A man of which horoscope will be best for me?I was born ed January 31. That means, I am an Aquarius.?

Question

I want the best man that will match my birth sign.That is what birth sing or horoscope ia compatible with aquarius.

Answer 1

As a female aquarius i will be 100% honest with you. I'm a casanova, so heed the advice im about to give you lol. Remember this only apply for an aquarius.

Heartbreakers:Taurus, Scropio, Capricorn
Heartmakers (Harminous): Gemini, Libra, Aquarius, Aries
Heartflutters(difficult, but worth it if you can make it): Virgo, Leo, Pisces
Not sure about: Cancer, Saggitarus

Good luck! :)

Answer 2

Astrology is bunk
I've always been rather amazed that anyone believed in astrology, which is obviously a psuedoscience with no basis in reality. But I've recently come across some rather startling revelations that show that astrology is even more absurd than I thought:

My birthday is December 1, so I'm considered a Sagittarius according to astrology. Except...I'm not. Astrology is based on which constellation the sun is in on the day you're born, and tradition states I was born under Sagittarius, the archer. But I was actually born under Ophiuchus, the serpent-bearer. What the hell is that? you might ask. Well, it's a constellation the sun passes through each December, which supposedly looks like a guy holding a serpent or something (it doesn't to me, but that's a whole nother rant). Traditional astrology holds that there are 12 constellations in the zodiac (the zodiac is the belt of the sky the sun, moon, and all the planets minus pluto, travel through), but according to astronomers there are actually 13*: Ophiuchus is the neglected one. (It's pronounced ah-fee-YOO-kus, and it's named after the Greek god of healing Asclepius, who liked to hold snakes.)

Basically, traditional astrology is wrong astronomically on two counts:

1) The Babylonians divided the zodiac into 12 equal sections of 30 degrees even though there were 13 constellations and the constellations were different sizes and took up different proportions of the circle. So even back 2,000 years ago when the system was created, not everyone was actually born under the constellation they were supposed to have been born under.

2) The Earth does what's called a precession (sort of like a wobble) that is repeated every 25,800 years. The precession changes the direction the Earth's axis points, which changes which stars appear where in the sky; right now, Polaris is the pole star, but in 12,000 years, Vega will be the pole star. Astrology is old enough that the stars have noticiably altered in their positions since it was developed. Thus, the whole system is about two weeks off by virtue of that alone.

Add together these two things, and a whopping 86% of us** weren't actually born under the constellation asigned to us by astrology. Eighty-six percent! And about 5% of us (including me) were born under a constellation that most people have never even heard of. Check out the table below and see if you're actually the sign astrology claims. The dates fluctuate from year to year, but this is generally the case:


The actual dates for the zodiac: Sagittarius December 18 - January 18
Capricornus January 19 - February 15
Aquarius February 16 - March 11
Pisces March 12 - April 18
Aries April 19 - May 13
Taurus May 14 - June 19
Gemini June 20 - July 20
Cancer July 21 - August 9
Leo August 10 - September 15
Virgo September 16 - October 30
Libra October 31 - November 22
Scorpius November 23 - November 29
Ophiuchus November 30 - December 17

That's why astrology is bunk astronomically. But there are also some compelling reasons why astrology is bunk anyway.

First of all, the idea that all people born between two dates have the same personality characteristics is just insane. I've known plenty of other supposed Sagittarii, most of whom were all very different from me (and had different things happen to them every day). And I am most definitely not the traits generally listed for Sags: "philosophic, fun-loving, adventurous, blundering, wanderlust, scattered", according to Wikipedia. I am very philosophic, but not really any of the other things. So that's one out of six. And anyway, there are traits in all the signs that could apply to me. I'm saturnine (Capricorn), cause-oriented (Aquarius), spiritual (Pisces), artistic (Pisces), selfish (Aries), musical (Taurus), curious (Gemini), intelligent (Gemini, Virgo), lazy (Libra), passionate (Leo), creative (Leo), and obsessive (Scorpio). I know there are people out there who believe completely in astrology because they think they match their sign perfectly. And statistically there would have to be a handful who match perfectly. But anyone can find ways in which their sign applies to them. The sign that astrology attaches to you is the one you'll look at the most carefully, and seek out truth from. But it's just as easy to find your personality elsewhere in the zodiac, and since 86% of us weren't born under our sign, we are actually looking elsewhere. (So keep that in mind if you've always thought your compulsive personality was a reflection of your Scorpio sign: it's impossible to be a Scorpio both astronomically and astrologically, so your compulsiveness is probably just a result of your biology or environment.)

Second of all, many of the character traits were made up because they matched the shape of the constellation. For instance, Aries are considered "head-strong" because that constellation supposedly looks like a ram, an animal that's head-strong. But why should the shape mean anything? The stars aren't actually arranged that way, it's just the way they appear from Earth. Why should the particular arrangement of the stars from the perspective of Earth have any bearing on the personalities or daily lives of people born while the sun was between the Earth and those stars? Furthermore, that's just the arbitrary shape assigned by the Babylonians thousands of years ago; another culture might see it as something entirely different.

In conclusion: astrology is bunk. Offended by my extremely rational declaration? Feel free to respond. It'll be amusing. (And I reserve the right to post any absurd claims made about astrology's veracity.)

* Thirteen is the standard number agreed upon by the International Astronomical Union. Depending on how wide you draw the belt, it may be anywhere between 13 and 24, BUT in no way can it ever be 12 as astrologers state. Ophiuchus is the only one of the extra twelve which the sun crosses, so in solar zodiac terms, there are only 13.

** Technically the 86% figure means 86% percent of possible birthdays, not births. This means it's not quite 86% percent of people, because February 29 is an uncommon birthday. I'm not sure what the actual percent of people is, but it's certainly very close to 86%.

Answer 3

Which one do you find yourself acting more like? You should ask around to some of the people that know you. I have a friend who was born on November 22. He could technically be a Sagg. or a Scorpio. But he is most definitely a Scorpio. Though there are times where a bit of the Saggitarious sneaks in.

Answer 4

AQUARIUS IN LOVE:
Ingenious Aquarius loves the new and unusual when it comes to sexual relations. Aquarians can keep a relationship steamy longer than other sign of the zodiac, and they tend to be sexually active throughout their lives. They love deeply and passionately.

LEO IN LOVE:
Idealistic and loving Leo will strive for the success of a relationship, demanding complete loyalty and devotion in return. Leo can be overly adoring and kind, and potentially even blind to the true nature of his or her mate.

AQUARIUS AND LEO LOVE POTENTIAL:
Aquarius and Leo are opposite signs who are quickly and easily turned on in each other's company. The electricity going back and forth between them cannot be missed! They both live for love.

Answer 5

go to this web site I'm sure it will be a huge help
http://www.webindia123.com/astrology

Answer 6

Well i know one and that's Gemini.

Answer 7

gemini & libra .......leo too...mmmm a very good combination