What sign was "actually" breaking the horizon at the time of my birth?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Frank

Rotation? You are incorrect. Rotation is the spinning of the Earth on its axis. You are thinking orbit or possibly revolution. An easy mistake for some to make. I said apparent because I meant apparent - not actual. The Sun doesn't orbit around the Earth. I know that. Western Tropical astrologers have known that for a long time. You have also ignored my question about where the Sidereal Aries Point starts. Please give me an exact point, supported by reputable and indisputable references. I can give you a precise definition of 0 Aries in Tropical Astrology: The moment when the Sun crosses the Equator whilst moving northbound along the Ecliptic. Can you also give such a precise definition of 0 Aries Sidereal? And please do not misspell Claudius Ptolemaeus. It makes my Latin professor scream from his grave. If it's easier for you, you may use the familiar Ptolemy.

I wrote Diurnal Rotation, describing the actual turning of the Earth - the Earth turns. In the sense that the Earth is not stationary in space and is not orbited by the Sun. That is what I meant. In any event I find it ironic that you expect perfect definition that distinguishes revolution from rotation whilst simultaneously professing the Tropical Astrology system which is based on a much greater error - ie that Earth is orbited by the Sun... defining it as the apparent path of the Sun is merely cloaking the issue

You may 'know that', 'western Tropical astrologers' may 'have known that for a long time', but Claudius Ptolemaeus, the originator of Tropical Astrology, two thousand years ago professed to not know that. And 'twas Claudius Ptolemaeus who set the foundation for Modern Tropical Astrology two thousand years ago based on a false premise/error as I have already stated.

You cannot 'give a precise explanation of 0 Aries in Tropical Astrology' as being: 'The moment when the Sun crosses the Equator whilst moving northbound along the Ecliptic' simply because the Sun does not cross the Equator whilst moving northward along the apparent path of the Sun but only appears to do so based on axial tilt.

The discussion of this thread is intended to discover reasons why tsmall's Sidereally calculated chart is more descriptive of attributes than the Tropically constructed natal chart

Originally Posted by dr. farr

ALL ancient systems of astrology (Vedic, Greco/Roman, Chinese, Mayan, and what little we know about Sumero-Babylonian and Egyptian) took the "earth-as-the-center" outlook in their doctrinal formulations and practical methodologies; in the 20th century this universal outlook was challeneged with the development of Heliocentric astrology: I suppose that if we want to be ASTRONOMICALLY correct in a "scientific astrology" attempt, the best thing we could do is to adopt a Heliocentric sidereal model. This model, of course, would be radically at odds with, say, Vedic or Traditional Western astrology...

Such a model would indeed be radical dr. farr

[Frank]

You cannot 'give a precise explanation of 0 Aries in Tropical Astrology' as being: 'The moment when the Sun crosses the Equator whilst moving northbound along the Ecliptic' simply because the Sun does not cross the Equator whilst moving northward along the apparent path of the Sun but only appears to do so based on axial tilt.

Axial tilt is WHY the Equator and Ecliptic differ. Hence the definition of the Vernal Equinox. Do you discount that the axial tilt of the Earth describes the different planes of the equator (or more precisely the Celestial Equator) and the Ecliptic? Have you studied both astronomy and astrology? I have.

Otherwise - please, I'm still waiting for your "precise explanation of 0 Aries" in Sidereal astrology. Please source it.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Frank

Axial tilt is WHY the Equator and Ecliptic differ. Hence the definition of the Vernal Equinox.

. Precisely - indubitably

Originally Posted by Frank

Do you discount that the axial tilt of the Earth describes the different planes of the equator (or more precisely the Celestial Equator) and the Ecliptic?

Certainly not!

Originally Posted by Frank

Have you studied both astronomy and astrology? I have.

I am no expert... what I can claim with any certainty is that I am fortunate enough to have free access to innumerable books and computers as well as to have many astrological friends. If pressed, I may well classify myself as an ordinary person who numbers mathematics, astronomy and astrology amongst many subjects too numerous to mention in detail that I consider interesting

Originally Posted by Frank

Otherwise - please, I'm still waiting for your "precise explanation of 0 Aries" in Sidereal astrology. Please source it.

Frank, my apparent tardiness (like the apparent path of the Sun) is entirely relative when one takes into account that I - in common with many other members of this forum - have a number of alternative occupations
Nevertheless Frank, regarding your current apparent need for 'a "precise explanation of 0ºAries" in Sidereal astrology complete with source' may I observe that this is a rather obvious red herring on your part... I mention red herrings because in my own opinion, your own allegedly precise 'Tropical definition of 0ºAries' entirely misses the real issue/implications of tsmall's various questions and observations

Furthermore, my own opinion is that you appear to have misunderstood my comments, therefore you have not (even though you are apparently under the impression that you have) given an historically accurate "precise explanation of 0ºAries in Tropical Astrology"

It is clear that due to your own superior knowledge on this subject, combined with years of experience, you clearly question my own right to debate this issue with you and I find your attitude entirely understandable.

However if I may say so, many have superior knowledge to myself, therefore I now refer you to "History of the Zodiac," by a Dr Robert Powell who has written a book which is in agreement with my own views.

brief bio: Robert A. Powell born Reading, England,1947 graduated in mathematics at Sussex university 1968, and awarded a Master's degree in statistics there 1969. 1969 to 1976 he lectured in mathematics & statistics in the Department of Computing and Cybernetics at Brighton Polytechnic. 1971 he was elected Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. From its inception in 1971 he was a tutor in mathematics for the Open University, until 1974. He left Brighton Polytechnic in 1976 in order to complete his research on the history of the zodiac & during 1976-77 Robert A. Powell was visiting lecturer in astronomy and the history of astronomy at Emerson College, England and also researched astronomical chronology at the Mathematisch- Physikalisches Institut, Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland.)

“History of the Zodiac” originally a 2004 Ph.D. thesis now in book form is an in-depth exploration of the origins of the Babylonian Zodiac and its location in the ecliptic: the book reveals that the division of the ecliptic into tropical astrological signs was originally a derivation of Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.); "...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." (Dr. Robert Powell 2007)

The key point being that the signs of the original sidereal zodiac, each thirty degrees long, coincide closely with the twelve astronomical constellations of the same name, whereas the signs of the tropical zodiac, since they are defined in relation to the vernal point, now have no direct relationship to the corresponding zodiacal constellations, owing to the precession of the equinoxes.

In other words, the so-called, allegedly 'Fixed Unmoving Aries Point of the Tropical “Zodiac''' is a mathematical abstraction, merely a convenient artificial construct arbitrarily used as an intended anchor designed to nullify the obvious inconsistencies of the precessing/regressing/drifting Vernal Point. 0º Aries is a hypothetical anchor descriptive of the moment when - due to the tilt of Earth's axis in relation to Earth's orbit of the Sun - the Sun appears to cross the Equator at the Vernal Equinox which is directly opposite another Equinox point when the Sun also appears to cross the Equator .

At the time of Claudius Ptolomaeus, Valens, Hipparchus et al the clearly precessing/regressing /drifting of the Vernal Point in relation to the background of stars was an inconvenient truth that could not have been mentioned even if anyone had noticed it because the powerful prevailing religious view implacably imposed the view that the Earth is stationary in space, being orbited by the Sun and seven visible planets. Under no circumstances could any astronomer/astrologer of that time challenge the religious/political Old Testament/Biblical status quo by declaring that due to Earth's axial tilt combined with Earth's 'wobble' as Earth orbits the Sun, from a Geocentric perspective, we experience a phenomenon known as precession.

Thus, the device currently described as 'The Tropical Zodiac' was originally used by astronomers as a calendar (and not 'a Tropical zodiac') from which the first day of Spring (or Vernal Equinox) was inferred - the twelve 30º demarcations of which thereafter were intended as simply demarcations of the twelve months of the year (and not intended to be construed as 'star signs of The Tropical zodiac').

Robert A Powell has explained these facts thoroughly in "History of the Zodiac" If you disagree then perhaps you would care to debate the issue with Robert A Powell, a well-respected mathematician, astronomer and astrologer more than well qualified to have thoroughly researched and then written the book "History of the Zodiac"

Meanwhile I shall if I may, return to the most interesting issues raised by the originator of this thread.

The following intriguing facts are far more interesting than the niceties of the precise definitions of mere mathematical abstractions such as 'The Tropical 0ºAries Point' and even 'The Sidereal 0ºAries Point'

i.e....
(a) tsmall has clearly obtained good results from a particular branch of astrology – i.e. Tropical Horary Astrology as practised on the horary section of this forum by Member milena08, who provided remarkably apposite answers to a most important horary question asked by said tsmall - so much so that dr. farr commented as follows

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Just a note: although using standard horary methodology (different than my alternative approach), and although only a recent poster here on AW, I must say that I am very impressed by milena08's horary delineations and judgements!!

- details at this thread http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=38897

and

(b) tsmall is of the opinion that Sidereal Zodiacal interpretations of the various planets and points of her own natal chart are the most accurate.

I am of the opinion that tsmall is the best judge of the accuracy - or otherwise - of Sidereal interpretations related to her own personal natal planets and points.

I consider that from the point of view of tsmall in any event, one may be somewhat encouraged towards the view that Tropical Horary Astrology potentially has, or may have, predictive accuracy. Which is remarkably interesting

link to diagram illustrating declination of Sun in relation to Earth http://susdesign.com/popups/sunangle/declination.php

link to written elucidation of meaning of 'declination of the Sun' http://planetfacts.org/declination-of-the-sun/

[Frank]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

snipped for brevity

You write voluminously, but you have yet to address the salient point of my main question

"I'm still waiting for your "precise explanation of 0 Aries" in Sidereal astrology. Please source it."

Please answer precisely and succinctly. Another long, inconclusive diatribe is not welcome.

Please give be a short, clear, concise and sourced answer of exactly where 0 Aries is in the Sidereal Zodiac.

You might also want to dispense with your differently colored and bolded text. It makes one want to not read it. As does your voluminous and somewhat erratic writing style.

Give us the facts and remove your own opinion when answering please.

[Frank]

And once again, please stop misspelling the name of Ptolemaeus.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Frank

You write voluminously, but you have yet to address the salient point of my main question "I'm still waiting for your "precise explanation of 0 Aries" in Sidereal astrology. Please source it."
Please answer precisely and succinctly. Another long, inconclusive diatribe is not welcome. Please give be a short, clear, concise and sourced answer of exactly where 0 Aries is in the Sidereal Zodiac. You might also want to dispense with your differently colored and bolded text. It makes one want to not read it. As does your voluminous and somewhat erratic writing style.
Give us the facts and remove your own opinion when answering please.

Clearly my style of debate is abhorrent to Frank - nevertheless, until my posts are read (despite their voluminous nature) and a clear indication of a basic understanding of my posts is shown by the nature of replies, in my opinion then Frank there is little to 'debate' ...

the dislike of people voicing their own opinion is somewhat reminiscent of the Old Testament/Biblical style Church-state control widespread during the time of Claudius Ptolemaeus, Valens, Hipparchus et al - when 'the facts' at that time - as promulgated by the Old Testament/Biblical style Church - were that Earth is orbited by the Sun and seven visible planets. When the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and after that time, voicing the opinion that Earth orbits the Sun usually led to the 'heretic' being roasted on a bonfire while tied to a wooden stake. Regarding my use of bolded text, that facility is freely available to all members of this forum, I choose to utilise it.

Consider the fact that what you consider as facts, are simply to others merely opinions

As for spelling... perhaps it is time take to task every contributor on this forum who incorrectly spells even one word... if there is time

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by Frank

You write voluminously, but you have yet to address the salient point of my main question

"I'm still waiting for your "precise explanation of 0 Aries" in Sidereal astrology. Please source it."

Please answer precisely and succinctly. Another long, inconclusive diatribe is not welcome.

Please give be a short, clear, concise and sourced answer of exactly where 0 Aries is in the Sidereal Zodiac.

You might also want to dispense with your differently colored and bolded text. It makes one want to not read it. As does your voluminous and somewhat erratic writing style.

Give us the facts and remove your own opinion when answering please.

Frank, I do believe that the OP initially stated that any and all opinions, theories and reasons were welcomed. I would be in a position of knowing...

I also hardly find it germain to comment on the posting style of other members.

You have previously posted

Originally Posted by Frank

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.

Can you please explain, to those of us new to astrology (me) why, if they both measure the same thing and neither is correct or incorrect, a natal chart in the sidereal zodiac interpreted using modern western methods applies better than a natal chart in the tropical zodiac?

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

ALL ancient systems of astrology (Vedic, Greco/Roman, Chinese, Mayan, and what little we know about Sumero-Babylonian and Egyptian) took the "earth-as-the-center" outlook in their doctrinal formulations and practical methodologies; in the 20th century this universal outlook was challeneged with the development of Heliocentric astrology: I suppose that if we want to be ASTRONOMICALLY correct in a "scientific astrology" attempt, the best thing we could do is to adopt a Heliocentric sidereal model. This model, of course, would be radically at odds with, say, Vedic or Traditional Western astrology...

dr. farr, I once in curosity looked at a heliocentric chart on astro. Venus was upside down.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Alice McDermott

Visual astrology, based on an arrangement of stars into specific shapes that are not even the shapes that the majority of the population of the world sees when they look at the same stars, to me seems to be the illusion. Alice

Let us surmise that you, Alice McDermott were to abandon your computer screen and venture forth into the night sky along with a group of astrological friends with the intention to look at the 'real' stars in the skies. Is that pattern of stars seen by you in the night sky astrologically interpretable? That pattern of stars is not totally an illusion that has no validity

Originally Posted by Alice McDermott

I really don't think the astrology of the planets is a matter of 'visibility' from Earth.

Although in the 21st century, the astrology of planets is apparently no longer considered to be relative to their visibility, before the advent of telescopes any planets not immediately apparent to the naked eye would of necessity have been entirely excluded from astrology. Such as for example, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto

Originally Posted by Alice McDermott

Solar System: We are an intrinsic part of the planet Earth so everything that happens on Earth affects us. The Earth is an intrinsic part of the Solar System, as are Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, whether we can see them with our eyes or not, so everything that happens in this solar system affects all the planets in the system, including the Earth and its life forms. To use the analogy of the human body - something that goes on in the liver is not 'seen' even by the eyes of that body, but it is certainly felt by the whole of the body. Therefore, transits by any planet in the Solar System will strongly affect the life form on Earth whose natural harmonics (set in motion from the first breath) are resonating with that planet.

Well then it is equally possible that effects attributed to the seven visible planets as well as the three invisible planets could instead be attributed to any number of as yet undiscovered 'even further outer' planets.

Originally Posted by Alice McDermott

Fixed Stars: The Sun is the center and life force of this Solar System and a small part of the Galaxy, which includes multitudes of Solar Systems all of which have some kind of resonance with each other. Those that have the greatest resonance with our own solar system will ipso facto affect the all planets in our Solar System, including Earth. The astrology we have inherited from older civilizations mapped the effect of those solar systems upon Earth itself and the life forms that are part of it. Their recorded observations are still accurate to some extent, though many of the very severe manifestations described don't seem to work as strongly now

. Perhaps they do work as strongly - it is possible that natal charts showing these severe manifestations have simply not been available for study. After all there are more than 7billion human beings on planet earth today (source:http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop) It is not possible to have considered every natal chart,

Originally Posted by Alice McDermott

From the very beginning of my studies I have always seen Astrology as a mapping of the resonance of the harmonics of the solar system and galaxy as that is how I understood the 'As Above, So Below' concept. I think the concept of harmonic resonance explains why a tiny little object like Chiron, which orbits between Saturn and Uranus, can affect individual lives on Earth as I think it is in a place in the Solar System that has a particular resonance with the Earth's harmonics. Alice

In my opinion harmonic resonance is indeed universally present, not only in relation to music but also to colour as well as sound, other physical and non physical senses as well as magnetism and the finer resonances of particle physics and the quantum mechanical field

[Frank]

Originally Posted by tsmall

Can you please explain, to those of us new to astrology (me) why, if they both measure the same thing and neither is correct or incorrect, a natal chart in the sidereal zodiac interpreted using modern western methods applies better than a natal chart in the tropical zodiac?

I am open to the Sidereal opinions of the zodiac and don't dismiss it out of hand. It's all a circle, and where one decides to begin it or measure it is up for debate.

The Ecliptic is a circle. In other words, a arc with no endpoints.

The only way one can define a point on a circle is to define it by other means. The crossing of the Ecliptic by the Celestial Equator is a distinct, mathematical, and actual way that Tropical astrologers describe the beginning of the Tropical Zodiac.

Thus far, one here has either been unable or unwilling to describe where the Sidereal Zodiac begins in mathematical or factual terms.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Clearly my style of debate is abhorrent to Frank - nevertheless, until my posts are read (despite their voluminous nature) and a clear indication of a basic understanding of my posts is shown by the nature of replies, in my opinion then Frank there is little to 'debate' ...

the dislike of people voicing their own opinion is somewhat reminiscent of the Church-state control widespread during the time of Claudius Ptolemaeus, Valens, Hipparchus et al - when the facts were that Earth is orbited by the Sun and seven visible planets. If you ventured to say otherwise than those facts then you would have been burnt at the stake. Regarding my use of bolded texted, that facility is freely available to all members of this forum, I choose to utilise it.

Consider the fact that what you consider as facts, are simply to others merely opinions

As for spelling... perhaps it is time take to task every contributor on this forum who incorrectly spells even one word... if there is time

I wish for you in life all that you most richly deserve.

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by Frank

I am open to the Sidereal opinions of the zodiac and don't dismiss it out of hand. It's all a circle, and where one decides to begin it or measure it is up for debate.

The Ecliptic is a circle. In other words, a arc with no endpoints.

I sincerely like this answer, it gives me hope that I'm not totally at odds with professional (?) astrologers that I have a Virgo Stellium as opposed to one in Libra. May I ask, is it only the differences between the various methods of calculating the ayanamsa that prevent more astrologers from using the sidereal zodiac? If you were new, what would you do if your tropical natal chart was very much in contridiction with everything you know about yourself to be true?

Do you have an opinion on what it is about the stars and planets that allows astrology to be accurate? I don't think it would have survived as long as it has, controversy and debate and all, if it did not work. So...did the constellations define the signs originally, or did the signs define the stars?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Frank

I wish for you in life all that you most richly deserve.

You are too kind Frank - however there is no need to concern oneself with that which (in one's own personal opinion naturally) others either 'deserve' or alternatively 'do not deserve' - the immutable impersonal law of karma ensures that you, I, as well as all members past, present and future of this forum - in a relative sense since past present and future are relative - (as well as all aware beings for that matter), all impartially experience the consequences of our own actions (that includes mental actions of thoughts and wishes) - I wish you, as well as all members of this forum as well as all aware beings, much happiness and Joy

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Frank

The Ecliptic is a circle. In other words, a arc with no endpoints. The only way one can define a point on a circle is to define it by other means. The crossing of the Ecliptic by the Celestial Equator is a distinct, mathematical, and actual way that Tropical astrologers describe the beginning of the Tropical Zodiac

The crossing of the Ecliptic by the Celestial Equator occurs twice a year at two points directly in opposition to each other – these two points demarcate the Spring Equinox and/or Vernal Point and the Autumnal Equinox and/or Autumnal Point - (Unfortunately, when our Sun is at these points we must not look at it – in fact we must never look directly at the Sun)

Approximately two thousand years ago (or thereabouts) one of these two points was indeed 0º Aries.

That point is or was the Vernal Point
however - since then - because
(a) Earth orbits the Sun
(b) Earth is tilted on its own axis

the result is
- no matter how 'distinct exact mathematical and actual' the crossing of the great circle of the Ecliptic by the great circle of the celestial Equator may be –

(c) that event no longer takes place at 0º Aries or thereabouts as it once did over two thousand years ago approximately or thereabouts.

instead
(d) the crossing of the Ecliptic by the celestial Equator currently occurs at approximately 6º Pisces (exactly 5º Pisces 05' 31” September 2011)

Nevertheless Tropical astrologers continue to describe this point as 0º Aries.

The error originates from the controlling Religious/Political view of approximately two thousand years ago or thereabouts that insisted that the Sun orbits Earth and is presumably not tilted on its axis.

Historical note
Hipparchus (190 BC – 120 BC) had compiled a catalogue of 850 stars and then decided to compare his catalogue of stars with the star catalogues of two earlier observers Timocharis and Aristillus detailing observations covering the previous 150 years. Timocharis and Aristillus had created their own different methods of keeping track of the sky: Hipparchus realized that in order to compare data and/or discuss observations with others - as well as pass accurate observations to later generations - there was a need for a common or conventional map of the sky.

The most fundamental point on a map is the “Origin” – the (0) location.

Hipparchus selected the Vernal Equinox as the Origin for his map of the sky and fixed it at 0º Aries even though he did observe and also recorded that the Vernal Equinox was drifting very slowly westward (being at the time of Hipparchus at approximately 12º Aries or thereabouts)

Hipparchus noticed as well that all the stars seemed to continually change their places with reference to his Origin (0) point – the Vernal Equinox - but he offered no written explanation. Hipparchus and others undoubtedly conjectured that an explanation was that our Earth must have moved - but all refrained from mentioning that officially - for fear of the old testament-style biblical organized religion retribution which, almost two thousand years ago - would have punished them for challenging the Status Quo .

Robert A Powell's book “History of the Zodiac” contains the information that an agricultural calendar of seasons based on the Vernal Point and developed at Athens by the astronomers Meton and Euctemon was gradually merged over the centuries with Hipparchus astrologically orientated map of the sky which had also based itself on the Vernal Point As time passed, the original calendar months merged with and/or were replaced by the twelve signs of the zodiac.

Unfortunately however, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the Vernal Equinox (aka 0º Aries aka The Vernal Point aka The Aries Point) has drifted westwards and is now (September 2011) located precisely at exactly 5º Pisces 05' 31” .

These are the origins of 'The Tropical Zodiac' of modern astrology i.e. Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.); "...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." (Dr. Robert Powell 2007)

The average time it takes for the Vernal Equinox to move from one constellation of the zodiac into the next is known as an Astrological Age. Astrological Ages exist as a result of precession of the equinoxes. Approximately every 2,150 years the sun's position at the time of the vernal equinox will have moved into a new zodiacal constellation. dr. farr has previously advised us that zodiacal constellations are not uniform in size and also that there is overlap between zodiacal constellations which has led some astrologers to surmise that the corresponding ages should also vary in duration. In 1929, the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations and the edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600. However this is a contentious issue amongst astrologers.

Link to diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0/Seasons1.svg

Originally Posted by Frank

Thus far, one here has either been unable or unwilling to describe where the Sidereal Zodiac begins in mathematical or factual terms.

Thus far, one here considers the interests of beginners - such as the originator of this thread tsmall, who may - prior to discussing the rationale of the Sidereal Zodiac - prefer considerable clarification regarding the documented historical origins and/or rationale of the Tropical Zodiac. Not all members of this forum and/or readers of its various multifarious threads are experts. Therefore one is initially focusing on a discussion of the complex origins of the Tropical Zodiac. Understandably, experts may feel impatient with such an undertaking, some obviously finding it tedious. However in my opinion historical clarity is equally important to mathematical clarity.

[Mark]

JUPITERASC: A few pages (2 days) ago, we were discussing the failures of the scientific community and I made an example of a study which invalidated our current model of geophysics. You replied by saying, "that isn't impossible to explain by modern science." You are correct and so was I. The information you posted was from atlantisquest.com (which, oddly enough, is actually a reputable source of information because of the expertise and hard work of the authors). The point I was trying to make, though, was that you would have to get this kind of information from atlantisquest.com and not Nature nor the USGS. If you say to a geologist, "Here is evidence of continental crust, now under 1 mile of water, that was above sea level less than 20kya," he will say, "Wow, that's interesting." If you say to that same geologist, "Here is evidence that Atlantis could have existed," he will say, "No comment." The bulk of the scientific community has already chosen the direction they will go without reviewing the evidence proper (hubris). Therefore, it is not evidence that will convince them. The evidence is there. The scientific community must learn to live up to its own advertised standards.

General Address: In thinking about the tropical zodiac, I find certain fundamental similarities with East Asian astrology (Tibetan, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.). In the East, common astrology works more as a measure of passing time than observance of celestial cycles. Full systems include both, of course, but your Chinese animal sign and elements are basically determined by a calendar, which I find analogous to the Western tropical zodiac. Chinese zodiac-calendars are quite regular and are usually broken down into tables for use (simpler than ephemerides).

If Chinese astrology can function in this way (which it traditionally has), basically labeling people according to the year, month, day, and hour they were born, why couldn't Westerners get away with the same thing using the tropical zodiac? The tropical zodiac is hooked to the yearly Sun cycle of the Earth (rather than the stars) and so is common Chinese astrology. Disagreements usually emerge due to the different styles of leap years used to correct the calendar drift over time. That would be a good reason to expect slight differences in interpretation between the two, even for an individual born in the same hour of the same day, month, and year. The foundation they share, however, seems to be sound.

As to generational planets (if that topic is still floating around), the word "generational" does, in fact, mean that a planet's influences apply to a whole generation of people. I recently made example in another thread of my Pluto generation, which is Libra, 1971 to 1984. We also have Neptune generations and Uranus generations. Technically, I would say that Saturn and Jupiter are slow enough to call generational planets also (Jupiter takes almost 12 years to complete one circuit [roughly 1 year in each sign] and Saturn takes more than 29, not including retrogrades nor perspectives). The truly "personal planets" are the inner ones that orbit quickly: Mercury, Venus, and Mars. Mars takes just under 2 years to complete an orbit and it is the slowest of the "personals."

As to the value of stars, I'm going to have to get a little more "physics-y." It is well known to quantum physicists that once two pieces of matter touch, they can never "untouch." There will always be an informational connection between them, which can (in theory) be exploited from the quantum level. It has also recently been discovered that "communication events" (officially termed "flux transfer events") take place between the sphere of the Sun's influence and the sphere of the Earth's influence many times per day. These "discharges" have been located, measured, and observed to have specific behaviour. I've linked an article about it below.

At any rate, we can observe that particles communicate with particles and that stars communicate with their planets. Is it not also reasonable to assume (at least for the sake of discovery/testing) that there is also such communication happening between stars? In fact, we have measured certain gaseous and energetic "frameworks" that seem to connect each star to other stars, though we have no idea what is really going on with them. We're still missing a lot of puzzle pieces, but it seems only natural to believe that communication takes place between stars and then "trickles" from star to planet. That would seem to be a good argument for the use of Sun-based astrology, if it could be made to apply directly.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...08/30oct_ftes/

[dr. farr]

Mark makes a good point when he references Chinese astrology. See, around the 2nd century BC the Chinese adopted their "Animal zodiac" of 12 signs: these signs DID NOT connect with ANY "Chinese constellations", they did not have any of the "Chinese constellations" in them, but were, rather, centered on the 2 equinox points and the 2 solstice points, and were thus "fixed", JUST AS THE WESTERN TROPICAL SIGNS ARE SO FIXED. Notice that the Chinese adopted these 12 "tropical" signs around the same historical time the Greek astrology in Alexandria was allocating 12 tropical signs in the "Western" zodiac; the Chinese did not call their 12 zodiacal signs after their constellations, but the Greeks DID name their 12 tropically based signs after their constellations that happened to be in those signs at that time. But the Chinese "constellation free" signs show that they recognized the divisions (sections) OF SPACE along the "Yellow Path" (the Chinese name for the ecliptic) as giving meaning to each of their signs, and having nothing to do (in their minds, at least) with any "star forms" (constellational figures) found IN those divisions of the ecliptic (ie, signs) Yet the Chinese also considered stars, because they had a "sub-zodiac" of 28 Mansions (Hsiu) of 12degree51min length, whose meanings were defined by the star (or group of stars) in that area and these Mansions MOVED over time (the part of the sky they were in moved over time) whereas the SIGNS on the ecliptic (the 12 section Chinese Animal Zodiac) DID NOT MOVE, and were thus fixed (as the Western tropical zodiac of SIGNS is also fixed)

I submit this same thinking occured in the West, in Alexandria, in the formulation of the Greek astrological model, ie, that there were fixed divisions of the ecliptic, called signs, and which derived their influences from their space along the ecliptic; and that the stars in certain degree areas (Mansions of the Moon we call them in Western astrology, and we call them Nakshatras in Vedic astrology), were also to be taken into account, and that these DO MOVE, and so there is a fixed wheel of signs and a moving, star connected wheel of Mansions (if you will a sub-zodiac of 28 asterisms which move over time)

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Mark makes a good point when he references Chinese astrology. See, around the 2nd century BC the Chinese adopted their "Animal zodiac" of 12 signs: these signs DID NOT connect with ANY "Chinese constellations", they did not have any of the "Chinese constellations" in them, but were, rather, centered on the 2 equinox points and the 2 solstice points, and were thus "fixed", JUST AS THE WESTERN TROPICAL SIGNS ARE SO FIXED. Notice that the Chinese adopted these 12 "tropical" signs around the same historical time the Greek astrology in Alexandria was allocating 12 tropical signs in the "Western" zodiac; the Chinese did not call their 12 zodiacal signs after their constellations, but the Greeks DID name their 12 tropically based signs after their constellations that happened to be in those signs at that time. But the Chinese "constellation free" signs show that they recognized the divisions (sections) OF SPACE along the "Yellow Path" (the Chinese name for the ecliptic) as giving meaning to each of their signs, and having nothing to do (in their minds, at least) with any "star forms" (constellational figures) found IN those divisions of the ecliptic (ie, signs) Yet the Chinese also considered stars, because they had a "sub-zodiac" of 28 Mansions (Hsiu) of 13degree40min length, whose meanings were defined by the star (or group of stars) in that area and these Mansions MOVED over time (the part of the sky they were in moved over time) whereas the SIGNS on the ecliptic (the 12 section Chinese Animal Zodiac) DID NOT MOVE, and were thus fixed (as the Western tropical zodiac of SIGNS is also fixed)

I submit this same thinking occured in the West, in Alexandria, in the formulation of the Greek astrological model, ie, that there were fixed divisions of the ecliptic, called signs, and which derived their influences from their space along the ecliptic; and that the stars in certain degree areas (Mansions of the Moon we call them in Western astrology, and we call them Nakshatras in Vedic astrology), were also to be taken into account, and that these DO MOVE, and so there is a fixed wheel of signs and a moving, star connected wheel of Mansions (if you will a sub-zodiac of 28 asterisms which move over time)

I have found the recent posts, as this one, regarding the idea that the energy field of the Earth, and the divisions of the ecliptic, as defining the signs, vs. the influence of the stars, to be most interesting. I am curious though, and extremely hopeful that someone can explain as to why, if the constellations themselves have no influence on the signs, and in fact the double naming of the signs with the constellations is simply an unfortunate conicidence, a Virgo Sun, et. al. describes an individual (me) much more accurately than the descriptions of same in the sign of Libra? Could it be that there is a lot more to the signs themselves that we might be missing?

Mark your post re communication between the Sun and Earth via the magnetosphere, and the link you shared, raise interesting questions. My first, as a "non-physics-y" thinker (the only familiarity I have with quantum physics is Michael Crichton's Timeline ) isn't the prevailing idea that all the universe somehow originated from the same place? I don't quite have the words to explain what I mean, but wasn't there a point when all matter/everything was in fact in conctact with everything else? Giving truth perhaps to the idea that every particle in the universe is in contact with every other particle in the universe?

If we can measure the discharges between the Sun and Earth, and label them as "communication," would we expect to find similar discharges taking place between the Sun and any other planet/object in the solar system? Truly intriguing, though, is how ancient astrologers would or could have understood this communication taking place, and use it to predict events...

[dr. farr]

NOTE:
Thanks to a PM by TSMALL I was informed that someone had hacked into my AW account and posted 2 one line, ridiculous, inflammatory and discrediting statements under my name. I reported this to the Moderators and then deleted those spurious posts. Hopefully this will not happen again!

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Thus far, one here considers the interests of beginners - such as the originator of this thread tsmall, who may - prior to discussing the rationale of the Sidereal Zodiac - prefer considerable clarification regarding the documented historical origins and/or rationale of the Tropical Zodiac. Not all members of this forum and/or readers of its various multifarious threads are experts. Therefore one is initially focusing on a discussion of the complex origins of the Tropical Zodiac. Understandably, experts may feel impatient with such an undertaking, some obviously finding it tedious. However in my opinion historical clarity is equally important to mathematical clarity.

One here considers that any and all information, especially dilligently unearthed, or personally experienced, and shared, is important and helpful to anyone trying to come to their own conclusions, as opposed to categorically accepting prevailing thought as truth. Personally, I have to say that everyone who has contributed to this thread has provided extremely useful insights into the inner and historical workings of astrology, and this newbie in particular is eternally grateful.

[dr. farr]

I agree, and although it is a controversial subject, the discussion here has been friendly and free from rancor and provides a good deal of information to think about.
I have rated this thread 5 stars!

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

NOTE:
Thanks to a PM by TSMALL I was informed that someone had hacked into my AW account and posted 2 one line, ridiculous, inflammatory and discrediting statements under my name. I reported this to the Moderators and then deleted those spurious posts. Hopefully this will not happen again!

dr. farr, there could not possibly be anyone who has ever read a single one of your posts that could ever doubt your dedication to the craft, and study, of astrology, as well as your sincere desire to help others.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by tsmall

Mark your post re communication between the Sun and Earth via the magnetosphere, and the link you shared, raise interesting questions. My first, as a "non-physics-y" thinker (the only familiarity I have with quantum physics is Michael Crichton's Timeline ) isn't the prevailing idea that all the universe somehow originated from the same place? I don't quite have the words to explain what I mean, but wasn't there a point when all matter/everything was in fact in conctact with everything else? Giving truth perhaps to the idea that every particle in the universe is in contact with every other particle in the universe?

Astrology has a number of predictive techniques. Prediction relates to the Future relative to both the Past as well as the Present. Professor Brian Cox explains... "We all take Time for granted, however, although time helps us make sense of the past, the present and the future ....'Time' itself is nowhere near as straightforward as one might think" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP1OhR3OhNY

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by Mark

In general, Western interpretation manuals assume a tropical zodiac. Vedic materials assume a sidereal zodiac. Both systems are well entrenched, but differ on some key information. This makes sense because the two systems are different measurements of the same thing. While both can be accurate, the two different measurements will produce different information. The interpretation for Jupiter in sixth degree Libra will be different for each system and the topical/sidereal conversion would provide different degrees to interpret. So, given that interpretation manuals must prefer one system over the other, we must use the interpretations with their proper system.

This is what I intended when I thought about switching to sidereal. This conversation is very interesting but, you have to admit, kind of hard to read pages of all at once. I totally agree with my Aquarius Sun for Western and my Capricorn Sun for Vedic because they have totally different interpretations. Both systems gave interpretations that are quite accurate up to this point of my experience but both gave different (but similar) information.

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

This is what I intended when I thought about switching to sidereal. This conversation is very interesting but, you have to admit, kind of hard to read pages of all at once. I totally agree with my Aquarius Sun for Western and my Capricorn Sun for Vedic because they have totally different interpretations. Both systems gave interpretations that are quite accurate up to this point of my experience but both gave different (but similar) information.

Rebel, this thread has crossed the map and can take a while to process. I think it's been pretty fun to read, and think about, and hope it contiunes to grow.

I have a question for you to think about...do you know when your progressed Sun (from a sidereal chart) moved into Aquarius? Because, even though I find everything to identify with re a Virgo (keyword "I analyze") stellium, most of those planets at this point in my life have progressed into Libra (keyword "I balance") with a sidereal chart, so I can find myself in some of the common descriptions of Libra. But to speak to the Virgo idea again, at the age of 10 my mother came home to find our vacuum cleaner taken apart in pieces on the floor. I wanted to learn "how it worked..."

[Alice McDermott]

Originally Posted by tsmall

. But to speak to the Virgo idea again, at the age of 10 my mother came home to find our vacuum cleaner taken apart in pieces on the floor. I wanted to learn "how it worked..."

Tsmall

That skill is purely Libran - the only sign of the machine in the whole of the zodiac.

I know a lot of mechanics and those who like to work with machines of various kinds - ALL of them has a strong Libran signature, many with the Sun in Libra, quite a few with the Moon in Libra. One astrologer I know has a degree in Physics and a degree in Music but for a living repairs very large machines as he loves doing it.

The Chitra Moon Mansion, which covers aproximately 16 Libra - 0 Scorpio, is renouned for its skill with machinery and technology.

Re your feeling of 'Virgoness' - have you looked at the rest of your natal chart, not just your Sun sign, as that could clearly show some Virgo signatures.

Alice