Astrology On The News!!!!!

[cl0udmaKer]

On the news this morning they were talking about how the zodiac needs

"updating" since the earth has shifted back 23.5 degrees that means all your signs in your chart move back

that many degrees too! so I WAS RIGHT VEDIC ASTROLOGY IS
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t:

[Olivia]

Jyotish works. Tibetan astrology works. Persian astrology works. Western predictive astrology works. And some of those use the tropical zodiac. But whether you use a tropical or sidereal system, you need a competent astrologer.

Western psychological and modern astrology I have reservations about, and I don't practise either of them, but assuming it's in the hands of a knowledgeable psychologist, it might work, too. I'm just not too clear on what it's actually supposed to do, nor have I been terribly impressed with what I've heard from psychologist-astrologers. But that doesn't mean there aren't any good ones out there.

Persian and western systems tie the constellations to the equinoxes, sidearealists don't. But either system could be considered 'flawed' by astronomers and debunkers, because some constellations are huge (way more than 30 degrees) and some are tiny. Plus there are constellations on top of other constellations, like Ophicus, which nobody uses at all (except three new agers).

They're kind of missing the point of the symbolic aspect of the zodiac.

[cl0udmaKer]

actually no they just said since the earth shifted 23.5 WESTERN astrology needs

updating since vedic already goes with equinox. And the other constellations

haven't moved just the earth so yeaH!! hah and i dont really know what your

talking about them working or not there all the same just like jupiter in libra or

sun in virgo or anything like that just like a normal birth chart :biggrin:

[Olivia]

What I'm talking about is none of the constellations in the zodiac measures out at 30 degrees. Some span 60 degrees, some span 14 degrees.

Therefore, whether you use a tropical or sidereal zodiac, the planets aren't actually lining up with the REAL constellations in the sky, they're lining up with the symbolic, 30-degree constellations that are used by astrologers who work with either the sidereal or tropical zodiac.

[cl0udmaKer]

then why does it matter, are you trying to say theres 60 degrees instead of 30?yeah pretty sure thats BS

[Olivia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac#Zodiacal_constellations

In part:

It is important to distinguish the zodiacal signs from the constellations associated with them, not only because of their drifting apart due to the precession of equinoxes but also because the physical constellations by nature of their varying shapes and forms take up varying widths of the ecliptic. Thus, Virgo takes up fully five times as much ecliptic longitude as Scorpius....

[waybread]

On the news this morning they were talking about how the zodiac needs

"updating" since the earth has shifted back 23.5 degrees that means all your signs in your chart move back

that many degrees too! so I WAS RIGHT VEDIC ASTROLOGY IS
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t::w00t:

This isn't news to astrologers who understand the precession of the equinoxes.

[cl0udmaKer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac#Zodiacal_constellations

In part:

It is important to distinguish the zodiacal signs from the constellations associated with them, not only because of their drifting apart due to the precession of equinoxes but also because the physical constellations by nature of their varying shapes and forms take up varying widths of the ecliptic. Thus, Virgo takes up fully five times as much ecliptic longitude as Scorpius....

yeah im sure if constellations did anything astrologers would be using them, cause im not a virgo!!!!!!

[cl0udmaKer]

cl0udmaKer: You seem to be quite ignorant. Perhaps I can help enlighten you.

The Zodiac signs as we use them were originally based on the actual constellations they were named after. However, because each constellation was not 30 degrees in length, the ancients "invented" the Zodiac, which is a "generalization" of the constellations, a version in which they are all 30 degrees. In the beginning, this Zodiac overlayed the constellations pretty well. But with the precession of the equinoxes, the actual physical constellations have moved, but the "overlayed" Zodiac has stayed in the same place. That is what the article is talking about, and it should not be news to any astrologer, because that is something you learn pretty early on, at least if you're serious about studying astrology.

But, I think you're a troll. Have fun getting banned. :smile:

of course there not in 30 degrees thats why they separated them from

eachother by making them different signs and they studied those individual

points to match each sign and yeah i know about the equinox too!! thats

what this whole thing is about vedic astrologers already use the equinox

(shifting of the world going backwards) and now the news is talking about it
so now other websites will update their stuff to match the degrees! DUH

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]

[wilsontc]

All,

Please get back on the subject under discussion and leave off with the insults. There is a lot of debate among astrologer on which is the "right" zodiac and why. This debate can be productive if it leads to others understanding each others views and the reasons why each zodiac exists, but the debate can not be productive if people start insulting each other in the middle of the debate.

Civilly,

Tim

[cl0udmaKer]

NO finish it here i want to know what these "constellations" are all about and why they aren't used in a normal birth chart cause seriously.. iv'e never even heard about them having any effect on degrees or anything like that until Olivia said

[eternalautumn]

The constellations... If you don't know what the constellations are, I don't know what to tell you. Google it?

They're not used in a "normal" birth chart because we don't use the constellations for astrology, we use the Zodiac.

They don't have any effect on "degrees". The tropical Zodiac has stayed in the same place it originally was, and hasn't shifted with the equinoxes. The sidereal Zodiac has shifted with the equinoxes, and that's why when you change a chart from tropical to sidereal the signs change.

However, none of this is new to astrologers. The fact that whatever news agency posted a random article about it recently does not mean it was recently discovered.

[Olivia]

NO finish it here i want to know what these "constellations" are all about and why they aren't used in a normal birth chart cause seriously.. iv'e never even heard about them having any effect on degrees or anything like that until Olivia said

I thought your point was that Jyotish astrology is 'astronomically correct' and western astrology isn't. Apparently that's not your point.

The constellations are made up of stars, and uh...look them up. An astronomy primer for children, or your local planetarium should have all this information, as will the Internet. You might also want to look up in the sky and see them, providing you can see stars from where you live.

You also know that the planets all have different distances from the Sun so they don't crash into each other when they conjunct, yes? As well as different orbital speeds, that retrograde is an optical illusion as seen from earth, because planets don't actually go backwards, but when they're very slow in orbit (and always relative to their position with regards to the Sun) they sometimes appear to go backwards from our view here on earth, yes?

My point was that any system of astrology is based in symbolism to some degree, including Jyotish.

[cl0udmaKer]

The constellations... If you don't know what the constellations are, I don't know what to tell you. Google it?

They're not used in a "normal" birth chart because we don't use the constellations for astrology, we use the Zodiac.

They don't have any effect on "degrees". The tropical Zodiac has stayed in the same place it originally was, and hasn't shifted with the equinoxes. The sidereal Zodiac has shifted with the equinoxes, and that's why when you change a chart from tropical to sidereal the signs change.

However, none of this is new to astrologers. The fact that whatever news agency posted a random article about it recently does not mean it was recently discovered.

DO YOU NOT GET IT. the earth HAS SHIFTED making all different types of astrolgy shift 23.5 degrees BACK sidereel has already been doing this but western hasnt thats all i wanted to say.

@ olivia yeah i already know that so your saying sidereel also goes with the constellations? well ok im still a libra in sidreel

[eternalautumn]

DO YOU NOT GET IT. the earth HAS SHIFTED making all different types of astrolgy shift 23.5 degrees BACK sidereel as already been doing this but western hasnt thats all i wanted to say.

No, I do not get it. Please explain it for me. I'm awfully confused.

[Olivia]

DO YOU NOT GET IT. the earth HAS SHIFTED making all different types of astrolgy shift 23.5 degrees BACK sidereel as already been doing this but western hasnt thats all i wanted to say.

@ olivia yeah i already know that so your saying sidereel also goes with the constellations? well ok im still a libra in sidreel

No, sidereal does NOT go with the constellations. It uses the zodiac, just like western astrology does.

[Olivia]

Dude, why don't you just spend a couple hours today looking up this stuff? The wiki link I provided is a start. Wikipedia isn't always fantastic, but this is basic stuff - and there are lots more sites online, too, that will explain this to you.

[cl0udmaKer]

No, sidereal does NOT go with the constellations. It uses the zodiac, just like western astrology does.

YEAH it uses the zodiac like EVERYthing does, TELL ME ONE thing that actually uses the constellations the constellations aren't meant to be used in astrology unless your just measuring the distance away from them which makes up the zodiac.

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]

[cl0udmaKer]

I would ask to borrow yours, but it seems to be under heavy duress. :smile:

[attacking comment deleted - Moderator] since astrology began it was really accurate but then like 3000 yrs later since the earth has shifted from its axis because of gravity and such things its moved which means its pointing in different directions in the stars.

[cl0udmaKer]

...I still don't get it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_(astronomy)

[Olivia]

Western astrology does use fixed stars. It also realises that they do move, albeit slowly. Which we keep up with - we don't use fixed star positions from 2000 years ago, or even 100 years ago if we're looking at a chart drawn for today.

I'm still not understanding the problem with the tropical zodiac, but I'm obviously not terribly bright, like everyone besides you who's posted in this thread.

[cl0udmaKer]

ok im sorry i didn't want to be mean or anything you guys were just making it hard, ok let me make it easy. western astrology does not use the axis shift which is 23.5 degrees backwards so for example if you where a virgo in the 26th degree then you'd be a virgo in the 3rd degree. sidereel however does use the axis shift of the earth also known as the "precession of equinox".

[07.Re]

This article is what cl0udmaKer is referring to:

http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=13828331

The star doctors say Earth is currently in a different spot in relation to the Sun, and its equatorial alignment has changed from 3,000 years ago when the study of astrology began -- back when 12 zodiac signs were assigned to 12 different periods of the year.

Those signs you were born into are different now because the Earth's wobble on its axis has created a one-month bump in the alignment of the stars, according to Kunkle.

"Because of this change of tilt, the Earth is really over here in effect and Sun is in a different constellation than it was 3,000 years ago."

What that means to you is a Virgo may now be a Leo, an Aquarius - a Capricorn, and a Taurus - an Aries.

[cl0udmaKer]

^^^ yupp thats the one but their dates are wrong i think idk w/e if im a virgo thats fine with me.

[waybread]

Olivia, I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier either, but I'll see if I get this correct for the others.

OK--does everybody know what the equinox is? As the earth rotates around the sun, the north pole tilts away from the sun during winter in the northern hemisphere, and closer towards it during winter in the northern hemisphere. The equinoxes are times when there is no discernable tilt--hence north of the equater we would perceive days and nights as being of equal length.

The precession of the equinoxes means that the moment of the spring equinox (or fall, for that matter) has been slipping backwards through the zodiac, due to a wobble in the earth's rotation. if you think of an axis running through the north and south poles, the orientation of that axis has been moving slowly, over thousands of years. From earth, it would appear that the spring equinox date has been moving backwards in time. When astrology was first invented, the spring equinox was in Taurus. Then it moved into Aries--hence our 0 degrees Aries as around March 21. Around the time of Jesus, it slipped into Pisces. The Age of Aquarius means that at our present time, the equinox is moving into the sign of Aquarius. Each "age" lasts roughly 2000 years.

So this is a problem, so long as astrologers (whether western or Vedic) are committed to dividing up the heavens in 30-degree pie sectors. If you keep pace with precession, as with the sidereal zodiac, you lose the connection with the seasons--at least as they exist in the southern temperate regions of the northern hemisphere, where the ancient Greek astrologers lived. Your equinoxes are constantly slipping backwards in time. On the other hand, if you keep your 30-degree pie sectors fixed to the 4 seasons and a solar calendar, then bye-bye an approximate overlap with the constellations.

As Olivia noted above, the constellations along the ecliptic are of variable widths, plus some of them overlap in space or leave gaps, so when ancient astrologers decided on 30-degree signs, the correspondence between zodiacal signs and constellations [star-groupings] was severed. Some constellational astrology could be preserved with the analysis of fixed stars, although in the tropical zodiac, today a "Virgo" might have the sun conjunct a fixed star in the constellation Leo.

There are a few astrologers (plus the Rudolf Steiner biodynamic crowd) who do believe a constellational astrology is more accurate. But not most.

[wilsontc]

cl0udmaKer,

First of all, please keep this discussion civil. Do not insult other people you are having a discussion with.

Secondly, you are talking about the precession of the equinoxes. And the precession of the equinoxes has NOTHING to do with the astrological Tropical zodiac and doesn't affect it. A common confusion for those who are trying to disprove Tropical astrology is to believe that the positions of the astronomical CONSTELLATIONS should match up with the position of the astrological SIGNS in the Tropical zodiac. This is not true. The astrological Tropical zodiac does NOT follow the position of the astronomical constellations. So the position of the constellation Virgo in the sky has nothing to do with the position of the sign Virgo in the astrological chart.

Here is an article from Wikipedia that discusses this difference briefly:
In Indian astrology, the twelve signs are associated with constellations, while in...Western Astrology there is no connection with constellations, as it is simply the line of the equator that is divided into twelve equal segments.
Full article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_sign

Here is another mention of the difference (bottom right corner):
http://www.mybirthchart.com/signs.aspx

While Tropical astrology does NOT depend on the actual position of the constellations in the sky, it DOES however depend on the actual positions of the planets in our solar system. This difference between astrological zodiacs and astronomically correct planet locations is often overlooked by those who want to disprove Tropical astrology, so they assume that since Tropical astrologers use astronomically accurate positions of the planets, they must use astronomically accurate positions of the constellations as well. This is not true. So their attempts at "disproving" Tropical astrology do not work since they are based on invalid assumptions.

Explaining,

Tim

P.S. The attempt of this article is to disprove ALL astrology. Many Western people are unaware of the sidereal zodiac, so they think the "precession of the equinoxes" argument is enough to disprove all astrology (since they are only familiar with the Western zodiac). Notice that the article mentions "Ophiuchus" which, although an astronomical constellation is NOT a valid astrological sign. This is yet another indicator that the writer of this article knows little to nothing about astrology.

[cl0udmaKer]

im not even talking bout the constellations im talking about the equinox there

two way different things idk astrology is so confusing now maybe they should make a chart using both constellations ANd the equinox.

and actually yes the equinox does have alot to do with alll astrology because its the shifting of the earth which means signs change positions in the sky

yeah i know the new sign is weird i really dont know my brain hurts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[waybread]

Cloudmaker--if you take each puzzle-piece on step at a time, it will make sense to you.

Put yourself in the shoes (or sandals) of Greek astrologers over 2000 years ago, when they knew that the date in spring when daylight and night were of equal length (equinox) was moving earlier and earlier in the calendar!

Your predessors had already simplified the zodiac into 12 30-degree sectors for the sake of simplicity: it got rid of the messy overlap and gaps amidst the actual constellations through which the sun and other planets seemed to pass. And also, they believed in a numerology that was popular at the time. [The constellation Ophiucus definitely crosses the ecliptic, yet Aries barely touches it. Numerologically, 12 and 360 were idealized as perfect numbers, yet 13 was not; and the spring equinox did seem to coincide with Aries for a very long time.] And your fore-runners didn't have a problem: they delineated the zodiacal constellations and then signs at a time when the sun hitting 0 degrees Aries would have actually appeared to be at the beginning of Aries.

A lot of your astrology is based on Aries heading up the zodiac and it seems to correspond with the onset of spring where you live. To you, Aries symbolizes good things like new beginnings, whereas Pisces is at the end of a long, wet (in Greece) winter.

In ancient Greece, educated people did know that the world was round, but they were not yet up to speed on its orbit around the sun. So you know, as an ancient astrologer, only that your spring equinox is heading through Pisces, yet a lot of your legends and lore, temple orientations, and descriptions of the signs are based upon an Aries equinox. You really don't want to throw out everything you've learned, because it seems to work for you.

How do you solve the problem?

You might decide upon a flexible, star-based equinox date, as Hindu astrologers did. Theirs is called the sideral zodiac. The equinox date in this system more closely approximates the movement of the equinox dates through the constellations. This is why your sun today will be in a different sign in Hindu astrology unless you were born in a late degree of your current sun-sign.

Or, you might feel that you wish to preserve the solar-lunar calendar that you already have, keep things fixed and with some correspondence with your seasons, and decide that since you've been looking at abstract 30-degree signs anyway, you'd rather keep things as-is. You and your fellow Greek and Roman astrologers vote for our current system, called the tropical zodiac. (Tropical here means "turning", based on the turning of the north pole away from and towards the sun.)

As an ancient Greek astrologer, you don't see much difference in the aspects between planets or their houses between the two systems--only the signs are different. Your tropical zodiac still gives you good results. You haven't solved all the problems of the astronomy behind your craft, but this solution works for you.

[cl0udmaKer]

well that was sorta right most it was right actually. but i like sidreel more and

yeah of course tropical works too the only diffrence is the 23 degree difference

although my sun sign is still the same in both tropical and sidreel my other signs change here il show you my charts :D

Tropical: http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid=nbffileORXmA3-u1289679428&lang=e&gm=a1&nhor=1&nho2=2&btyp=2&mth=gw&sday=13&smon=1&syr=2011&hsy=-1&zod=&orbp=&rs=0&add=18&add=19&add=20&add=22&add=12&add=13&add=14&add=15&add=136199&add=23&add=7066&add=28978&add=90482&add=50000&add=90377&add=20000&node=-Yn&aspc=1&ast=

Sidereel: http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid=nbffileORXmA3-u1289679428&lang=e&gm=a1&nhor=1&nho2=2&btyp=2&mth=gw&sday=13&smon=1&syr=2011&hsy=-1&zod=-s1&orbp=&rs=0&add=18&add=19&add=20&add=22&add=12&add=13&add=14&add=15&add=136199&add=23&add=7066&add=28978&add=90482&add=50000&add=90377&add=20000&node=-Yn&aspc=1&ast=

[aquarianmoon]

Thanks, Waybread, for the succint explanation :)

[Frank]

Every few years some astronomer gets his or her knickers in a twist and has to say something about this. It's a classic Straw Man Argument.

Here's something I wrote up a few years ago that briefly covers the subject:

Astrology 101 – A Zodiac Explanation

An area of confusion amongst inexperienced astrologers and those totally ignorant of how astrology is practiced is the difference amongst tropical signs, sidereal signs and constellations.

Heres an overview:

Tropical Zodiac Is 12-fold division of the Ecliptic (the apparent path of the Sun around the Earth) which starts with the Vernal Equinox as 0 degrees Aries with each sign having 30 degrees - used in Western Tropical astrology.

Sidereal Zodiac Is 12-fold division of the Ecliptic based on an ayanamsa value as the projected from the Vernal Equinox for the 0 Aries point to supposedly correct for precession, each sign having 30 degrees. These are mostly used in Vedic astrology, also known as Jyotish. There are several ayanamsas currently in use by different schools of Vedic astrological thought, such as Lahiri ( the official Indian government ayanamsa), the Fagan-Bradley, the Rahman, and the Khrisnamurti. All of these are around 24 degrees forward of the Vernal Equinox. Thus, someone who has the Sun placed at 1 degree Aries in the Tropical Zodiac, the Vedic position would be 6 degrees Pisces.

Constellations The zodiacal constellations do not really have specific, completely agreed upon boundaries. They are not each 30 degrees in length. Most astrologers (except for some Western Siderealists) do not use the constellations to measure planetary movement. Due to precession, the constellations do not correspond with the Tropical Zodiac, nor do the constellations fit into Sidereal Signs due to the inexact and varied size of the constellations. Astrology debunkers frequently set up a Straw Man argument about this because they dont know how astrology is really practiced.

One must realize that no one of these ways of measuring planetary positions against the background of the Ecliptic is correct or incorrect - they are just different ways of measuring the same thing. They all describe the 360 degrees of the Ecliptic. One may use different tools or markers an objects length, the length itself remains the same. Just as 4 inches equals 10.16 centimeters equals 1 hand, its all the same length - just a different measuring system.

[Alice McDermott]

Oh dear, oh dear - this old mix up alive again... will the astronomers never stop pulling out this old chestnut.

Tropical Astrology has nothing to do with the constellations! It is unfortunate that the signs of the zodiac and the constellations have the same name because this produces constant bewilderment amongst the general public and, as we have seen here, even amongst student or even fairly advanced astrologers. The best analogy I can offer is it is like a child having the same names as a parent. The child is not the parent, it just has the same names.

Tropical astrology is based on the movement of the Earth around the Sun. When the Sun is on the equator and moving into the Northern Hemisphere, this point is 0 Aries; when it reaches the highest point possible in the northern Hemisphere, this point is 0 Cancer; when the Sun moves back down to the equator this point is 0 Libra, it then moves into the Southern Hemisphere; when the Sun moves to its highest point in the Southern Hemisphere this point is 0 Capricorn. The other signs of the zodiac are even 30 degree divisions between these points.

Tropical astrology will ALWAYS use these points of reference, regardless of the position of the constellations in the skies. It will even use these points of reference if the poles shift or the Earth's orbit changes and the usual constellations are no longer on the ecliptic.

An analogy is, just as a human being has its own energy field or aura, the tropical zodiac is a way of mapping the energy field or aura of the Earth as it is stimulated by the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

The tropical zodiac is therefore a very accurate and valid form of astrology which is not based on the constellations along the ecliptic, but is based on the season rotation of the Earth itself.

Though it talks about the difference between Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere astrology, for an illustration on how this works read my article http://aliceportman.com/?p=703

Alice

[cl0udmaKer]

@frank Yeah exactly thats what i was trying to say but then they confused me and started talking about this constellations stuff lol

[DevilshAngel]

Hold the phone! If the Earth just shifted then wouldn't this only relate to those natal charts of those being born now?

[cl0udmaKer]

Hold the phone! If the Earth just shifted then wouldn't this only relate to those natal charts of those being born now?

nhaa the earth has been shifting, it cant just shift in like one second lol its just like the sloow turning of the earth and all that

[DevilshAngel]

nhaa the earth has been shifting, it cant just shift in like one second lol its just like the sloow turning of the earth and all that
So they we are apparently all quite disillusion :w00t: and have no idea who we really are.

[cl0udmaKer]

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm what? lol

[dr. farr]

Based on the Greek sphaera boundaries (of 48 ancient constellations), fully 32 constellations touch the ecliptic at some point: the 12 "zodiac" constellations, and 20 others beside (see information in Robson, "Constellations and Fixed Stars") Only 16 constellations lie totally beyond the ecliptic.

The oldest available Greco/Roman astrological literature (Manilius, 14 AD) reflected an extant tradition in which, while the Vernal Equinox was always taken as being in Aries, the SEASONAL SIGNS began differently: so while spring began at the Vernal Equinox in the sign of Aries, the first "spring season sign" was Pisces; the summer solstice was in Cancer, but the "summer signs" began in Gemini; the autumnal equinox was in Libra, but the fall signs began in Virgo; the winter solstice was in the sign of Capricorn, but the winter signs began in Sagittarius: it is interesting to me that, although using different animal names for the signs, the most ancient Chinese model exactly mirrored this former Greco/Roman tradition as far as seasonal sign classification (and of course equinox and solstice points) is concerned...

By the 2nd century AD Greco/Roman astrology had changed the seasonal signs to begin with the specific equinox and solstice signs, so spring signs were changed to begin with Aries, summer signs with Cancer, etc...

[HeyPlayGirl]

for cloudmaker
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/?hpt=C2
but i do personally identify more with sidereal and have seen the truth in kp astro :wink:

[DevilshAngel]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7882335-new-zodiac-sign-ophiuchus-proves-astrology-is-wrong

Wow, this person clearly did zero research haha
Such ignorance

[wilsontc]

cl0udmaKer,

You said:
On the news this morning they were talking about how the zodiac needs "updating" since the earth has shifted back 23.5 degrees that means all your signs in your chart move back...

Time did a similar article about the "shift" in astrology...and it got SO many negative comments they HAD to do a "retraction" article from the astrologer's point of view (like the CNN article). So there IS power in numbers after all...and people ARE listening to what astrologers say. Here is the article in all it's "brief" glory...in a major news publication:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/14/astrologers-get-their-say-in-the-horoscope-hubbub/

Miraculously,

Tim

[chris]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7882335-new-zodiac-sign-ophiuchus-proves-astrology-is-wrong

Wow, this person clearly did zero research haha
Such ignorance

I think you are right. The "calculations" they did are based off of Sun sign astrology. Any astronomer knows about the precession of the axis, and if this were of to happen, it would be over thousands of years. Not just a new discovery. They've known about the wobble forever.

And one article talked about the gravitational pull of the Moon tilting us! the Moon can't possibly have any gravitational pull on us, its too small!

How ignorant. >_<

[cl0udmaKer]

yeah the new sign isn't real but the tilt of the earth is so your sign could have changed just not by a whole month but by 23 days : ) but idk maybe thats only sidereel and not tropical but HEY who knows hah

[zoidsoft]

There is more about this here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5956

About 2000 years ago, the constellations and the signs were roughly "coincident" and there were fewer distinctions made, but the boundaries between the signs were set not according to astronomical star maps where the lines are arbitrarily drawn to capture the "stick figures" in the sky. The purpose of the constellations was to preserve fables and stories from the past and some of this got mixed in with astrological lore, but because of the precessional movement, some of the statements that were made such as "light having victory over darkness" in the Ram were no longer true. One might think "so what", but part of what makes the Sun "exalted" in Aries is the fact that daylight increases and has the majority of the equinoctial hours in the daytime. Wait another 10,000 years and this will happen in the constellation of "the scales" which is where the Sun originally lost potency and went into darkness... Aristotle had some things to say about this, the 4 elements and their commixture to create the seasons which is closer to the realm that the Moon is said to mediate between the cosmos and the earth, bringing the possible into the realm of the concrete particular (or actual).

To simplify things, this sparked debate about what constitutes "the signs" and how to define them. At first it wasn't quite clear what was happening and some ancients called it the "trepidation of the zodiac" as if it was shifting back and forth. Later on it was understood that the Moon's gravitational pull on the bulge of the earth's equator which is usually oblique to the orbit of the Moon was "yanking" on the earth's rotational poles at a very small but gradual rate which takes 25,960 years to complete once (so we were sort of OK once and if you want to wait another 23,000 years you will be OK again when they line back up). Where the celestial equator intercepts the ecliptic (which is the Sun's apparent path) which happens in 2 locations because they are both great circles (see geometry definition), is where the equinoxes are located in the sky. The equinox means "equal day, equal night". The vernal equinox is that place where the Sun passes from the southern hemisphere into the northern and after this date it can be observed that the days are longer than the nights and "light has victory over darkness". The Sun is exalted on his throne in the Ram, well not exactly, because that now happens when the Sun is in the area where the background stars are of the 2 fishes, but it is still true that the days are longer than the nights and life begins to perk up in the northern hemisphere when the Sun crosses the vernal equinox. So the tropical definition of the zodiac is set to where the vernal equinox is, not to some arbitrary stars in the sky that some stick figures were drawn. The sidereal definition picks a standard, such as Lahiri ayanamsha which uses Spica Virginis as the demarcation point to start 30 degree divisions. Raman uses a different standard and so on...

This is a very simplistic intro.

[dr. farr]

The precession of the equinox was elaborated by Hipparchus of Rhodes* in the 2nd century BC, and was well known to all Greco/Roman astrological authorities.

(Note: there is more than a little historical evidence supporting the hypothesis that Hipparchus himself played a very important-perhaps dominant-role in the synthesis of astrological knowledge into what became the Hellenistic astrological model: Hipparchus himself might have borrowed from the "Great Celestial Handbook" of the Egyptians Nechepso and Petosiris, which (now lost) book (scrolls actually) was known to be current in 2nd century BC Alexandria)

*Many of us believe that the secret of the precession was known much earlier than the time of Hipparchus; non-astrological academic scholars see Hipparchus as a major connection between Babylonian astronomy/astrology and the development of Greco/Roman celestial concepts and methods...

[cl0udmaKer]

so now's the big question which is right form of astrology constellation,

sidereel,or tropical? im just asking cause all this talk about the moon and the

pulling and everything is just really confusing SO TELL ME WHICH ONE IS RIGHT pleaseeee ok thanks :lol:

[Olivia]

You're gonna hate the answer, Cloud.

Tropical is right if you practise western astrology. Sidereal is right if you practise Jyotish.

Both systems work.

Ignore this allegedly 'recent' discovery of 'new' constellations. Astrologer/astronomers have known about them for thousands of years. So they're not new. It might just have been a slow news day, or another debunker spouting off. In any event, it's nothing to do with anything, except trying to stir up a woefully uneducated public.

[cl0udmaKer]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO which is more right!!!!!!!! judging from my scales i say sidereeel :D haha but seriously thoo cmoon :mad:

[Olivia]

I am being serious. Western predictive astrology can certainly hold its own against Jyotish.

But if you prefer Jyotish, then learn Jyotish.

They REALLY BOTH WORK.

To try to break it down to a simple level: Say you like tarot. Say you like the Waite tarot. Say your friend likes the Tarot de Marseille. You both get good results. They both work, even though the Marseille doesn't have elaborate drawings on the suit cards. Or say your friend likes Lenormand cards (a 36-card deck of German origin), and gets great results from that.

Provided you know what you're doing, they all work.

[cl0udmaKer]

allriiightt FINE : ) but they both have like different signs in each planet thou so it makes it hard to say they both work in the same accuracy idk. but yeahhh i see what your sayinnn thankss

[Astrologer4U]

This is not the first time the issue about the constellations moving a few degrees back has come up. If anyone has paid close attention, recently, people have been coming back to Astrology, knowing that there is something to it. What Astrology does best is promote and confirm a knowledge of self. Think about it, if one has knowledge of self, one can not be controlled by society.

I go by my Western chart and my Sidereal chart, both of my charts are mathematically correct. I can see an aspect in my Western chart that has an aspect in my Sidereal chart that is equal.

Real Astrologers would not even be going for this stuff. I had this discussion sometime back with a Sidereal Astrologer, he tried to argue me down and the thing was, I wasn't even against his belief of the Sidereal chart, I was actually for it. Go figure, two Astrologers arguing over what chart to go by:andy: I thought I had escaped the "who is better" arguments when I left religion but I began to see that, there is no way to escape the elusive fact... People will always argue over who and what is right or better.


Astrologer4U

[zoidsoft]

so now's the big question which is right form of astrology constellation,

sidereel,or tropical? im just asking cause all this talk about the moon and the

pulling and everything is just really confusing SO TELL ME WHICH ONE IS RIGHT pleaseeee ok thanks :lol:

Have you heard of Einstein's theory of relativity? Which zodiac to use depends upon your frame of reference / orientation. In one language the meaning of "blue" is stated in terms of X-horizontal, but in another, Y-vertical. Some people say that they attempt to show different sides of the same coin.

Because the rules for Jyotish are quite different, the language is different. Meaning is derived from consistency and one comes to know the ruler measurement tool to use through application, trial and result. Your actual experience of the color blue might have a different essence from mine, but how do you explain this to one who is blind? Therefore understanding can only come from experience in working with the measurement tool that you choose. Meaning is somewhat fluid and a zodiac that doesn't change will not keep up with reality.

[dr. farr]

Provided you know what you're doing, they all work.


And THAT is THE TRUTH!!



Of course I view Western, Western-Sidereal (Fagan Bradley) and Vedic-Sidereal (properly called jyotish)-as well as the various Chinese approaches-as whole system working models, NOT as "TRUTH"; they all give TRUE OUTCOMES-and that is the only concern I have, since I am not a scientist or a metaphysical philosopher, but only a blue-collar type looking reliable and practical results.

Determining which model one will follow (or perhaps 2 or more models) is each person's individual task.

But there are a couple of vexing questions: if the constellations control, then how can the signs "work"? Similarly, if the signs control then how can the constellations "work"? (I mean by this the traditional zodiacal constellations or rashi's used in Western-Sidereal and Vedic-Sidereal astrology)
I have an answer I give myself to these questions-of course its just based on my limited intelligence (maybe that's why I am satisfied with my little answer!)

,,,they both "work" because the constellations are still (partially) in the signs:

-depending upon the criteria used (Fagan-Bradley, Lahiri or KP ayanamsha) the constellation of, say Aries, is STILL in the SIGN of Aries by at least 6 degrees (using Lahiri it is at around 24 degrees of the SIGN Aries)
Constellation Aries won't be "out" of the SIGN of Aries for at least another 400 years (and the same holds true for all the other 11 zodiacal constellations each still partially within its zodiacal sign)
-now, if we believe that the constellations energize areas of space (the "signs") then, since the constellations are still partially in the signs, they would (at least partially) continue to lend to the signs their specific constellational influences (thus Aries, still partially in the SIGN of Aries, would still at least partially be "energizing" that SIGN with its qualities and influences)-and will continue to do so, albeit at an ever diminishing level, for the next at least 400 years.
-however, if we believe the SIGNS are the sources of quality and influence, then the constellation still in each sign would partially be energized by that sign, so the constellation of Aries-which is still partially in the SIGN of Aries-would continue to (partially) receive the Aries SIGN qualities and influences, albeit less and less so over the next 400 years.
These considerations have answered (for me-as a "working speculation") the question about HOW both tropical and sidereal models "work" in practice.

Now it depends upon which of the above propositions one considers as the most likely:
-if one believes that the SIGNS give the influences and qualities, then the "better" approach would be to use the SIGNS (Western tropical zodiac) as one's basic format.
- however, if one believe that the CONSTELLATIONS give the influences and qualities, then the "better" approach would be to use the CONSTELLATIONS (Vedic/Sidereal or Western/Sidereal) as one's basic format...

I believe (my opinion) that it is the signs which give the influences and qualities, so I follow the Western tropical zodiac of signs as my basic format...

[DevilshAngel]

I could never figure out how sidereal could be right. It changes my signs around and they just plain don't fit me or any other person I have looked up. Isn't that the main "proof" that people use for Astrology. How it explains our makeup?

[zoidsoft]

I could never figure out how sidereal could be right. It changes my signs around and they just plain don't fit me or any other person I have looked up. Isn't that the main "proof" that people use for Astrology. How it explains our makeup?

It would be rather difficult to understand the sidereal zodiac before you understand how to speak jyotish. The alphabet may be the same, but the rules and syntax are quite different.

[lilllybelle]

One thing that all of this means is that astrologer hobbyist are now going to have to understand the whole earth wobbling thing a little better( That's exactly how I will explain it: You see people, the earth wobbles. Yes, we have a wobbly earth).

This thread has been very good in being an educational piece; however, in a month I will probably only remember what I already knew before I read the thread because that's how my brain works. Waybread, post 28 is worthy of a wilikipedia submission. Everthing you need to know in one post.

I do feel that I need to have a deeper understanding of the difference between the constellations and the zodiac now that the general public is aware of the difference as I've had people asking me about this subject on facebook. However, I don't think most people are looking for a very through explanation- just confirmation that something they enjoy doing (reading about their sign in the paper) is still valid and that it still works.

I also came across one thread on facebook where the people were ticked off at the idea of their sign changing. They were calling the whole idea of their signs changing a load of you know what. It was heartening to see that people didn't just discard their love of astrology over an astronomy announcement- neither would I for that matter if had Scorpio tattooed across my fanny.

I'm also wondering if a new camp in astrology will pop up over the next 5 years or so that uses 13 signs. There may already be a branch of astrology that uses 13 signs. I expect more people will check out what that branch has to say if such a branch of astrology already exist. ( Ding! Ding! Lilly has a new business idea. Start a new branch of astrology and charge people $500 a pop to tell them the secrets of the 13th sign and another $500 to become Certified Practitioners of the Mystical 13th house. Lilly rubs her hands together in anticipation of all the money she will make.)

On the subject of symbolism, what do y'all think that the astronomical restructuring of the constellation represents if anything. For me, it seems like some kind of universal validation of the sideral system (note that I am a student of the western camp). Maybe it's a push for us to be more accurate, or maybe it doesn't mean anything at all.

[byjove]

This is not the first time the issue about the constellations moving a few degrees back has come up. If anyone has paid close attention, recently, people have been coming back to Astrology, knowing that there is something to it. What Astrology does best is promote and confirm a knowledge of self. Think about it, if one has knowledge of self, one can not be controlled by society. Astrologer4U

Hi! I am not challenging you in any way, but what do you mean here? What kind of sign have you noticed? Is it in the public eye, media, literature etc.? Hmm I was wondering about this recently and I'm not so sure.

[byjove]

Meaning is somewhat fluid and a zodiac that doesn't change will not keep up with reality.

Hi Zoidsoft, does this mean you use Sidereal, at least relatively exclusively? Also, in another thread on here about this, I asked the same question but comes up again with what you have just said here; this site:

http://www.astrologycom.com/precession.html

and this particular article, contains the idea that the ancients knew that Ophiuchus also touched the ecliptic, but for some reason unknown, they chose to omit it, curiously, to the benefit of the much smaller Scorpio. So, if we're to consider which system is not modernizing, I'd sure like to visit that ancient decision.

[byjove]

If you keep pace with precession, as with the sidereal zodiac, you lose the connection with the seasons--at least as they exist in the southern temperate regions of the northern hemisphere, where the ancient Greek astrologers lived. Your equinoxes are constantly slipping backwards in time. On the other hand, if you keep your 30-degree pie sectors fixed to the 4 seasons and a solar calendar, then bye-bye an approximate overlap with the constellations.

On this note, talking with an Australian friend here, I realized the Spring connection with Aries in the north is lost in the south. Am I missing something glaringly obvious here? How can we maintain the Spring/beginning of life connection with Aries children in the southern hemisphere if it's a different season there?

[byjove]

Your predessors had already simplified the zodiac into 12 30-degree sectors for the sake of simplicity: it got rid of the messy overlap and gaps amidst the actual constellations through which the sun and other planets seemed to pass. And also, they believed in a numerology that was popular at the time. [The constellation Ophiucus definitely crosses the ecliptic, yet Aries barely touches it. Numerologically, 12 and 360 were idealized as perfect numbers, yet 13 was not; and the spring equinox did seem to coincide with Aries for a very long time.] And your fore-runners didn't have a problem: they delineated the zodiacal constellations and then signs at a time when the sun hitting 0 degrees Aries would have actually appeared to be at the beginning of Aries.



I hate the idea of 'ideal' sectors and numbers. It immediately translates to me as needing a heavy injection of practicality! I am not attacking you of course, just this ancient decision. And is it still relevant today? If there is sound mathematical/philosophical basis, OK, but if that's lacking, a re-look I think is in order, and I can imagine the implications to be far-reaching, I'd imagine that the deathly Ophiuchus could be taken into any new system. Why exactly did they leave it out, especially when it's neighbour Scorpio is so much smaller?

[eternalautumn]

My apologies if my earlier feeble attempt at a definition was off. I tried. :smile: Thanks to all who contributed more knowledgeable explanations. I'm glad this discussion is actually becoming interesting now.

[Olivia]

I don't know, Byjove. I wouldn't like to try to make a circle out of some other number than 360 degrees.

There is meaning in the tropical zodiac. The SIGN Aries starts on the day that day and night are of equal length. The SIGN Libra starts on the other day that day and night are of equal length - there are only two days a year when that happens. The SIGN Capricorn starts on the shortest day of the year. The SIGN Cancer starts on the longest day of the year (flip those if you're in the southern hemisphere). The constellations don't line up that way. The ancients in western astrology opted to tie in the zodiac to the solar symbolism - and it is, indeed, meaningful.

Lillybelle, thank you for bringing up the earth's wobble. It's actually our planet that's moving a bit, not the fixed stars, but from where we sit, it seems the other way round. For anyone who cares, the fixed stars 'move' incredibly slowly - about 3/4 of a degree every hundred years. The planets are known as 'wandering stars' because they move so much more quickly.

[waybread]

Thanks, Lillybelle. I was a classroom teacher for many years before I retired, and I still have a strong didactic streak. I think you're onto something with your new astrology as a potential money-maker!

"Wobble" is not a precise scientific term, alas. But it you think about 7th or 8th grade science class-type stuff, basically; (1) The earth rotates around the sun: its orbit. (2) The earth essentialy spins like a top, creating our daylight when our spot on the globe faces the sun. (3) Sometimes the north pole tilts closer to the sun and sometimes further away. When the north pole tilts closer to the sun, we have summer in the northern hemisphere. When it tips away, we have winter in the northern hemisphere. And vice versa for the southern hemisphere.

(4) If you can envision a line like a big skewer running through the earth, pole to pole, it also describes a much smaller circle (that I called a wobble) that makes it look on earth as though the constellations are ever-so-slowly shifting their positions. You wouldn't notice this in the course of a lifetime, but ancient astronomers did because they tried to align a lot of their temples with the sun at the equinox or solstice; or perhaps with the rising of a particular star, like Sirus. In as little as 300 years, they began to notice that their temple gates (or what have you) were out of alignment, and that the special date was occuring earlier in the calendar. This is the precession of the equinoxes, and this is why the equinox point seems to move backwards through the calendar and zodiac.

Presumably in 24,000 years, the equinox would appear to move through all 12 signs. Right now, the equinox is slipping from Pisces (where its been for about 2000 years) into Aquarius in the sidereal zodiac, hence the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius."

Byjove, it would be hard to come up with a division other than 12 or a multiple of 12th. The Egyptians divided their zodiac into 36 decans of 10 degrees each; one of which was Ophichus. There is the 28 lunar mansions of Hindu astrology and various dwad systems. I think a real constellational astrology would be fascinating to pursue--probably it would turn astrology to focusing on the traditions about fixed stars. The decision that a circle equals 360 degrees instead of some other number is, of course, arbitrary, but we are not going to change a couple thousand years of geometry, navigation, and so on.

I recommend for anyone interested in constellational astrology: John Lash, Quest for the Zodiac (Loughborough: Thoth Pulications, 1999.) It's pretty metaphysical, but he does set forth some ideas about how to work with constellations. It looks like he has a blog at http://www.realitysandwich.com/blog/john_lamb_lash . (It's too woo-woo for my taste, but maybe not for anybody else's.) And for sure, run the free constellational horoscopes available on the free charts pp. at Astrodienst. They will show your planets mapped over constellations and fixed stars. Apparently Bernadette Brady had a hand in this.

Byjove, there are always some interesting discussions about whether a northern hemisphere-based astrology works Down Under. Apparently, it still does.

[zoidsoft]

Hi Zoidsoft, does this mean you use Sidereal, at least relatively exclusively? Also, in another thread on here about this, I asked the same question but comes up again with what you have just said here; this site:

http://www.astrologycom.com/precession.html

and this particular article, contains the idea that the ancients knew that Ophiuchus also touched the ecliptic, but for some reason unknown, they chose to omit it, curiously, to the benefit of the much smaller Scorpio. So, if we're to consider which system is not modernizing, I'd sure like to visit that ancient decision.

I use the tropical ruler, but occasionally I switch to metric when testing Hellenistic procedures. When you give a measurement of something in life such as what happens in marriage, your frame of reference is your guide for consistency. A measurement using one ruler has to be recalibrated when using a different one.

You need both zodiacs to explain what is happening with the zodiacal ages (otherwise, how would we know that it's the dawn of the age of Aquarius?). Without the vernal equinox, there is no marker to say what age we are in, but also without a tropical system, we have no ties to earth phenomena such as weather and seasons and when seasons switch, certain behaviors and probabilities shift as well. I also tried to use the metaphor of language, and perception of color to explain what is going on above. I wrote an article about this subject back in 1999 that is very current to what is happening now:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/geocoincidence.html

There is one pet peeve of mine though, and it is all of the novices who say that they are an "Aquarius" or and "Aries" or whatnot... This is far too simplistic to be an accurate statement. You are human, and the signs / images are images, a collection of attributes tacked onto the sky to fill out the meanings of the planets (according to Robert Schmidt). For instance, Mars might be present in the 9th house, but it is found in a zoidion (image) with it's "limbs cut off" such as Taurus then they used to say something like the native is sacrilegious which is a 9th house attribute, but add on something like "excommunicated from the church" because the limbs were cut off. The zodiac signs / images provide an adverbial component to the simple sentence.

[Our3Minds]

With all the hoopla about a new Sign what if we’re all off a little bit in our understanding of Astrology.



What if the “Traits” we get are not from the planets but from an organized Creator who wanted us to be able to understand each other so he set up our Solar System as a way for us to “learn” the patterns of how we get our different Traits. I’ve always found it far-fetched that the planets themselves could somehow imprint the Sign Traits into us at our moment of birth.

I believe "God" does the imprinting and our ancestors envisioned “astrology” based on the repeating patterns that they saw in their fellow man and as time went on they expanded it to what we have today – minus the 13th Sign of course.



There have been many versions of Astrology, all trying to hone in on the truth to many questions, but I don't think feeble man will ever really understand the message of the stars - because he insists on leaving out the creator.:happy:



Just some food for thought.

[byjove]

Our3Minds, by any chance are you a Christian who believes that astrology and Christianity can live in harmony? I always imagined the possibility, in fact, exactly as you described it. I can't believe we might have one on our side...:w00t:

-----sits entrenched ready to shoot snakes-----

I think the different regional astrological federations should get out in the media and stamp on this clap-trap. Whether they want to take responsibility or not, astrology is suffering because of nonsense like this which is spun out into the mass media every few years by the next average Joe desperate to make his cheap fortune. Meanwhile, the gigantic increase in visitors to this forum and this thread in recent days shows the huge number of VICTIMS of this MISINFORMATION. And the rest of us astrologers are left to pick up the pieces.

I'd have more patience if astronomers and scientists in particular would stop pretending to the world that many of their finest weren't also astrologers. Also, the lack of unified face for this community is disastrous for us. PR anyone?

[07.Re]

There has been this 'come-back' from the Astrology Federation in reply to Kunkle's theory:


Take it from the American Federation of Astrologers. The hype about a supposed new zodiac sign, Ophiuchus, "doesn't change your chart at all," Federation spokeswoman Shelly Ackerman told the Associated Press.
Your sign has not changed. No one's has. And if you don't want to take her word for it, take it from NASA. By understanding just one definition in the star-gazer glossary at NASA.gov, you will understand that the news of a supposed "new zodiac" featuring 13 signs - and the claim that people's sun signs have changed - were bogus "news" from the start.


http://www.examiner.com/astrology-in...-backs-that-up

[Our3Minds]

Our3Minds, by any chance are you a Christian who believes that astrology and Christianity can live in harmony? I always imagined the possibility, in fact, exactly as you described it. I can't believe we might have one on our side...:w00t:

I think you will find that there are a lot of people that believe in God and Astrology. I have also found over the years that there are people in any discipline that are very protective with what they believe and the way they are doing things, Astrology included. I started studying Astrology about 7 years before I found God and now that I’ve grown with both I find they are rather complimentary. In fact, knowing God has helped broaden my understanding of the true origins of Astrology and no matter how it is changed or what new Signs are added Astrology will look its best when we get back to the basics – before man has had eons to confuse it.

[waybread]

Our3minds, it's in Genesis 1:14-18.

Ophichus, BTW is in Genesis 2:9 as the tree with the serpent--here standing in for Sagittarius/Scorpio. Adam and Eve are Gemini (a couple in some traditional astrologies, not male twins.) Virgo is another image for Eve "the mother of all things living" (3:20), and Pisces is Adam, "the man of sorrows." This is basically a depiction of the mutable signs, suggesting that "in the beginning" people understood that the equinoxes would have been in Gemini and Sag/Ophiuchus/Scorpio region, with the solstices in Virgo and Pisces.

See if this photo of Ophiuchus (also named Serpentarius) reminds you of a serpent in a tree.

[lilllybelle]

Wobble" is not a precise scientific term, alas. But it you think about 7th or 8th grade science class-type stuff, basically; (1) The earth rotates around the sun: its orbit.

Yeah, I was being silly. Humor is so hard to convey through a computer screen :sad:.

[Olivia]

A different language: astrology.

If you don't know how to 'read' astrology, then all those symbols in your chart are meaningless.

But even within the continent of astrology, there are many different languages - Persian astrology, Hellenistic astrology, Jyotish astrologies, modern astrologies, Uranian astrology, and breaking it down further, horary, electional, mundane, decumbiture, cosmobiology....there are many more, but I hope you see my point.

If you don't learn to 'read' (study, become familiar with) a form of Jyotish astrology, if you don't know how that particular 'astrological language' works - you won't be able to make sense of a chart done in Jyotish astrology.

That's all.

[cl0udmaKer]

A different language: astrology.

If you don't know how to 'read' astrology, then all those symbols in your chart are meaningless.

But even within the continent of astrology, there are many different languages - Persian astrology, Hellenistic astrology, Jyotish astrologies, modern astrologies, Uranian astrology, and breaking it down further, horary, electional, mundane, decumbiture, cosmobiology....there are many more, but I hope you see my point.

If you don't learn to 'read' (study, become familiar with) a form of Jyotish astrology, if you don't know how that particular 'astrological language' works - you won't be able to make sense of a chart done in Jyotish astrology.

That's all.

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator] they all mean the SAME THING just go to

a cafeastrology.com or any website like that and it'll tell you what the signs in

your chart mean, and im not saying every form of astrology im talking about sidereel and tropical.

[Olivia]

As I seem to have offended everyone and clarified nothing, I shall leave this thread to better minds.

[RockFish]

Olivia, your input was (unsurprisingly) excellent.

Gauquelin suggested that signs are irrelevant in the practice of astrology. I see meaning in the 12 signs in my readings, but a part of me understands his point of view. I'm intrigued by the idea of undressing astrology to the basic planetary positions and angles.

[Olivia]

That's what Kepler did, so you might want to read, or re-read his works.

[RockFish]

That's what Kepler did, so you might want to read, or re-read his works.

Thank you for the suggestion. :happy:

Funnily, I started reading his biography a couple of days ago, I'll look for his works on the web.

[Mark]

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years

I think we should also remember that all evolution takes place in an ebb and flow sort of manner. False news reports are spun up for the purpose of creating confusion because (best movie quote ever) "...in confusion there is profit." These same things have another effect, however. Yes, astrologers are left to deal with the flood of crazies who think we've just discovered something new, but how many of these newbs might end up becoming astrologers simply because they were exposed to astrology at the right time? This highly inconvenient situation is exactly the sort of thing that helps to replenish the ranks of astrologers. In effect, we grow and become stronger because of the greedy tactics employed by others. As has been said many times, there is no such thing as bad publicity. :wink:

[byjove]

Mark, I think you're right about the additions to the community this will bring.

I also think you're right in saying it brings confusion; I'm confused! Despite everything I've read about it all on this forum, I now wonder:

1. Even if the ancients knew about the precession of the equinoxes, does that mean if they were alive today they would still follow tropical, when looking up at the sky one of us says Saturn in Libra, when astronomically it is in Virgo? I just don't know.

2. Ophiuchus, so, to summarize thinly, the number 13 had various bad associations, it didn't seem to work with anything, and someone created a lovely myth linking it SIMILAR to something like a black-magic practitioner; playing around with life and death. That's why they omitted a constellation which does lie at least partially on the ecliptic? Despite my desire to ward away the amateur astronomers desperate for 5 minutes of fame, I'm unconvinced with the supposed ancient decision regarding Oph. that I'm not ready to dismiss it.

3. The mathematics we've built around it since then, as well as it suits our agenda, to me as a comfy chair is not good enough reason to not get out of it. IF/IF/only if/ one finds necessity to get out of the comfy chair; I think one should.

4. Why 30-degree divisions when the Sun does not spend 30 days in each 'sign'? If this is related to the comfy mathematics...now I read some losing faith in the signs, aiming for just the planets next?

Oh dear. I need firm ground. As long as I smell something funny, I'll run through the forest looking for it.

[Olivia]

If they offer introductory astronomy lessons at your school, ByJove, I suggest you take a course. It should help put your mind to rest about some of these issues.

If not, you may want to pursue a self-study course in basic astronomy - it should be simple enough to find texts anywhere.

[RayAustin]

4. Why 30-degree divisions when the Sun does not spend 30 days in each 'sign'? If this is related to the comfy mathematics...now I read some losing faith in the signs, aiming for just the planets next?

Why must a degree equal one day?

[byjove]

Thanks Olivia, I will at the next opportunity, good idea.

Ray, what I mean is currently we're running at 30-degree divisions of 12 signs, but why, if the Sun does not spend exactly that time (much less in Scorpios case) in each sign?

[RayAustin]

Thanks Olivia, I will at the next opportunity, good idea.

Ray, what I mean is currently we're running at 30-degree divisions of 12 signs, but why, if the Sun does not spend exactly that time (much less in Scorpios case) in each sign?
Okay, but you're saying two different things here. You mentioned "30-degree divisions" and then say "the Sun does not spend exactly that time" .. well I wouldn't equate degrees to time like that.

[zoidsoft]

1. Even if the ancients knew about the precession of the equinoxes, does that mean if they were alive today they would still follow tropical, when looking up at the sky one of us says Saturn in Libra, when astronomically it is in Virgo? I just don't know.

2. Ophiuchus, so, to summarize thinly, the number 13 had various bad associations, it didn't seem to work with anything, and someone created a lovely myth linking it SIMILAR to something like a black-magic practitioner; playing around with life and death. That's why they omitted a constellation which does lie at least partially on the ecliptic? Despite my desire to ward away the amateur astronomers desperate for 5 minutes of fame, I'm unconvinced with the supposed ancient decision regarding Oph. that I'm not ready to dismiss it.

4. Why 30-degree divisions when the Sun does not spend 30 days in each 'sign'? If this is related to the comfy mathematics...now I read some losing faith in the signs, aiming for just the planets next?.

As to the first, because the ancients were aware of this, there was debate about where the zodiac began and ended and it was Ptolemy who formulated a theory which led to the tropical zodiac based upon Aristotle's 4 elements / 4 seasons. 12 is a number of increasing fortune and there are statements about how this is the foundation for material manifestation. Read Plato's Timaeus... The ancients became us and they are split on tropical / sidereal based upon different philosophical ideas. But few are acquainted with the theory on the foundation of astrology any more.

As to the 2nd, the fixed stars are still used by some astrologers to this day (both tropical and siderealists). The constellations are the preservation of mythology and stories from the past and there were a large number of these. Dr. Zoller has spoken at length about this on sabaeanism and speaks of 36, but there are more.

As to the last, there are 2 sects, day and night, and the Sun is 1/2 degree and the Moon is 1/2 degree in diameter and a solar eclipse shows that they are roughly the same apparent diameter in the sky from our location. Symbolically this had meaning to the ancients, that 12 hours travel is also 1/2 degree and 360 degrees is a full circle, so half of the circle is lunar (Aquarius - Cancer) and the other half is solar (Leo - Capricorn).

Are the arbitrary boundaries drawn on star maps (stick figures in the sky) more important than the metaphysical understanding of the patterns of the planets and the math of their operations? I can make a new star map and re-draw the boundaries of the constellations if I want to add feet to Taurus, or extend the length of the tail of the stinger in the scorpion. Such an exercise is arbitrary and not thought out.

Notice that astronomers always add the 13th in there and the reason for this is because there are astrologers in India who actually use the constellations. Astronomers do not want astrology, period. They consider it ignorant superstition, so they redraw the constellational boundaries as they see fit - a classic straw man argument, because they do not want to give credence to the Indian tradition either. But without the 2 zodiacs (Ezekiel's "wheel within a wheel") there is little foundation for the zodiacal ages (how is it that we are entering the age of Aquarius?).

[dr. farr]

The 360 degree circle of the sky has been divided in several different ways both in Western and Vedic astrology:
-into 12 30 degree segments (signs/rashis)
-into 36 10 degree segments (decans/drekkanas)
-into 144 2.5 degree segments (duodenaries/dwadashamas)
-into 360 1 degree segments (Enoch sign/degrees, dating from early Arabic times)

A speciality in Vedic astrology (called varga or sectional charts) applies each of these divisions in order to make various different analyses of one and the same chart. This was done also by the Greco/Roman astrologers, who used the 30 degree, 10 degree and 2.5 degree segments for making complete analyses. Manilius (14 AD) emphasized that signs contained other signs (decans) and these contained yet other signs (duodenaries), because, he said, nothing is simply "one thing", but always represents a blend of (cosmic) influences.

[zoidsoft]

Why must a degree equal one day?

365 days in a year and 360 degrees in a circle. The sun makes 1 circle in a year and approximately 1 degree travel in 1 day.

[RayAustin]

365 days in a year and 360 degrees in a circle. The sun makes 1 circle in a year and approximately 1 degree travel in 1 day.

Haha thanks, it was a bit of a rhetorical question though. I just don't think someone should see the Sun as having to exactly progress a degree a day. I would like your opinion though on how leap year plays out in that.

[zoidsoft]

Haha thanks, it was a bit of a rhetorical question though. I just don't think someone should see the Sun as having to exactly progress a degree a day. I would like your opinion though on how leap year plays out in that.

It is modern science that thinks the truth comes with exactness (such as proving Einstein's relativity theory with exact measurements of the speed of light), but Robert Schmidt has said that this is more closely associated with "hule", which roughly means "chaotic matter". Plato would say that to know something it must first come from the realm of Nous, the realm of pure forms or "eidei". The idea of a thing is more exact than it's material manifestation because at the creation of the universe in which the Monad split and became the Dyad, contrariness was introduced into the world and suddenly you now have imperfection trying to obscure the truth. For this reason, most classical philosophers (particularly of the platonic school) would see the small deviations in measurements as "error" attributed to the nature of dyadic contrariness and they would look at the overall pattern as being closer to "truth". The 5 epagomenal days of the Egyptians were typically a time of partying. Any sort of realignment of the calendar (adding a leap day) is an attempt to take the contrarial dyadic composition of nature and make it conform to Nous and what exists in the mind.

[waybread]

Good assessment, Mark. Fundamentally Fox news is in the business of selling advertising and they need to attract a readership/viewing audience in order to do that. Sun-sign columns are usually the most frequently read part of a newspaper or magazine.

byjove, regarding your point above about the number 13, I would point out that there are 13 lunar months in a year, although the sollar/lunar cycle is in synch so seldom that each calendar system has had to have different ways of working out the discrepancies. With 12 as an idealized number and the old lunar goddesses in disrepute, a 13th zodiacal sign just wasn't on.

Basically, though, Ophiuchus occupies relatively little space on the ecliptic, and what it does occupy is just a bit north of the tail of the Scorpion. With our tropical zodiac, trying to insert Ophiuchus anywhere near its relative position to Scorpio and Sagittarius would really make a mess out of Sagittarius.

For astrologers who work with fixed stars, there is no reason not to work with those in the constellation Ophiuchus, although they did not have a great reputation among traditional astrologers. They seemed to be associated with anything from getting poisoned to being deceitful.

The Egyptian planisphere of Dendara (ca. 50 BC) shows that the Egyptians worked with decans, or a division of the circle into 36 signs or constellations. One of these is Ophiuchus, shown as a seated man with a bird's (hawk's?) head. (Thumbnail attached.)

Then there are also the 28 lunar mansions of Vedic astrology.

[maheshpandit]

I go with you waybread, few astrologers only believe that constellational astrology is accurate.

[RockFish]

hi byjove, I read you are concerned that some people are losing faith in the signs, I think that's a better thing than people accepting a new sign without even understanding what the zodiac belt really is.

I accept the signs because I've seem them work, but it's a very mysterious process. The same goes to houses, since I don't know how the ancient astrologers came up with this division of the sky in which the 2nd house means material assets, the 7th means partnership, etc. It's all covered in fog; as much of the astrological practice, signs and houses work, but they can hardly be associated with a rational thought process.

I think it's healthy to question it; and I don't think it's very smart to come up with new additions to the tradition if we didn't really find valid explanations to the practices that are already here and stood the test of time.

[byjove]

Hi Rockfish, I totally agree; it's just that the debate on here has sparked in me a 'stocktake' of my astro knowledge and anything without a label or reason or good (non-rational) alternative will be investigated :rightful: I have to say I'm enjoying the discussion on here; we're covering real ground; this is what happens when everyone stays calm and avoids negative comments; we get to share our minds and learn. :wink: I've watched other threads go down in flames because someone inserts something negative which sparks a chain reaction. -sigh-

OK, I feel more comfortable again with the 360/1 degree a day. Next, does it matter/what is the significance/reasoning behind astrologically dividing the ecliptic specifically into 30 degree spaces if astronomically something different happens; different periods of time in each 'sign'.

Also, I can't help but ask now which has lightly been touched on; is it the signs or the constellations or in fact the planets we're interpreting? If we're interepting the Sun on June 1st for example, we're talking about the Sun in Gemini astrologically, when astron. it's in Taurus so does that mean we're interpreting the appearance of the Sun on the ecliptic and not in fact the Signs? So it's the planets and golden path of the ecliptic?

As for the seasons, that to me reminds me of the 'Should the MC start the 10th house' debate, and I still don't know what to make of my Australian friend who was born in Aussie September, which is one season to me and another to her; and particularly for my Sun sign; Aries, marks Spring, OK, and in Australia? That's not Spring! How does that work? I hope some of the Aussie astrologers on here see this; I'd love their opinions. I don't have a problem with the seasons being involved; in the west in many instances it's attached with a kind of mysticism which I think just blurs everything; in the Orient, it's mainly philosophical, no? Which I totally understand, unfortunately it sounds like typical scientific observation; but observing the movements of people, the planets and nature and arriving at conclusions. No mystic = clear for me.

[RockFish]

hi jove, one can indeed try their hand in reading charts which are "constellationally" correct. But most of the astrological knowledge we have today was gathered throughout years and years of usage of our "constellationally incorrect" zodiac, our equinox-oriented or season-oriented zodiac, so, it would be a whole lot of work indeed.....

The gradual "falling away" of the constellations in relation to the zodiac didn't seem to bother astrologers in the least, even though it was a well-known phenomenon. It seems that the signs' early connection with the stars was less important to ancient astrologers than their usage as symbols to mark certain periods of the solar year.

[RockFish]

If we're interepting the Sun on June 1st for example, we're talking about the Sun in Gemini astrologically, when astron. it's in Taurus so does that mean we're interpreting the appearance of the Sun on the ecliptic and not in fact the Signs?

Yeah... That's why I think planets, aspects and angles are of more importance than signs. It seems to me signs are mere "flags" that could be named as any other thing, but then again, same goes to constellations, they are all human conventions.

The only reason why I don't think signs are useless is medical astrology, which is very much based on signs and their relation to certain body parts. If one says 'you have an afflicted mars in capricorn in the 6th, you might have problem with your knees' and it turns out correct, I have to consider that there must be something valid in signs as they are. I'm still making up my mind about it. :kissing:

[Olivia]

And this is one of the reasons that I'm always trying to get people to spend some quality time actually studying traditional astrology. Give it a year or two.

If you find you loathe it after you get to know it pretty well, then - don't use it. But at least you'll know the 'whys' to so many of your questions.

And who knows? Maybe it will make things fall into place that much better. It's good to be critical - and not everything everyone wrote back in the day is good because it's old, we've always had charlatans, just like we do today.

But without the background in astronomy, philosophy, and astrology itself, you're always going to be thrown when someone mentions that Ophiuchus touches the ecliptic, or Cetus touches the ecliptic, and why aren't they signs, too? Or that astrology isn't valid because the tropical zodiac is pinned to the seasons instead of to constellations, and whatever other nonsense comes down the pike.

A recent example is the astronomical downgrading of Pluto from its planetary status. Well, people who practise modern astrological techniques know lots about Pluto. What astronomers decided about it hasn't affected their astrological practise at all or thrown them into crisis over the validity of astrology.

Thing is, you need to learn the foundation astrology was built on if you're going to be an astrologer. Then you'll be in a position to evaluate claims from debunkers, sceptics, and astronomers who want to call their mothers and tell them they'll be on the news for two minutes on Tuesday night, isn't that exciting, mum, be sure to watch!

And it won't rock your sense of reality so much - you'll have the resources to deal with it. Maybe someone will say something worthy of considering - you can do that, but you can do it calmly and rationally. The rest can simply be thrown away as the nonsense it is.

[BobZemco]

1. Even if the ancients knew about the precession of the equinoxes, does that mean if they were alive today they would still follow tropical, when looking up at the sky one of us says Saturn in Libra, when astronomically it is in Virgo? I just don't know.

I know.

The Ancients did know about precession.

The Sumerians state quite clearly and in no uncertain terms that the Deluge occurred during the Age of Leo, which would be circa 12,000 to 10,000 BCE.

It would be impossible to acknowledge the existence of an "Age" without knowing about the precession of the equinoxes. There is additional evidence as well consisting of various artifacts such as bas reliefs, cylinder seals, frescoes painted on the walls of people's homes etc, that show motifs such as the Twins/Bull and the Bull/Ram. I don't remember which, but either the Journal of the Ancient Near East or the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Texts transcribed clay tablets describing a ceremony held to inaugurate the Age of the Bull in one of the Sumerian cities.

All of that proves they knew, otherwise there would be no need for an "Age of..."

2. Ophiuchus, so, to summarize thinly, the number 13 had various bad associations, it didn't seem to work with anything, and someone created a lovely myth linking it SIMILAR to something like a black-magic practitioner; playing around with life and death. That's why they omitted a constellation which does lie at least partially on the ecliptic? Despite my desire to ward away the amateur astronomers desperate for 5 minutes of fame, I'm unconvinced with the supposed ancient decision regarding Oph. that I'm not ready to dismiss it.

It has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Everything you know about astrology comes from the Sumerians. They devised a numbering system known as Sexigesimal, or Base 60. It's just repeated sequences of 6 and 10.

From that comes the 360 degrees, 60 minutes in 1°, 60 seconds in 1' of arc etc. That is also the bases of your 12 months, your 12 inches in a foot, 36 inches in a yard, 12 hours in one beru (a half day) or 24 hours in a double beru (a whole day) and everything else.

It was the Sumerians who divided the heavens into 3 distinct bands, known as the Way of Enlil, from 30° N to the pole, the Way of Anu, from 30° North to 30° South, and the Way of Enki from 30° S to the pole.

What you have is 60° + 60° + 60° = 180°

For each Way of the bands, they created 12 Constellations, so there were 12 Constellations in the Way of Enlil, 12 Constellations in the Way of Anu, and 12 Constellations in the Way of Enki.

The 12 Constellations in the Way of Anu were:

ku.mal (the Ram - Aries)
gu.an.na (the Heavenly Bull - Taurus)
mash.tab.ba (the Twins - Gemini)
dub (the pincers - Cancer)
ur.gula (the Lion - Leo)
ab.sin (the Maiden - Virgo)
zi.ba.an.na (the "Heavenly Fate" - Libra)
gir.tab ("which claws and cuts" - Scorpio)
pa.bil (the "Defender" - Sagittarius)
sushur.mash (the "Goat-Fish" - Capricorn)
gu (the "Lord of the Waters" - Aquarius)
sim.makh (the "Fishes" - Pisces)

As you can see, "13" had nothing to do with it. "13" isn't divisible into 360 anymore than "11" or "14" or "16" or "17." It's about math, not superstition.

If we divide 360 by 30 we get "12." So, like, there's no need for rocket science here, it's just simple math. There's no way to divide 360 evenly and come up with 11, or 13, 14, 16 or 16 or a host of other numbers.

That, of course, makes any argument claiming that the Babylonians "discarded" or "ignored" a constellation complete nonsense, since the Babylonians did not create the constellations, they merely inherited them from the Sumerians via the Akkadians (who also used the Sexigesimal Base 60 numbering system and who also used the same 12 Constellation scheme for the Way of Enlil, the Way of An -- that's the Akkadian name for Anu -- and the Way of Enki).

3. The mathematics we've built around it since then, as well as it suits our agenda, to me as a comfy chair is not good enough reason to not get out of it. IF/IF/only if/ one finds necessity to get out of the comfy chair; I think one should.

If it will make you happy, I'll divide the heaves into 180 Constellations of 2° each.

We can give them cute names like Gummi Bear and Kabab Stand.

Or we can just have 6 constellations of 60° each.

Or one really freaking huge constellation of 360° and that would solve all the problems, right? We can call it the Carlton TV Constellation.

4. Why 30-degree divisions when the Sun does not spend 30 days in each 'sign'? If this is related to the comfy mathematics...now I read some losing faith in the signs, aiming for just the planets next?

I already covered that in the math section. I suppose if the Sumerians had invented the Base 10 system, maybe there would be more constellations, or the Binary System, that would yield lots of constellations as well, maybe, then again, maybe not.

The way it worked, was you had a 360 day calendar year. On the 360th day, a "priest" someone like say, I don't know, Terah, of biblical fame, would climb the ziggurat in the city of Ur where he and Abrahm and Serai lived and ready the 1st tablet of the Seven Tablets of Creation (aka Enuma elish....) to the crowd that had gathered below.

Then there were 5 intercalated days, and on the evening of each of those 5 days, Terah would climb the steps of the ziggurat and read tablets 2 through 6 of the Seven Tablets of Creation to the crowd that had gathered below. Sometimes they would dress up and act out the parts, just like people do for the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Then, on the 7th day, which would be the day of the Vernal (Spring) Equinox, Terah would climb the steps of the ziggurat in the evening and read from the 7th and final tablet of the Seven Tablets of Creation to the crowd below.

Then there would be festivities to celebrate the New Year. That's how it worked.

So it doesn't really have anything to do with the Sun, except to the extent of the Sun's Ingress at the Vernal Equinox. The Sumerians had literally thousands of tablets of stars called "Star Lists" that listed the relationship between that star and other stars, and the measured the distance between stars in 3 different ways, one be a measure of the passage of time, another by actual distance (which equates to some 11,800-odd meters) and other that measures distance and time.

What we can say from that is the Sumerians weren't enamored with the Sun, and that their focus was the heavens in toto.

I can see where modern astrologers would be totally confused, because modern astrologers attach a laundry list of irrelevant (and erroneous) meanings to the Signs, whereas traditional astrologers don't.

That isn't to say Signs don't mean anything, they do, and their meanings are relevant, like Aquarius being both a Human and Violent Sign. Why? Because Aquarius is the Water-Bearer and looks like a human, and it is ruled by Saturn, which is a Malefic.

Signs are Commanding and Obeying, Long and Short, Crooked and Straight, North and South and Hearing and Not Hearing and so on because of their relationship to each other or because of what they resemble or simulate, and not because some astronomer has set the boundaries of constellations to whatever warped illogical scheme they have.

And really, all his is a hoot especially with people jumping into it head first. I mean a lot of people here can't even correctly delineate the 12 current Signs, so a 13th Sign is just one more Sign they won't be able to correctly delineate

[waybread]

byjove--it's the signs, not the constellations, although some astrologers work with fixed stars of constellations both on and off the ecliptic. It's probably fair to say that some ancient authors like Ptolemy used both signs and constellations, but clearly distinguished between them. Also, even when they used stars, sometimes asterisms (star clusters) were more noteworthy than the entire constellation.

An Australian astrologer whom I really respect assures the rest of us that northern hemisphere astrology works fine Down Under.

Really helpful discussion, Bob!

I would only note that some of the Greek astronomers, for whatever reason, considered Libra to be part of Scorpio--in fact, they called it "the claws". Aratus in Phaenomena 85-91 (270BC) talks only about the scorpion and its claws--no Libra between Scorpio and Virgo. Hyginus (64BC to 17AD) in Astronomica gives it both ways:

"This sign [Scorpio] is divided into two parts on account of the great spread of the claws. One part of it our writers have called the Balance." Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos I.9 (2nd century AD) sometimes mention Libra as the scales, but here simply talks about the stars in the "claws of the scorpion."

Astrological understanding of the heavens has always been in a state of flux.

[helgaleena]

I'm also wondering if a new camp in astrology will pop up over the next 5 years or so that uses 13 signs. There may already be a branch of astrology that uses 13 signs. I expect more people will check out what that branch has to say if such a branch of astrology already exist. ( Ding! Ding! Lilly has a new business idea. Start a new branch of astrology and charge people $500 a pop to tell them the secrets of the 13th sign and another $500 to become Certified Practitioners of the Mystical 13th house. Lilly rubs her hands together in anticipation of all the money she will make.)



Lilllybelle, it has already happened twice according to Wikipedia. It caught on quite fast in Japan too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Berg