Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac

[vasilis]

Hello people,
I don't know if I should write:

Opened minds preferred!

like the member "Pallas-trine-Mars" did in previous research threads. Anyway I think that if such a category of threads exist, there are relevant people to read it.

The level of the conversation in the threads "Is it time for an astro redesign thanks to astronomy?" and "Method of Applying 13 Sign Zodiac" is really high that encourages me to make this thread.

My new Astrological theory aspires to make scientists deal with Astrology again. As their colleagues did some hundreds of years ago.

After my studies in Physics and Astronomy, I started my project to redesign Tropical (and lesser Vedic) Astrology in order to comply with Astronomy' s data. It was not simple and I was forced to propose many changes in the fields of:
1. Zodiac classification,
2. 4 elements Assumption,
3. Ascendant
4. Houses of the planets
5. Dates and length of the Zodiac Signs
And last but most important the addition of Ophiuchus between Scorpio and Sagittarius.
The precession of the equinoxes is very well computed by my new theory and all Zodiac Signs are annually adapting to their new dates..
As you may well understand all the elements that were contradicting with Astronomy had to be conformed without changing the charm and internal consistency of Astrology.
So the new Ascendant of "Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" is represented by the Moon's Sign.
Lastly, Sunspots take an important role in the new Astrology.
I can't wait for the dialog to begin..

[Moog]

Making your own astrological system must be an incredibly tall order. Interesting though.

Can we see it an action? How about a delineation or several.

I don't think making astrology conform to astronomy is going to persuade many scientists.

Good luck though.

[vasilis]

Do you mean by making a Birth Horoscope? In this case, I need someone to give me his/her birthday, hour and time zone (I don't need exact place, only time zone)

For the second part of your reply concerning scientists, you are forgetting that in the beginning only scientists were dealing with Astrology. Mostly Astronomers.

[Moog]

How about Hitler?

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Hitler,_Adolf

What sort of dialogue are you interested in? You haven't told us much about your system. Perhaps you could go into specifics.

Yes, I know that astrologer/scientist used to be synonymous, but I don't see how that changes anything about current conditions.

[vasilis]

Dear Moog,

Please allow me to change the person from Hitler to Angelina Jolie. She's far more interesting and inside my programe's date limits.

"Angelina Jolie was born on the 4th of June 1975 at 9:09 LA California.
She 's Taurus with Pisces as Ascendant. The date she was born the Sun was is Taurus and the Moon in Pisces. Her Natal Chart below is confirming the planet's place on the ecliptic the date she was born.
As Taurian she expresses dualism which is obvious from her professional evolution. Her negative points are her stubbornness and slow pace.
The Moon in Pisces means primacy in life but also recklessness and egoism.
The conjunction of Jupiter with Mars in Pisces brings concern for the family and children in equilibrium with her psychological pursuits.
The opposition of the Sun with Neptune mean balance in working and economical health.
The presence of planet Neptune in the Zodiac Constellation of Ophiuchus brings philosophical quest and action in her life.
When Angelina Jolie was born the Sun had 7 Sunspots. According to the Sunspot number she's an α (greek letter "alpha") character. It means that she's mild natured."

Natal Chart image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76605651@N03/6874517435/)

I really don't know what sort of dialog I am interested in! I thought that a new theory would make Astrologers and fans make questions anyway!

I can write some more things about the theory:
The symbol of Ophiuchus is the Greek letter Phi "Φ"
The small line at the top of the drawing is "γ" point which is placed inside the Constellation of Pisces.

You may find the prologue and introduction of my book at Smashwords of Google books in order to get a wider view of the theory.

[Sebastien Cheritte]

I reckon change is a good idea, however, expect your infantile theory to meet with much resistance, like a new born baby into the world of disease there is much the current astrologcal society will have to adapt to from your work. Don't be fooled, babies ALWAYS get alot of attention, gift & curse.

On a lighter note, i'm intrigued, since i too have been looking for a way out of my predominantly cadent chart, i reckon i might like to see my chart presented through your theory. perhaps it'll put me off astrology alltogether and i can begin living my life actually. :innocent::alien::whistling::rightful::devil:

29-07-1983
20:15
Johannesburg, South Africa

[vasilis]

Dear Sebastien,
I understand very well the meaning of your words.
Anyway a new theory is not a mature theory. When Claudius Ptolemy wrote the "Tetravivlos" (or "Tetrabiblos") the theory was already 200 years old and applied from many ancient Astrologers like Vettius Valens and others..
Critique is welcome and I hope it will stay on an affordable level.
-----------
Your Natal Chart is really fantastic. I suppose that you have already seen the Tropical Astrology version of it. The main aspects of the 7 planets + the Moon + the Sun are drawn in the same way.
The Natal Charts of "Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" are dynamically adapting to "γ" point (which is the point of intersection of the Ecliptic with the Celestial Equator, changing by 0,52" every year). This is the small line at the top of the Chart (the place of the Moon in your chart).

"When you were born the Sun was in Cancer. Your are Cancerian.
Cancerians are enthusiastic people. You have many virtues, such as pride (in the positive sense), generosity and kindness. You inspire and have a positive effect on those around you. Your main trait is the capacity to enjoy life. You have great confidence in your beliefs. You are ambitious and creative. Your strong personality is a passport to the success of your ambitions.
The Moon is your new Ascendant. In Pisces it means dynamic mood but also recklessness and egoism. Moon in Pisces gives power of expression.
Mercury in Leo predisposes you to find people with similar purposes and ideas.
The big triangular (trine) aspects of Moon - Sun - Jupiter are very important for the forming of your character. In a few words they Shape radical characters with optimism features.
The also big triangular aspects of Moon - Sun - Uranus are also significant for your social life. They give hope, evolution and good chemistry with your fliends.
..........."
Sebastien Cheritte Natal Chart of "13 Zodiac Astrology" (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76605651@N03/6875026703/)

[Sebastien Cheritte]

did i get this right... in your theory, saturn falls into Virgo, loses his exaltation the (******* doesn't deserve any exaltation in any case)
Jupiter moves out of strength into Libra
Uranus falls into Scorpio - becomes exhalted!
the window is so tiny, what are the chances??..
anyway...
Neptune moves to the cusp of Ophiuchus & Sagittarius - correct? So which is it exactly???
Mars moves to Gemini, (out of fall)
venus moves to Leo (out of fall into joy)
hmmm... what can be explained
how much of thye descriptions of the signs as they stand, also apply to your theory??

[Raquel]

Hello people,
I don't know if I should write:

Opened minds preferred!

like the member "Pallas-trine-Mars" did in previous research threads. Anyway I think that if such a category of threads exist, there are relevant people to read it.

The level of the conversation in the threads "Is it time for an astro redesign thanks to astronomy?" and "Method of Applying 13 Sign Zodiac" is really high that encourages me to make this thread.

My new Astrological theory aspires to make scientists deal with Astrology again. As their colleagues did some hundreds of years ago.

After my studies in Physics and Astronomy, I started my project to redesign Tropical (and lesser Vedic) Astrology in order to comply with Astronomy' s data. It was not simple and I was forced to propose many changes in the fields of:
1. Zodiac classification,
2. 4 elements Assumption,
3. Ascendant
4. Houses of the planets
5. Dates and length of the Zodiac Signs
And last but most important the addition of Ophiuchus between Scorpio and Sagittarius.
The precession of the equinoxes is very well computed by my new theory and all Zodiac Signs are annually adapting to their new dates..
As you may well understand all the elements that were contradicting with Astronomy had to be conformed without changing the charm and internal consistency of Astrology.
So the new Ascendant of "Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" is represented by the Moon's Sign.
Lastly, Sunspots take an important role in the new Astrology.
I can't wait for the dialog to begin..

very interesting :)

[Raquel]

Do you mean by making a Birth Horoscope? In this case, I need someone to give me his/her birthday, hour and time zone (I don't need exact place, only time zone)

For the second part of your reply concerning scientists, you are forgetting that in the beginning only scientists were dealing with Astrology. Mostly Astronomers.

I give you, do it for me please,

13th October 1989 at 1.35

Portugal (0)

[vasilis]

@everybody

I will post no more Natal Charts except for research reasons in this thread. I hope that you understand that this is a conversation about a New theory and not a personal Astrological analysis thread.


@ Raquel,

thank you for your nice words.
You can see your "13 Zodiac Astrology" Birth Horoscope here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76605651@N03/6876812757/)

I'm making a small analysis for your Natal data:

"When you were born the Sun had about 48 Sunspots. According to the Sunspot number you are an "epsilon" (greek letter ε) character. It means that you are animated but you seek harmony.
When you were born Sun was in Virgo. Virgos, above all, look for harmony in their lives. You are cooperative and seek peaceful relationships with those around you. You are highly perceptive and seek consensus. You know the importance of shared values and the sharing of material things.
The Moon is your new Ascendant. In Pisces it means dominance in the game
but also spirit of contradiction to friends. Moon in Pisces gives capacity in management.
Your Natal Chart is full of positive aspects between planets. In 13 Zodiac Astrology most aspects have positive effect. But Conjunctions are generally negative for your life.
The Moon is in opposition with Mercury which edows you in the communication field.
Venus in Scorpio means periods of nervousness in your life"

There is much more to say and you may discover it on your own if you read my theory. I think that this is a good motive for you to go on..

I also think that with this natal chart we have enough samples to talk more about my theory. Anyone who wants can find more information on my website and the internet.

[Raquel]

@everybody

I will post no more Natal Charts except for research reasons in this thread. I hope that you understand that this is a conversation about a New theory and not a personal Astrological analysis thread.


@ Raquel,

thank you for your nice words.
You can see your "13 Zodiac Astrology" Birth Horoscope here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/76605651@N03/6876812757/)

I'm making a small analysis for your Natal data:

"When you were born the Sun had about 48 Sunspots. According to the Sunspot number you are an "epsilon" (greek letter ε) character. It means that you are animated but you seek harmony.
When you were born Sun was in Virgo. Virgos, above all, look for harmony in their lives. You are cooperative and seek peaceful relationships with those around you. You are highly perceptive and seek consensus. You know the importance of shared values and the sharing of material things.
The Moon is your new Ascendant. In Pisces it means dominance in the game
but also spirit of contradiction to friends. Moon in Pisces gives capacity in management.
Your Natal Chart is full of positive aspects between planets. In 13 Zodiac Astrology most aspects have positive effect. But Conjunctions are generally negative for your life.
The Moon is in opposition with Mercury which edows you in the communication field.
Venus in Scorpio means periods of nervousness in your life"

There is much more to say and you may discover it on your own if you read my theory. I think that this is a good motive for you to go on..

I also think that with this natal chart we have enough samples to talk more about my theory. Anyone who wants can find more information on my website and the internet.

So it means, The ascendant and the moon are always the same in this method?

Thank you:joyful:

[vasilis]

The trace of the Moon on the ecliptic is placed in the constellation that represents the New Ascendant.
Ascendant is not relevant with the word that Claudius Ptolemy used for it which was "Horoscopos".
But Horoscopos comes from the ancient Greek words Hora + Scopo (hour + observe) and means to observe something significant the time that a baby is born.
For the ancient Greeks something significant was the Ascending Constellation.
Today, "13 Zodiac Astrology" assumes that the second most significant phenomenon at the hour of birth is the place of the Moon. That's why the Moon is the new Horoscopos (or improperly "Ascendant").
The Moon that is so much affecting us and concurrently so much underestimated by tropical Astrology.
The Moon finds its dominant position in New Astrology of the 13 Zodiac Signs.

[Raquel]

The trace of the Moon on the ecliptic is placed in the constellation that represents the New Ascendant.
Ascendant is not relevant with the word that Claudius Ptolemy used for it which was "Horoscopos".
But Horoscopos comes from the ancient Greek words Hora + Scopo (hour + observe) and means to observe something significant the time that a baby is born.
For the ancient Greeks something significant was the Ascending Constellation.
Today, "13 Zodiac Astrology" assumes that the second most significant phenomenon at the hour of birth is the place of the Moon. That's why the Moon is the new Horoscopos (or improperly "Ascendant").
The Moon that is so much affecting us and concurrently so much underestimated by tropical Astrology.
The Moon finds its dominant position in New Astrology of the 13 Zodiac Signs.

you know... I agree with that. I have allready posted a thread asking "why I seem so Pisces??" because to me, I can almost resume myself in Pisces personality:tongue:
So this is kind of where astrology and astronomy meet, right?:happy:

Just one more question... being opphiucius between Scorpio and Sag, are you sure my venus is in Scorpio in this method?

[vasilis]

you know... I agree with that. I have allready posted a thread asking "why I seem so Pisces??" because to me, I can almost resume myself in Pisces personality
So this is kind of where astrology and astronomy meet, right?

Just one more question... being opphiucius between Scorpio and Sag, are you sure my venus is in Scorpio in this method?

13 Zodiac Signs do not have the same characteristics as in tropical Astrology because their place on the ecliptic has changed. They keep a few of their features if they have common contact points with the old signs. For example in Leo. New Leo is taking place from the 10th of August to the 16th of September. He has many common points with old Leo from the 10th until the 23 of August. Therefor many features of New Leos are common with old Leo!

In Pisces there is an analogous situation from the 12 until the 20 of March.
---------------
Yes Venus is in Scorpio as you may verify in your Natal Chart.

[Sebastien Cheritte]

i reckon the only audience worth capturing with this one will be the youth.
they are more open to new things and less resistant to new information.

You had me on the scale looking both ways, alla, signomi re file, den sinfono, mexri 1980 den mas epiases, ise poli proxorimenos, na ksereis

[vasilis]

I think that Astrologers should compare the two theories to see which one is closer to reality.
"Tropical Astrology" was based in scientific data of 1900 years ago. This is the reason why everyone was respecting its predictions.
"Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" is based on today's scientific data. It is a way out for Astrology from the deadlock of the "precession of the equinoxes".
Only "13 Zodiac Astrology" can answer to the accusations of the Astronomers and challenge them to deal with it since every aspect of the theory is based on science.
Astrology is not a religion to remain stuck in the year 100 B.C.
Astrology evolves and adapts to Astronomy and other sciences of today.

[Raquel]

I think that Astrologers should compare the two theories to see which one is closer to reality.
"Tropical Astrology" was based in scientific data of 1900 years ago. This is the reason why everyone was respecting its predictions.
"Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" is based on today's scientific data. It is a way out for Astrology from the deadlock of the "precession of the equinoxes".
Only "13 Zodiac Astrology" can answer to the accusations of the Astronomers and challenge them to deal with it since every aspect of the theory is based on science.
Astrology is not a religion to remain stuck in the year 100 B.C.
Astrology evolves and adapts to Astronomy and other sciences of today.


I respect, I just don't understand the idea of the moon sign being the new Ascendant. Planets will always have their esoteric simbology, and to me the moon is very important and expresses the inner feelings and not the surface (ascendant sign)...

[vasilis]

I'll try to explain the idea of the Moon as Ascendant.

For Tropical Astrology the Ascendant is just a point in the sky which happens to be found inside a Zodiac Constellation. From that Constellation the Ascendant takes its properties. It is still a point in the sky with nothing but some stars, at very far distances, around it.

In 13 Zodiac Astrology, the "Ascendant" is transformed into something tangible. The New Ascendant is a celestial body that tropical Astrology underestimated all these years. Actually it is the second most important celestial object after the SUN (for the Earth). It is the Moon. The effect of this body on birth and life of humans is undeniable.

The logic of 13 Zodiac Astrology has escaped from the era of Claudius Ptolemy. New Astrology has to convince people that something material affect their life. There is no other celestial body so close to the Earth and so fast changing like the Moon. Our life is bound with the Moon far more than you may imagine.

We'll talk further about it in a new thread..

[Sebastien Cheritte]

[QUOTE=vasilis]It is still a point in the sky with nothing but some stars, at very far distances, around it.[/QUOTE=vasilis]

Re Vasili, you've gone a little too far now, (me'xases!), you have to start paying attention to the things you're writing, every star omits energy, every star has a meaning and all stars bestow energy, when you start refering to them as "nothing but some stars" then you start losing our attention.
[attacking comment deleted by moderator]. elleos!

[vasilis]

I believe that each region of the sky perceives properties of the planets and the Sun and not from the stars.
13 Zodiac Astrology is mainly our planetary system' s Astrology. I respect ancient Astrology and Vedic Astrology but I'm talking about my new theory. I know very well what ancient people used to believe about the stars.
There might be an affection of the surrounding stars but it would be really small in relation with the planets, the Moon and the Sun.
If you want to have a better idea of my theory please read my book and do not judge 13 Zodiac Astrology with another theory's tools.

"Ο ήλιος καταλήπται το ποιητικόν έχων της ουσίας εν τω θερμαίνειν και ήρεμα ξηραίνειν"
the Sun' s creative power has be found to be its ability to warm and dry.
(Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos Book A 4.1)

[Frank]

vasilis,

Might I inquire of your experience as an astrologer? Have you worked with clients at all or are you merely theorizing?

It seems to me as if you are a bit confused about a few things that astrologers do today, as well as the difference between Signs and Constellations.

[vasilis]

Dear Mark,
thank you for your interest.

I don' t feel like an astrologer. As you have already read, I 'm proposing a new Astrological theory which is adapting Astrology to scientific data. The Zodiac Constellations as well as the Zodiac Signs are 13.
I'm making my daily and annual predictions not on a futurology basis. You may read my daily Zodiac sayings in my web page.
I know very well what you mean when you say that I'm confused about what (tropical) Astrologers say today. I don' t want to accuse tropical Astrologers for not developing their discipline. It is actually Astronomers work to change Astrology. Even though you are dealing with Astrology every single day of your life you need much more general scientific knowledge in order to come into rupture with your anachronistic ideas.
This does not make you totally wrong. You are consistent with your beliefs. This is honest. But science is not about honesty, it is about continuing research and adaption to new realities.
And Astrology should return to the arms of science once again!!

All the best
Vasilis Kanatas

[Pisceanfool]

vasilis,

Might I inquire of your experience as an astrologer? Have you worked with clients at all or are you merely theorizing?

It seems to me as if you are a bit confused about a few things that astrologers do today, as well as the difference between Signs and Constellations.

Yes, indeed. I hope everyone here realizes that the stars, and our own solar system have been, and continue to move, constantly since astrology's conception? I've only studied western Astrology for 6 years but as I understand it:

The 12 signs have remained as such, even in terms of Vedic and Chinese, for thousands of years. Even the other constellations are not at ALL perfect 30 degree sections nor are they evenly spaced, and they never were I'm pretty sure (feel free to correct this).

It seems to me that Astrology is about several universal principles I wont get into in detail (refer to Hermeticism and the Kybalion). Essentially, there are the beginning and progression of seasons, which give the qualities, and the progression of elements into masculine and feminine. Each sign reacts against the preceding sign's energy, following a cycle from Aries through to Pisces symbolic of spiritual evolution. If this assumption is so, the movement of stars in astronomy is irrelevant to the signs themselves.

A 13th sign throws off the entire practice, in my understanding of Astrology. The aspects would no longer fit mathematically as perfect sections of the zodiac. For example, there would not be oppositions (180 degrees) in the correct energy polarity (which is what an opposition is, the same energy at the opposite degree).

On a side note:

Astrology will never be reliable enough to be a true science. Even Psychology is not a "hard" science simply because people are not all that reliable. The "Barnum Effect" and simple priming also undermines most any divination's validity. Accepting a new system would, in my opinion, even further discredit Astrology. I have already had to explain the "new sign" to way too many laughing skeptics. "Scientifically valid" is so overrated these days...

[Pisceanfool]

A bit out there for most people, but as I mentioned these universal principles, as exemplified in the zodiac, do not change with the science of the times or whatever the zietgeist may be.

[vasilis]

Even though your arguments are well understood, it is impossible not to exclaim: "The King is naked"
Unfortunately for Tropical Astrology the developments on the 13th Zodiac sign and the discipline have become an avalanche. The world is pressing and asking and waiting for satisfactory and complete answers.
In one way or another the answers from the tropical astrologers are defensive and conservative. And it could not be something else since the reversal of the system can come only from the outside.
When I hear arguments such as:

A 13th sign throws off the entire practice, in my understanding of Astrology.*The aspects would no longer fit mathematically as perfect sections of the zodiac.*For example, there would not be oppositions (180 degrees) in the correct energy polarity (which is what an opposition is, the same energy at the opposite degree).

Spontaneously comes the answer:

But the aspects are mainly on the angles between the planets. Why can not two planets form an angle of 180 degrees? They surely can ! And the energy polarity does not depend on the Astrological system, but on the planets.

What is crumbling is the old symmetry between signs and constellations. Frankly I am not surprised that a system of symmetries of 100 AD is collapsing before our eyes. Let's remember the first 3 laws of Kybaleion with whom we come in contact through Astrology:

1) to understand that the universe is a living organism that all parts are interrelated,
2) to understand that the same laws apply to all levels of man, the stars, the whole of creation,
3) to realize that everything in the world undergo a dynamic evolution, as all vibrate, flow and mutate.

"Astrology of the 13 signs of the Zodiac" fulfills the above 3 laws of Kybaleion. Moreover it contains the element of evolution and mutation.

My own view my dearest “Pisceanfool” is that Astrology may never become a science, but to survive it needs to be based on a scientific basis.

[piercethevale]

I apologize. What I had just posted in this thread was meant for the one I had just started today of a 14 sign Zodiac...I've been up since yesterday. [I did take a good nap in the middle of the afternoon though.] ...man, at this time, I do need to step away from the keyboard for about 24 or 48 hours...

[Pisceanfool]

How can I explain this? The Zodiac can be seen to represent the laws themselves. Those laws don't change. They are the nature of how the universe functions.

Why do you say it is the angle and planets, and not the signs they are found? Because if you look at the 90 degree Square they are out of element and of the same quality. Opposition is the same quality and gender, but different element. In sextile they are of the same gender and different element. In the trine they are the same element and gender and different quality. The way these interact is based on the similarities and differences of the signs. That is why they form aspects, because of the signs. Out of sign aspects are generally easier to mitigate hard aspects, and vise versa for easy aspects being more challenging for out of element aspects.

I really don't want to get any more into why the signs are as they are, and do not coincide with the stars. It makes a whole lot of sense that they are static, unless very profound changes in our perception of everything changes. They are as they are because of the All and our perceptions of Itself and our experience. Hint: seasons.

As Frank inquired: Have you ever actually practiced astrology to see how the system functions with clients, or even for free? Not with celebrities, or historical figures you cannot presume to truly understand on a deeper psychological level.

Although you have a point of being an outsider to revamp an old system having a beneficial perspective, you should fully understand the principles of the system before assuming to go all Pluto and uproot it xP

Where is the world pressing for change? It's a misrepresented and sensationalized story by the media. Do you have some reliable information on why we should assume the stars haven't been significantly moving since the time of Astrology's conception, and there is reason to believe this sudden change warrants any kind of change to the system?

Overall, you seem to be stuck on the theoretical basis that the stars make the signs. They don't. I had the same misconception when I scoffed at Astrology years ago. The implications behind that cause a great deal of problems you are seeing now with the advent of this new sign.

[piercethevale]

How can I explain this? The Zodiac can be seen to represent the laws themselves. :love:Those laws don't change. :love:They are the nature of how the universe functions.:love::joyful::joyful::joyful::smile:

Why do you say it is the angle and planets, and not the signs they are found? Because if you look at the 90 degree Square they are out of element and of the same quality. Opposition is the same quality and gender, but different element. In sextile they are of the same gender and different element. In the trine they are the same element and gender and different quality. The way these interact is based on the similarities and differences of the signs. That is why they form aspects, because of the signs. Out of sign aspects are generally easier to mitigate hard aspects, and vise versa for easy aspects being more challenging for out of element aspects.

I really don't want to get any more into why the signs are as they are, and do not coincide with the stars. It makes a whole lot of sense that they are static, unless very profound changes in our perception of everything changes. They are as they are because of the All and our perceptions of Itself and our experience. Hint: seasons.

As Frank inquired: Have you ever actually practiced astrology to see how the system functions with clients, or even for free? Not with celebrities, or historical figures you cannot presume to truly understand on a deeper psychological level.

Although you have a point of being an outsider to revamp an old system having a beneficial perspective, you should fully understand the principles of the system before assuming to go all Pluto and uproot it xP

Where is the world pressing for change? It's a misrepresented and sensationalized story by the media. Do you have some reliable information on why we should assume the stars haven't been significantly moving since the time of Astrology's conception, and there is reason to believe this sudden change warrants any kind of change to the system?

Overall, you seem to be stuck on the theoretical basis that the stars make the signs. They don't. I had the same misconception when I scoffed at Astrology years ago. The implications behind that cause a great deal of problems you are seeing now with the advent of this new sign.
:love::joyful::joyful::joyful::joyful::joyful::joy ful::joyful::joyful::love:

Good analogy... Well said!:joyful:

Like I've been trying to point out to everyone the last 3 1/2 years, since I joined as a member, that I've been posting threads here at AW-forum, The Sabian Symbols are quite genuine and they certainly haven't moved from where they were in affect over 2000 years ago as to today.
As they are apparently permanently bound to specific degrees of the Zodiac. [the Sabian Symbolis found at Aries 01* will always be at Aries 01* ...and that is 'Tropical Zodiac'...PEOPLE....!!!]

[ do wish to note that Edgar Cayce said in a few of the 'readings' He gave that certain stars have influence...but, I can't find any mention as to whether Cayce meant as an observable and predictable 'Astrological influence during the course of ones physical incarnation and lifetime upon the earth...or whether He meant as of influence in ones life as because of a 'sojourn' to that 'Star' between physical lifetimes/incarnations and specifically [or, for the most part] prior to the present one.

[SniperBomber328]

I always thought if there truly were a "missing" or "long lost" or "never found till now" 13th sign to the zodiac, it would simply represent the center of the circle of the 12 Zodiac Wheel. Meaning no intepretations of the current zodiac would change, and no one could be the said 13 sign cause no one could ever fall on it. So it will be considered part of the zodiac wheel, but never truly on it.

[vasilis]

Dear Pisceanfool,

The Zodiac is made up of 13 Ζodiac constellations. Laws have not changed, but Astronomic data did change due to the movement of the Earth.

“Why do you say it is the angle and planets, and not the signs they are found?*Because if you look at the 90 degree Square they are out of element and of the same quality.*Opposition is the same quality and gender, but different element.*In sextile they are of the same gender and different element.*In the trine they are the same element and gender and different quality.The way these interact is based on the similarities and differences of the signs.*That is why they form aspects, because of the signs.*Out of sign aspects are generally easier to mitigate hard aspects, and vise versa for easy aspects being more challenging for out of element aspects.”

I agree with you that when the aspects of the planets (sextile, quartile and opposition) are made, there are rules of the how their gender or element or both is formed. Do not forget though that the concept of the gender in the Zodiac Signs is based on the outdated scientific data of 100 AD. For this reason the "Astrology of the 13 signs of the Zodiac" removes the genders and 4 elements from Astrology. Today we know that our world consists of atoms and elementary particles. “Ophiuchus Astrology” is based in those and the new fields generated by the movements of matter.
The aspects are not defined or arranged by elements and genders. They designate points of symmetry and energy contribution of radiation. The planets in specific aspects are affecting the Sun and the 11 years solar activity cycle. Through it, they affect the Earth.

“I really don't want to get any more into why the signs are as they are, and do not coincide with the stars.”

But the Zodiac Constellations are the signs and there is no reason to resort to alchemy to fit them in.

“Overall, you seem to be stuck on the theoretical basis that the stars make the signs.*They don't.*I had the same misconception when I scoffed at Astrology years ago.*The implications behind that cause a great deal of problems you are seeing now with the advent of this new sign.”

Then explained to me where is Jupiter today?

1. in Aries?
2. in Taurus?
3. In Taurus of the year 100 A.D.?
4. In the abstract entity of Taurus?

I'm waiting for your answer to continue.

[Frank]

But the Zodiac Constellations are the signs and there is no reason to resort to alchemy to fit them in.



The constellations are NOT the signs. This is where your logic breaks down due to your ignorance of astrology.

Here is a post I've made several times here and elsewhere to explain this:



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 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 don't 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.

[Pisceanfool]

The constellations are NOT the signs. This is where your logic breaks down due to your ignorance of astrology.


There you have it, thank you Frank.

Jupiter is chilling in Taurus. Western Tropical is what I have learned, and there are other systems that may point to a different sign that Jupiter is in, but there are still 12 equal signs. "Abstract entity"? Refer to Frank's post because I cannot state it any clearer.

Actually, the differences in systems of signs and houses is why I generally focus on aspect patterns.

What are you talking about with radiation and the aspects? Fields of what? Radiation from the stars? Gravitational fields?

At the risk off getting even more new-agey: You seem to be stuck looking at Astrology with a perspective stuck in the illusion of existence here. As if there is something measurable with our current technology that will explain Astrology. Just an idea, really.

[Moog]

How about a Nakshatra based astrology. There's 27 of those.

[vasilis]

Dear Frank
thank you for your answer. I'm correcting some inconsistencies at the definitions you gave us.


Tropical Zodiac Is 12-fold division of the Ecliptic which starts with the Vernal Equinox as 0 degrees Aries, which was the Vernal Equinox 2094 years ago, with each sign having 30 degrees - used in Western Tropical astrology. Today the Vernal Equinox is in Pisces, 8.2 degrees from the boundary with Aquarius.

Zodiac Constellations: The only reason that Tropical Astrology exists. Everything in Astrology is based on the Zodiac Constellations. Actually they not only gave their names to an abstract entity called the Zodiac Sign. It is the reason why we are dealing with Astrology right now. Everything in the sky is developing inside the Zodiac Constellations. The Sun, the Moon and the planets are in the Zodiac Constellations (90%). The aspects of the planets, the eclipses, exaltations and every Astrological phenomenon is happening in the Zodiac Constellations.
Claudious Ptolemy did not make Horoscopic Astrology with the purpose to split the Signs from the Constellations they derived. That epoch, the Signs were the Contellations and we believe that they still are!
If you have a headache you should not cut the head to resolve your problem. That's what Tropical Astrology is doing!

Slowly over the centuries the point of Vernal Eqiunox is moving at 50.2 "of arc per year, so today it is about 29 degrees right of the point it was at the first century BC. In the fourth chapter of my book "Astrology of the 13 signs of the Zodiac" I describe in detail with examples this problem.

“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.”

This is wrong. The Sun is in Aquarius today there is no way to change the position of the Sun and place it in Pisces. It is in Aquarius! If Tropical Astrology's calculations were wrong all these years, Now it is a big opportunity to recognize the mistake. The earth moved because of the “precession of the equinoxes” and all the Zodiac signs and Constellations moved too! The Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac proposes a complete and coherent solution to get the Tropical Astrology out of the deadlock.

I believe that most of Tropical Astrologers have not realized the problem, so they practice Astrology like their ancestors did 2000 years ago. But this is not Astrology because everything has changed in the discipline. Somebody has moved the Earth under their feet.

[vasilis]

Pisceanfool:
“Jupiter is chilling in Taurus.”

Unfortunately, dear Pisceanfool, Jupiter in in Aries right NOW!

Let's see what NASA tables write:

Ephemeris / WWW_USER Sun Mar 4 02:18:47 2012 Pasadena, USA / Horizons
************************************************** *****************************
Target body name: Jupiter (599) {source: JUP230}
Center body name: Earth (399) {source: DE405}
Center-site name: GEOCENTRIC
************************************************** *****************************
Start time : A.D. 2012-Mar-04 00:00:00.0000 UT
Stop time : A.D. 2012-Mar-05 00:00:00.0000 UT
Step-size : 60 minutes
************************************************** *****************************
Target pole/equ : IAU_JUPITER {East-longitude -}
Target radii : 71492.0 x 71492.0 x 66854.0 km {Equator, meridian, pole}
Center geodetic : 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Lat(deg),Alt(km)}
Center cylindric: 0.00000000,0.00000000,0.0000000 {E-lon(deg),Dxy(km),Dz(km)}
Center pole/equ : High-precision EOP model {East-longitude +}
Center radii : 6378.1 x 6378.1 x 6356.8 km {Equator, meridian, pole}
Target primary : Sun {source: DE405+DE406}
Interfering body: MOON (Req= 1737.400) km {source: DE405}
Deflecting body : Sun, EARTH {source: DE405}
Deflecting GMs : 1.3271E+11, 3.9860E+05 km^3/s^2
Atmos refraction: NO (AIRLESS)
RA format : HMS
Time format : CAL
EOP file : eop.120302.p120524
EOP coverage : DATA-BASED 1962-JAN-20 TO 2012-MAR-02. PREDICTS-> 2012-MAY-23
Units conversion: 1 AU= 149597870.691 km, c= 299792.458 km/s, 1 day= 86400.0 s
Table cut-offs 1: Elevation (-90.0deg=NO ),Airmass (>38.000=NO), Daylight (NO )
Table cut-offs 2: Solar Elongation ( 0.0,180.0=NO )
************************************************** *****************************
Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A._(ICRF/J2000.0)_DEC APmag S-brt Cnst
************************************************** ***************
$$SOE
2012-Mar-04 00:00 02 21 30.20 +13 04 56.5 -2.16 5.34 Ari
2012-Mar-04 01:00 02 21 31.99 +13 05 06.0 -2.16 5.30 Ari
2012-Mar-04 02:00 02 21 33.78 +13 05 15.5 -2.16 5.27 Ari
2012-Mar-04 03:00 02 21 35.58 +13 05 25.0 -2.16 5.28 Ari
2012-Mar-04 04:00 02 21 37.37 +13 05 34.5 -2.16 5.33 Ari
2012-Mar-04 05:00 02 21 39.17 +13 05 44.1 -2.16 5.34 Ari
2012-Mar-04 06:00 02 21 40.97 +13 05 53.6 -2.16 5.30 Ari
2012-Mar-04 07:00 02 21 42.76 +13 06 03.1 -2.16 5.27 Ari



Ari on the right side is for ARIES

No other Comment!

Of course I can send you the corresponding table for the Sun, (in Aquarius Today and not in Pisces)
Venus, (in Pisces today and not in Aries) etc..

“What are you talking about with radiation and the aspects? Fields of what? Radiation from the stars? Gravitational fields?”

My own theory of the "Astrology of the13 signs of the Zodiac" takes into consideration the theory of Percy Seymour primarily on how the planets affect the fetus and the human nervous system.
You can read more here:
(http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47133)

[Pisceanfool]

Perhaps because I am a psychologist and not a physicist I fail to see how Dr. Seymour's theory points to the stars themselves being the signs? It suggests a theory as to how the planets themselves as viewed from our perspective may affect us, but this says nothing about the stars themselves as I am understanding it. Is there a reference to the constellations or the stars specifically as "our perspective"?

Please do us the courtesy to see it's not the STARS for the sake of argument at least. Stop pointing to this astronomical data, lol. We know the stars move, the constellations themselves are given an arbitrary significance as some sort of visual figure like the two fish for Pisces. I don't see two fish, personally. Even this significance as fish is symbolic.

This is the premise to your argument, is it not? The stars and the vernal equinox have moved, so the signs must move?

[vasilis]

Perhaps because I am a psychologist and not a physicist I fail to see how Dr. Seymour's theory points to the stars themselves being the signs? It suggests a theory as to how the planets themselves as viewed from our perspective may affect us, but this says nothing about the stars themselves as I am understanding it. Is there a reference to the constellations or the stars specifically as "our perspective"?

Zodiac Signs are areas in the sky that contain stars. These areas are also called Constellations.
But what affect us are the planets, the Sun and the Moon. They are placed in the Zodiac Constellations.

I'm waiting your answer about Jupiter who's chilling somewhere else than Taurus. He is chilling in Aries. What do you think about this situation?

[Frank]

Dear Frank
thank you for your answer. I'm correcting some inconsistencies at the definitions you gave us.


Tropical Zodiac Is 12-fold division of the Ecliptic which starts with the Vernal Equinox as 0 degrees Aries, which was the Vernal Equinox 2094 years ago, with each sign having 30 degrees - used in Western Tropical astrology. Today the Vernal Equinox is in Pisces, 8.2 degrees from the boundary with Aquarius.

Incorrect.

Zodiac Constellations: The only reason that Tropical Astrology exists. Everything in Astrology is based on the Zodiac Constellations. Actually they not only gave their names to an abstract entity called the Zodiac Sign. It is the reason why we are dealing with Astrology right now. Everything in the sky is developing inside the Zodiac Constellations. The Sun, the Moon and the planets are in the Zodiac Constellations (90%). The aspects of the planets, the eclipses, exaltations and every Astrological phenomenon is happening in the Zodiac Constellations.

I would argue that the constellations took their names and shapes from the signs - not the other way around. Do you have a valid source that contradicts this?


Claudious Ptolemy did not make Horoscopic Astrology with the purpose to split the Signs from the Constellations they derived.

Claudius Ptolemy didn't "make Horoscopic Astrology" - and your statement displays your ignorance once again.

As to the rest of your points, astrologers are completely aware of the fact of precession. Your ignorance is showing again - the Vernal Equinox defines the 0 Aries point in the Tropical Zodiac. If you cant understand that basic fact, I despair of ever getting through to you.

[vasilis]

Frank:
“Incorrect.”

No Frank, it is correct.

“I would argue that the constellations took their names and shapes from the signs - not the other way around. Do you have a valid source that contradicts this?”

Yes I have: Claudious Ptolemy “Tetrabiblos” (2nd century A.D.) Book A.9 “Περί της των απλανών αρτέρων δυνάμεως” - About the power of the stars AND Book A.12 “Περί τροπικών και ισημερινών και στερεών και δισώμων ζωδίων” - about tropical, equatorial, fixed and variable Zodiac Signs

Aratus of Soli “Phenomena and Diosimeia” - (4th century b.C.) Analytical description of the 48 known Constellations of the sky. Among them the 12 Zodiac Constellations (only at the place of Libra he describes “Chilai Scorpiou” that means the “Claws of the Scorpion” replaced on the 1st century B.C. By Libra Constellation)

Read the original Horoscopic Astrology texts to see that the Signs are not only derived from the Constellations, but the Signs are the Constellations! If you insist I can find the exact excerpts for you. Just ask me!

“Claudius Ptolemy didn't "make Horoscopic Astrology" - and your statement displays your ignorance once again.”

I don't know if you understand the meaning of your words. I'm really wondering if I should continue talking with a man that ignores the basics of Astrology. If you ignore the father of Horoscopic Astrology.
Anyway, Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek Astronomer, Physicist, Mathematician, Geographer and Astrologer. He wrote the “biblos” of Horoscopic Astrology with the title : “Tetrabiblos”. He was the first to organize the knowledge of his ancestors and contemporary colleagues.

Let's see what wikipedia says about Claudius Ptolemy:

Wikipedia:
“Ptolemy has been referred to as “a pro-astrological authority of the highest magnitude”.[26]*His astrological treatise, a work in four parts, is known by the Greek term*Tetrabiblos, or the Latin equivalent*Quadripartitum: ‘Four Books’. Ptolemy's own title is unknown, but may have been the term found in some Greek manuscripts:*Apotelesmatika, roughly meaning 'Astrological Outcomes,' 'Effects' or ‘Prognostics’.[27][28]
As a source of reference the*Tetrabiblos*is said to have "enjoyed almost the authority of a Bible among the astrological writers of a thousand years or more".[29]*“

Frank:
“As to the rest of your points, astrologers are completely aware of the fact of precession. Your ignorance is showing again - the Vernal Equinox defines the 0 Aries point in the Tropical Zodiac. If you cant understand that basic fact, I despair of ever getting through to you. “

You don't understand even now, after years of conversation with your colleagues what Vernal Equinox is!

(Vernal Equinox from Wikipedia):
An*equinox*occurs twice a year, when the*tilt*of the*Earth's axis is inclined neither away from nor towards the*Sun, the center of the Sun being in the same plane as the Earth's*equator. The term*equinox*can also be used in a broader sense, meaning the date when such a passage happens. The name "equinox" is derived from the Latin*aequus*(equal) and*nox*(night), because around the equinox, the night and day have approximately equal length.
At an equinox, the Sun is at one of two opposite points on the*celestial spherewhere the*celestial equator*(i.e. declination 0) and*ecliptic*intersect. These points of intersection are called*equinoctial points: classically, the*vernal point*and the*autumnal point. By extension, the term*equinox*may denote an equinoctial point.
An equinox happens each year at two specific moments in time (rather than two whole days), when there is a location (the*subsolar point) on the Earth's equator, where the center of the Sun can be observed to be vertically overhead, occurring around March 20/21 and September 22/23 each year.


So Vernal Eqiunox is now in Pisces, 8.2 degrees away from Constellation Aquarius.
Vernal Equinox was in 0 Aries 2094 years ago !!

[Frank]

vasilis:

You apparently either willfully ignore whatever is presented to you or are intentionally being obtuse and are trying to frustrate discussion.

It is an obvious fact that that Tropical Zodiac places 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox. I really don't care what misguided, ill-thought out, hair-brained scheme you've created out of ignorance - but if you deny that fact, I have no more to say to you.

The Tropical Zodiac defines 0 Aries as coincident with the Vernal Equinox. Period.

[Pisceanfool]

Zodiac Signs are areas in the sky that contain stars. These areas are also called Constellations.
But what affect us are the planets, the Sun and the Moon. They are placed in the Zodiac Constellations.

I'm waiting your answer about Jupiter who's chilling somewhere else than Taurus. He is chilling in Aries. What do you think about this situation?

If you were not an educated author (of a book on this new Astrology), and I'm assuming the administer of that website that promotes your book, I would have given up long ago. I do respect your opinion and think it worth the time for us to understand the nature of Astrology. But, you are not listening to either of us, and it may be we do not appear to be listening to you, either. The fact that you do not think I have answered your question of where Jupiter is reflects your incomprehension of the concept we are trying to explain.

In our argument, the stars and signs are independent from one another to the point of there being a difference between where the constellations are and where we consider the signs to be. IF the stars do not form the signs, THEN the signs are not entirely affected by the stars. Remember! This is our side, ok?

My understanding is as follows: This key point, the Vernal Equinox, is where the Tropical Zodiac begins. This is where the signs begin. From there, each signs follows as 30 degrees of the 360 possible as viewed from earth. WHEREVER that point happens to be in the constellations is where 0 degrees Aries is. It does not matter where the constellation of Pisces is to define the Vernal Equinox. This is why your astronomical data is irrelevant.

Are you hearing this?

In your argument, I understand that the Vernal Equinox point moves in the constellations and even the constellations move themselves(as our entire solar system moves in relation to other systems), and how Jupiter is, at the time, in the constellation of Aries. Even the individual stars move within the constellations, right?

This movement does not affect where the zodiac begins, because the stars are NOT where the signs are! That point of the Equinox IS the sign of Aries, where the cycle begins. NOT the stars. Does this make sense? Lol. NOT THE STARS. Even if this is your theory, wherein the zodiac IS the constellations, you are misrepresenting ours. Or, in the least, portraying a profound misunderstanding of the Tropical Zodiac, and how Astrology works in this system.

As Frank said, if you cannot understand this, then it's hardly worth continuing.

[vasilis]

Frank:
“It is an obvious fact that that Tropical Zodiac places 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox.”

I agree 100%. The Tropical Zodiac placed 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox 2094 years ago. Please do not forget the second part of this last sentence.

Frank:
“I really don't care what misguided, ill-thought out, hair-brained scheme you've created out of ignorance - but if you deny that fact, I have no more to say to you.”

Of course! After forgetting to answer my previous questions about the Zodiac Signs that derive and are equal with the Zodiac Constellations, it is the end of your arguments.

[Frank]

Some points:

- Claudius Ptolemy didn't "make Horoscopic Astrology" from the same Wikipedia article quoted above:

Much of the content of the Tetrabiblos was collected from earlier sources; Ptolemy's achievement was to order his material in a systematic way, showing how the subject could, in his view, be rationalized.

- Astrologers already are aware - and have been since Ptolemy's time - of precession, and someone claiming they are not will not change that fact.

- I am well aware of Ptolemy's work and have read it both in translation, in Latin and and working on it in Koine Greek. Please do not presume that I do not know of which I speak. Nowhere does Ptolemy state that the signs and constellations are identical.

- The Vernal Equinox is where the Ecliptic intersects the Celestial Equator northbound - which describes the beginning of the sign Aries at 0 degrees in the Tropical Zodiac.

- It is an exercise in futility for someone trying to invent a new system based on a misreading of source material.

- Assertions are not facts.

- I've been studying astrology for virtually my entire life. When someone who seems to have little grasp of how astrology is practiced proposes illogical changes based on his or her own insufficient knowledge of the subject - and tries to promote and sell a self-published book and charge for calculating charts the "right" way, I smell a rat.

[Frank]

Frank:


I agree 100%. The Tropical Zodiac placed 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox 2094 years ago. Please do not forget the second part of this last sentence.

Frank:


Of course! After forgetting to answer my previous questions about the Zodiac Signs that derive and are equal with the Zodiac Constellations, it is the end of your arguments.

And the Tropical Zodiac still starts at 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox.

I'm not going to waste my time refuting assertions. Give me actual proof that the Signs got their names from the Constellations and not the other way around.

[Frank]

Also, since you put so much stock in Ptolemy, why didn't he use Ophiuchus in his delineations?

I would hazard a guess to say that it was because it was never considered an astrological sign.

[vasilis]

Pisceanfool
“In our argument, the stars and signs are independent from one another to the point of there being a difference between where the constellations are and where we consider the signs to be. IF the stars do not form the signs, THEN the signs are not entirely affected by the stars. Remember! This is our side, ok?”

You do not have any right to remove the Zodiac Signs from the Constellations.
I'm terribly sorry that it is simply impossible.
I explained it to you so many times. Please read my texts again. Your are not allowed to reinvent Tropical Astrology. Some people found it long ago. Read their texts.

Astrology is not fantasy it is based on science. It was based on science of 100 A.D. When Ptolemy wrote his “Tetrabiblos”.
Now it is based once again on sciences with my New theory of the “Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac”

“My understanding is as follows: This key point, the Vernal Equinox, is where the Tropical Zodiac begins. This is where the signs begin. From there, each signs follows as 30 degrees of the 360 possible as viewed from earth. WHEREVER that point happens to be in the constellations is where 0 degrees Aries is. It does not matter where the constellation of Pisces is to define the Vernal Equinox. This is why your astronomical data is irrelevant.”

No, Vernal Equinox was in 0 Aries 2094 years ago. Read some books of Astronomy to understand it.

Let me ask you a question now. Since Jupiter is in Aries, why do you make your Horoscopes and predictions assuming that Jupiter is in Taurus?

[vasilis]

Dear Frank,

You cannot imagine how many people, that read my book, said that their life has changed.
It was so obvious that the old Signs do not correspond to the New Astronomic data, that "Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" came to fertilize a fertile ground.

Anyway, thank you for your critical point of view, even if you have not read my book, you look so sure about its falseness. That's ok. Every New theory should be dropped into the Kaiadas of Knowledge. Also ok.
I did not expect from a Tropical Astrologer something different.

[Frank]

vasilis:

Whose definition of constellation boundaries do you use and when were they codified?

[Pisceanfool]

vasilis,

You simply don't understand at all what we are saying. This is painfully clear based on your perpetual spouting of the same information over and over despite our explanations. And we are saying the same thing about the Vernal Equinox, over and over, and you clearly do NOT understand. I find your attitude and website incredibly pretentious and frustrating. Just trying to see if I relate to your version of "Aquarius" I apparently have to pay?

Jupiter in Taurus:

"The Vernal Equinox is where the Ecliptic intersects the Celestial Equator northbound - which describes the beginning of the sign Aries at 0 degrees in the Tropical Zodiac." Jupiter is 37 degrees from that point, in the constellation of Aries, and at 7 degrees in the sign Taurus.

What is so confusing about this? The Tropical Zodiac is used by many very renowned and respected Astrologers, and you sit here saying we are all ignorant of our own system?

[Pisceanfool]

At this point it's not who is right or wrong, it is you understanding what we are saying before you continue with your system/theory.

[vasilis]

Pisceanfool:
You simply don't understand at all what we are saying. This is painfully clear based on your perpetual spouting of the same information over and over despite our explanations. And we are saying the same thing about the Vernal Equinox, over and over, and you clearly do NOT understand. I find your attitude and website incredibly pretentious and frustrating. Just trying to see if I relate to your version of "Aquarius" I apparently have to pay?

Frank:
Whose definition of constellation boundaries do you use and when were they codified?

On the contrary, you both understand what I'm saying but there is no way to accept it. You are not used to work with scientists. You don't care about scientific data and methodology. I can see why. You don't want to start it over again! You've learned Tropical Astrology once and everything is rolling fine except for some New theory that comes to stir the waters of the discipline. No, you just don't want to let anybody spoil your labor.
And of course when a New theory comes to solve Astrology's problems, you smell rats, you can hardly continue talking. And you keep saying the same old unscientific and untenable argument:

the Tropical Zodiac still starts at 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox

My answer is the same:
No, Vernal Equinox was in 0 Aries 2094 years ago.

Since I have so many things to do, I'll discuss further only if you come up with something new.
By the way, I had a conversation with a reader of my book today. He was so happy to be an Aquarius instead of Pisces. He found why, all those years, the Piscean characteristics did not suit his character: He has always been an Aquarian but did not know about it.

Just take a brief look into you new Zodiac Signs, Frank and PisceanFool, you never know what you could discover. You know where to find the book.

[Frank]

I've studied all sorts of astrology - including Vedic and Western Sidereal and your assumption that I am unfamiliar with what you are speaking about is insulting.

I also studied astronomy at a University level, so your posts are doubly misinformed and insulting.

Face it - you're here to sell your book and get hits on your website.

[vasilis]

Frank:
I've studied all sorts of astrology - including Vedic and Western Sidereal and your assumption that I am unfamiliar with what you are speaking about is insulting.

"Συ είπας" - You said so !
(answer of Jesus to someone who was pressing him to say what he was asked for, Matthew 26:64)

[Frank]

I'd also like to point out a few things from what seems to be a preferred "source" for the original poster.

I suggest reading:

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

This article has an excellent table wich shows the difference between the Signs (both Tropical and Siderea) and the Constellations (as described by the IAU).

It also has this telling statement (bold emphasis mine):

Unlike the zodiac signs in astrology, which are all thirty degrees in length, the astronomical constellations vary widely in size. The boundaries of all the constellations in the sky were set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 1930. This was, in essence, a mapping exercise to make the work of astronomers more efficient, and the boundaries of the constellations are not therefore in any meaningful sense an 'equivalent' to the zodiac signs.

Now,isn't that what I've been saying all along?

The IAU codified those constellation boundaries only in 1930. Astronomers ignorant of how astrology is practiced have been using those boundaries (which they themselves set) to attempt to debunk astrology - which those boundaries have nothing to do with.

I wonder if there is something more nefarious at work here other than express a naive viewpoint and trying to sell books?

The author also seems to be self-promoting shamelessly via a Wikipedia page - which certainly appears to be self-authored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasilis_Kanatas

I also ask people interested to read the Talk entries about this page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vasilis_Kanatas

Is it possible that the self-admitted astronomer author is trying sneakily to discredit astrology?

Perhaps the thought process was something like, "Let's make up a completely ludicrous and ill-founded system touting a new kind of astrology, and once we get enough people to bite on it and actually pay for charts and interpretations, we can expose it all as a hoax, just to make astrologers and the people who use astrology look like idiots."

[Frank]

To shed further light on this using real astrology, some might what to consider the chart for the original poster's first post to this forum.

[vasilis]

Frank:
I also studied astronomy at a University level,Yes, you definitely did.

Actually you are 100% qualified to talk about Astronomy.

And of - course, yesterday you learned about the father of Astrology, Claudius Ptolemy.

Claudius Ptolemy didn't "make Horoscopic Astrology" from the same Wikipedia article quoted above:
I also learned yesterday that Physics is not enough to deal with Astrology. What you need is only volition. To accept what Tropical Astrologers tell you. To say that Vernal Equinox is in Aries 0 NOW and not 2094 years ago.

Anyway, "Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" is a New Astrological Theory which is adapting this ancient discipline in the New Scientific Data.

Astrology is not a religion to stay unchanged through Centuries. It is a discipline, a field of study. It has to evolve.

I'm not forcing nobody to accept my New theory. I believe that there is enough evidence to support this theory.

It is not the first time to see people attacking new ideas. Sometimes politely and more often evilly. To tell you the truth, I more concerned about my colleagues and not Frank's.

Good night from the navel of the Earth.

[Pisceanfool]

On the contrary, you both understand what I'm saying but there is no way to accept it. You are not used to work with scientists. You don't care about scientific data and methodology. I can see why. You don't want to start it over again! You've learned Tropical Astrology once and everything is rolling fine except for some New theory that comes to stir the waters of the discipline. No, you just don't want to let anybody spoil your labor.
And of course when a New theory comes to solve Astrology's problems, you smell rats, you can hardly continue talking. And you keep saying the same old unscientific and untenable argument:



My answer is the same:
No, Vernal Equinox was in 0 Aries 2094 years ago.

Since I have so many things to do, I'll discuss further only if you come up with something new.
By the way, I had a conversation with a reader of my book today. He was so happy to be an Aquarius instead of Pisces. He found why, all those years, the Piscean characteristics did not suit his character: He has always been an Aquarian but did not know about it.

Just take a brief look into you new Zodiac Signs, Frank and PisceanFool, you never know what you could discover. You know where to find the book.

First of all, I don't think Aquarius makes any sense in my relatively educated opinion unless you have reinvented it's interpretation.

I am currently involved in research with the Psychology department in my University and finishing a straight Psychology B.A. this May(not clinical, but for research), and am looking towards a Ph. D. in a sub-field to conduct experimental psychology related to a sub-field.

The scientific method is going to be my career, people much more qualified than yourself have commended my ability, and thanks for assuming that due to your own incomprehension of our painfully explicit explanation of the Signs being independent of the constellations that I do not care for scientific data or methodology. Hopefully this does not seem as if I am attacking the OP.

I suppose there is nothing left to discuss, for you clearly do not understand that the 0 Aries you refer to (the beginning of the constellation of Aries) is completely independent of the 0 Aries we are referring to (the point of the vernal equinox). We KNOW the vernal equinox is not where is was 2094 years ago. I don't know how else to explain this.

At this point I would also beg to argue as Frank has, that you are simply 'trolling'.

[Pisceanfool]

Again, this is not about the validity of your system to our system, it is about you and your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Tropical Zodiac.

[vasilis]

Since we agree that we disagree, there is no reason to continue this dialog.

If somebody wants to understand what we support, there is enough dialog material on the previous posts of this thread.

it is about you and your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Tropical Zodiac

It looks like you want to talk over again, doesn' t it?

[Frank]

It looks like you want to talk over again, doesn' t it?

As long as you continue to misrepresent and misunderstand the Tropical Zodiac, someone will post to point out your factual errors.

[wintersprite1]

Hello Everyone,

I have closed this thread down, as it continues to grow and accomplish nothing. Truth be known, it should have been closed down earlier, as the OP appears to be using the forum as a way to promote his self written book and pay for information website.

TK