|
Post by yumecosmos on Dec 19, 2006 14:33:43 GMT -5
But the western solar zodiac is based on the "movement" of the sun as it's visible from Earth. (Yes, I know it's actually the Earth that's moving.)
Dictionary.com's definition: "an imaginary belt of the heavens, extending about 8° on each side of the ecliptic, within which are the apparent paths of the sun, moon, and principal planets. It contains twelve [sic] constellations and hence twelve divisions called signs of the zodiac. Each division, however, because of the precession of the equinoxes, now contains the constellation west of the one from which it took its name."
If Kinmoku's orbit/day length wasn't the same as ours, wouldn't their sun appear to take a different path and give them a different zodiac? Anyway, the odds would be astronomical (if you'll pardon the expression) that the exact dates would be different.
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Dec 20, 2006 7:23:16 GMT -5
I think it matters just how you look at it. I mean, constellations are not a set of dots on a (flat) belt. They're 3-dimensional, and as such, may appear totally different (or exactly the same) from the other side of the galaxy (who knows). However, if you've ever looked at Ursa Minor at night, you'll see that it definately doesn't represent a bear. It's just a set of dots with a WILD imagination. This makes it very much open for speculation just what a certain set of dots should represent. The zodiac is defined to prevent misunderstandings in archaic navigation at sea. Someone on another planet may have defined a similar set of constellations for the same (or similar) reasons. How big is the chance they have seen totally different constellations, but with a different view, saw the same animals?
|
|
|
Post by yumecosmos on Dec 20, 2006 23:19:44 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what I've been trying to say. It doesn't make sense for the constellations themselves to be the same in the first place, and even if they were, it would be a huge coincidence for those same constellations to be in their zodiac, and for the months to be exactly the same length, and for the speed of their planet's orbit to be exaclty the same... I'd agree that it might make sense for them to have a similar zodiac system. But then, it still wouldn't make sense for them to see the same animals unless they also have lions and scorpions and such on Kinmoku. Aah, so many factors to consider @_@
But... ack. Who needs realism?
|
|
|
Post by Zyppora on Dec 21, 2006 3:45:11 GMT -5
Heheh, if Kinmoku is similar to Earth (atmosphere, environment, etc) then chances are pretty big that the animals evolve in similar ways. I mean, you can see how the humans from Kinmoku look similar to Earth's humans. Then again, lions and scorpions don't necessarily have to have the same name on Kinmoku (or different animals could have been given those names). And the months don't have to have the same length, just the same names (or at least some of them). Or maybe the birth dates are after conversion to the Earth's system?
|
|
Artemis
Scout In Training
Posts: 14
|
Post by Artemis on Oct 18, 2007 18:40:22 GMT -5
You guys think too much. The signs come from birthdays, and of course they have birthdays. They are a music group. They have fans. If people didn't know their birthdays, they'd think something was strange.
Anyway, what significance do the signs have? Only thing I can think of is that Seiya's is the same as Mamoru.
|
|
|
Post by nekosenshi on Oct 21, 2007 12:03:57 GMT -5
Of course they do have birthdays, but why would they be in Earth's months? Why would there be a February, May and July in a different solar system?
|
|