The Sidereal system is based on the fixed STARS. The AGES are based on the Precession of the Equinox THROUGH the constellations of the Zodiac.
You are correct that the Sidereal system is based on the positions of fixed stars. Where you err is in stating that the fixed stars are in any way related to our terrestrial seasons. That's the fundamental difference between Sidereal and Tropical astrology: Tropical astrology affixes the beginning of the signs to our terrestrial dates by pinning it to a terrestrial phenomenon, that is to say the seasons. It's a pollution of astro(star)logy(study) with meteor(atmoshpere)logical(study) contaminants. It doesn't enhance astrology to add unrelated factors into the mix, it breaks down the core reasoning. Astrology is a study of the stars, not a study of the stars and seasons.
AquarianRising, I've been studying the Ages phenomenon for 40+ years, with an education in Engineering.
I'm not interested in your seniority. I'm interested in the information you present, and if the information is incorrect, no amount of seniority is going to change that. Some of humanity's greatest minds have been very wrong on some very core topics, so I'm not going to simply assume that any one person is correct about any one thing, including myself. Ideas live or die by their merit alone. (Well, that and the existence or absence fascism.)
I wouldn't steer you wrong.
That's thoughtful of you, but I don't need help thinking for myself. In fact, I find it much easier and more gratifying to do my own thinking.
I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm just being rational about the Astrological Ages, unlike nearly everyone else.
Do you not see the hubris in such a proclamation? It's one thing to be an innovator, David, it's something far removed to make a claim that no other rational being seems to support and then declare others to be irrational or worse when they don't agree with your outlook on a given subject.
It's a lonely job, but somebody has to do it.
It's only lonely because the path you've chosen is one inconsistent with agreed-upon contemporary perspectives. You just need to find a group willing to ignore evidence. Then you'll have others with which to discuss your "unpopular" views.
