Almost half of them isn’t. But you’re technically correct that ‘most’ is. Which is the best kind of correct.
An age. I heard a song about it.
Only half of the Zodiacs are inspired from real animals. Gemini is two humans, Virgo is a virgin woman, Libra is a Weighing Scale, Sagittarius is a Centaur with a bow, Capricorn is a Sea Goat, and Aquarius is… a cup of water, I guess?
Removed by mod
That’s not what is meant by real here, dinosaurs are also a real thing
Yeah, and his constellation would be Draco… Which isn’t part of the zodiac lol.
Whatevs more freaky rock ladies for me
Ophiuchus
Bless you
The actual signs exist (get yourself a planisphere or a stargazing app, find some dark skies, and discover them for yourself!), it’s just all the magic personality nonsense associated with them is bullshit.
The signs don’t exist. It’s just a random collection of stars.
Stars don’t exist, it’s just a random collection of hydrogen.
It’s one thing to say that constellations of stars don’t exist. It’s another thing to say that the constellation “Leo” doesn’t exist because it isn’t a lion and our perception of the spatial relationship of those stars has nothing to do with lions, or with mystical astrological significance.
Those stars are present in space in a certain way. And we can perceive them in our sky in a certain way. But whether those stars are “connected” in any meaningful way, or whether they contain any inherent Lion relevance is purely a creation of human imagination derived from real observable objective phenomena. We could just as easily have said that Leo was Orion, and Orion was Leo, and have been equally correct. It’s subjective. Which doesn’t mean it’s meaningless for us, otherwise art would be meaningless. But it does mean that it isn’t “real” in the same way that gravity or the sun are real. Anything whose continued existence is conditioned on belief isn’t “real” in an objective sense.
Belief can certainly will unreal things into meaningful reality though. But, absent that belief, those things will not exist.
Really this is a discussion centered around the inadequacy of the English word “real.” Perhaps other languages have specific words that would more clearly demonstrate this distinction. Because clearly gravity and Pisces are not both “real” in the same way. The former is objectively real and the latter is subjectively real. And we’re talking past each other by not simply having seperate words that distinguish between those concepts
This reminds me of that vsauce video where he says that trogs exist and they’re composed of a tree and whichever dog happens to be closest to it
Smiley faces don’t exist, they’re just a random collection of polygons (that are interpreted by the human brain as being analogous to a specific thing and thus have meaning through comparison…)
That’s like saying people don’t exist and they’re just random collections of particles.
No it’s like saying a person-shaped cloud doesn’t exist.
To describe it as person-shaped is subjective and another viewer may describe the same cloud as butterfly-shaped. Because it’s a subjective interpretation of a static objective object. Like abstract art.
People/animals exist and are “real” in that all of us have agency and a sense of self that is not conditionally dependent on the identical perception of others.
A person-shaped cloud is only “person-shaped” if viewers claim it is. An arrangement of viewable disparate stars is only “Orion” because the Greeks, and now us, decided it was. But I am me and you are you regardless of what anyone else thinks, and always will be.
We aren’t a collection of particles, we are more than the sum of our parts. We have agency and a mind and self-identity. A cloud or a star constellation has none of those things. They are inanimate unfeeling objects that only gain meaning, (astrological, imaginative, or otherwise) when humans/sentient beings ascribe that meaning to them. Human beings, and all living things, have inherent meaning because of their sentience and inherent uniqueness. Which is why genocide is a greater loss than the destruction of a rock - it’s the permanent death of unique living beings.
