Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac

Status
Not open for further replies.

vasilis

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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...
 
Last edited:

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

piercethevale

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

piercethevale

Well-known member
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::joyful::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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
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.
 

vasilis

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

vasilis

Well-known member
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:
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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 !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top