outerhaven.6
Member
I am a taurus in tropical but an aries in sidereal. I have found out that most of the stuff in sidereal fits me in sidereal than tropical why is that. Also should i follow tropical or sidereal.
I am a taurus in tropical but an aries in sidereal. I have found out that most of the stuff in sidereal fits me in sidereal than tropical why is that. Also should i follow tropical or sidereal.
Sidereal doesn't have any know problems.
Then they rationalize and say stuff like, I don't feel this is right, or I know I'm not a Virgo (just examples). When really they should listen to reason and not their whim.
I meant to say Known, not know problems.
Debate then not war. Whatever you want to call it. And your response proves the debate. Also check different Internet sites and you will it see for yourself.
The constellations are not made up. They do really exist. They are concrete solid objects in the sky. You know that. There are 88 standard constellations recognized by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). The names of 12 of them really do share the same names as the zodiac. Aries-Pisces really are the names of concrete star constellations.
I don't want to debate. I want people to be more objective here, listen to reason, instead of just saying something is so because they think it is. Me feeling like a professional baseball player doesn't make me one.
What will happen 11,200 years from now when the Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs are exactly opposite each other? That is why it is important for me and many others to fix this now. To prevent future mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, but you must learn from them otherwise we might make them over and over again. "The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing"
Meaning of the word constellation (noun) = an arbitrary assemblage or group of starsLol wut Constellations are not "concrete." They're imaginary lines drawn between stars that happen to be unfathomably far apart. Saying a constellation is concrete is like saying a cloud formation is a concrete constellation as well. It's imagination. Have you ever even seen any of the constellations? Some of them look nothing like what they're supposed to look like. Aries is a line. Pisces is a giant V with a circle on the end. Those could have been anything. They're imaginary lines, friend. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are known problems with sidereal astrology.
Meaning of the word constellation (noun) = an arbitrary assemblage or group of stars
con·stel·la·tion (noun)
Astronomy
a. An arbitrary formation of stars perceived as a figure or design, especially one of 88 recognized groups named after characters from classical mythology and various common animals and objects.
b. An area of the celestial sphere occupied by one of the 88 recognized constellations.
Latin roots
com (prefix) = with, together
stella = star
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
The constellations, (or 'arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars' as The American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition states), are indeed as real as our sun: constellations or groups of stars are distant suns, many light years distant not only from each other, but also from our planet. Various constellations became associated with various 'Images' that vary from culture to culture and the 'Images' that western astrology and/or astronomy associate with the constellations, or arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars, are The Ram, The Bull, The Twins, and so on and so forth.
and I posted the meaning of the word 'constellation'Constellations are not "concrete." They're imaginary lines drawn between stars that happen to be unfathomably far apart. Saying a constellation is concrete is like saying a cloud formation is a concrete constellation as well. It's imagination. Have you ever even seen any of the constellations? Some of them look nothing like what they're supposed to look like. Aries is a line. Pisces is a giant V with a circle on the end. Those could have been anything. They're imaginary lines, friend. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are known problems with sidereal astrology.
and you commented on my use of the word "arbitrary"Meaning of the word constellation (noun) = an arbitrary assemblage or group of stars
con·stel·la·tion (noun)
Astronomy
a. An arbitrary formation of stars perceived as a figure or design, especially one of 88 recognized groups named after characters from classical mythology and various common animals and objects.
b. An area of the celestial sphere occupied by one of the 88 recognized constellations.
Latin roots
com (prefix) = with, together
stella = star
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
The constellations, (or 'arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars' as The American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition states), are indeed as real as our sun: constellations or groups of stars are distant suns, many light years distant not only from each other, but also from our planet. Various constellations became associated with various 'Images' that vary from culture to culture and the 'Images' that western astrology and/or astronomy associate with the constellations, or arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars, are The Ram, The Bull, The Twins, and so on and so forth.
. Perhaps.Someone should teach you what "arbitrary" means
To clarify then:I don't see the point in your post
other than your apparent desire to inform me what constellations are, and then verifying what I was just explaining to jamescondor.
Someone should teach you what "arbitrary" means.
I don't see the point in your post, other than your apparent desire to inform me what constellations are, and then verifying what I was just explaining to jamescondor.
The constellations, (or 'arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars' as The American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition states), are indeed as real as our sun: constellations or groups of stars are distant suns, many light years distant not only from each other, but also from our planet. Various constellations became associated with various 'Images' that vary from culture to culture and the 'Images' that western astrology and/or astronomy associate with the constellations, or arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars, are The Ram, The Bull, The Twins, and so on and so forth.
Constellations are not "concrete." They're imaginary lines drawn between stars that happen to be unfathomably far apart. Saying a constellation is concrete is like saying a cloud formation is a concrete constellation as well. It's imagination. Have you ever even seen any of the constellations? Some of them look nothing like what they're supposed to look like. Aries is a line. Pisces is a giant V with a circle on the end. Those could have been anything. They're imaginary lines, friend. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are known problems with sidereal astrology.
Contrary to your interpretation MSO, that is not what I did, instead, my post points out to you that although constellations have, over the millennia, been associated with certain 'Images' such as The Ram, The Bull, The Twins and so on and so forth, the individual stars that compose the constellations are real, as real as our own sun. Therefore jamescondor is correct.
It is the 'Images' with which the constellations are associated that are 'imaginary' the individual stars themselves ARE as real as our sun: collectively, those individual stars comprising that group of stars or constellation ARE real, thus validating jamescondor's remarks
Other than differing ayanamsa, what problems have you seen?
MSO you said:I never said the stars weren't real. What are you even talking about? The constellations are arbitrary, your own definition said so. I never once said stars weren't real. You trollin' bro.
MSO you just said that constellations (although they are groups of real stars) are not realMSO;34222[COLOR=Navy said:6]Lol wow. I almost don't even want to respond to this, but it's just too juicy Your entire post was rationalizing sidereal astrology[/COLOR]. Surely you must realize that the constellations are nothing more than imaginative patterns dreamed up by ancients. Different cultures have different shapes and names.
It is far more likely that since the ancients didn't have accurate methods of mapping the cosmos, they merely used the dreamed up constellations as place markers to be able to tell where a planet is without hopping on their computer to have it drawn up on their pretty sidereal software. There is no 'war' between tropical and siderealists, just people like you that trumpet noise about how one system is wrong .
My post has explained that the groups of stars that compose the constellations are as real as our own sunLol wut Constellations are not "concrete." They're imaginary lines drawn between stars that happen to be unfathomably far apart. Saying a constellation is concrete is like saying a cloud formation is a concrete constellation as well. It's imagination. Have you ever even seen any of the constellations? Some of them look nothing like what they're supposed to look like. Aries is a line. Pisces is a giant V with a circle on the end. Those could have been anything. They're imaginary lines, friend. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are known problems with sidereal astrology.
butch·erSorry I messed up your colors in the quote. There was so much unnecessary editing I figured it was easier to just butcher it and not waste my time fixing.
and I posted the meaning of the word 'constellation'.........and you commented on my use of the word "arbitrary"
To clarify then:
I have clearly stated that it is the 'Images' of the constellations that are arbitrary. The individual stars themselves are as real as our own sun. Therefore jamescondor is correct. That is my point.
Contrary to your interpretation MSO, what my post explains is that that although constellations have, over the millennia, been associated with certain 'Images' such as The Ram, The Bull, The Twins and so on and so forth, the individual stars that compose the constellations are real, as real as our own sun. Therefore jamescondor is correct.
It is the 'Images' with which the constellations are associated that are 'imaginary' the individual stars themselves ARE as real as our sun: collectively, those individual stars comprising that group of stars or constellation ARE real, thus validating jamescondor's remarks
I would agree dr. farr that despite the various anomalies of Tropical and Sidereal each has potential meaningfulness to the individual astrological practitioner.How about constellations (perhaps better, constellational groups*) AND signs, each having potential meaningfulness relative to any given horoscopic chart? Many of the ancients, oldtime Traditional astrologers, and Moderns (eg Vivian Robson, Sepharial) followed this outlook, and so do I...
(*constellational groups of stars)
What's with everyone and their dictionary today? Do you people think I can't speak English?
Pretentious; adjective, Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.