# Assistance required understanding sidereal and tropical zodiac

#### charliestars

##### Active member
Hi
Could some one be so kind as to assist me in understanding how an astrological age is determined using the sidereal and tropical zodiac.

A Wikipedia article states that one method is to divide the Great Year into twelve astrological ages of approximately equal lengths of around 2160 years per age based on the vernal equinox moving through the sidereal zodiac.

The article continues to state that another method is to significantly vary the duration of each astrological age based on the passage of the vernal equinox measured against the actual zodiacal constellations.

When they mention in the first paragraph "vernal equinox moving through the sidereal zodiac" and then in the second paragraph " vernal equinox measured against the actual zodiacal constellations" are these not the same things?

I mean is the sidereal zodiac and the actual zodiacal constellations not one and the same?

Then I am struggling to understand how an astrological age is determined with regards to the tropical method if the vernal equinox is always 0 deg Aries. How does one determine which astrological age we are in with this method?

Finally am I correct in understanding that with the sidereal method each year the vernal equinox is measured against the actual constellations of the zodiac belt on the celestial sphere ?

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated
Kind Regards
Charliestars

#### Kaiousei no Senshi

I mean is the sidereal zodiac and the actual zodiacal constellations not one and the same?

No, they are not. The sidereal zodiac keeps in line with the constellations until about the middle of Aries, and then it starts to diverge. This is because the sidereal zodiac also states that the signs of the Zodiac are all an equal 30°, but the constellations are not all equal. Some are very small (Scorpio, Aries), and others are very large (Virgo).

You could argue this makes for three zodiacs; tropical, sidereal, constellational.

Then I am struggling to understand how an astrological age is determined with regards to the tropical method if the vernal equinox is always 0 deg Aries. How does one determine which astrological age we are in with this method?

It isn't, because the Vernal Equinox point doesn't move in the tropical zodiac.

Finally am I correct in understanding that with the sidereal method each year the vernal equinox is measured against the actual constellations of the zodiac belt on the celestial sphere ?

Yes.

#### charliestars

##### Active member
Thank you Kaiousei no Senshi for the reply and for bringing a little more clarity to this subject for me.

#### RodJM

##### Well-known member
Another way to understand this is to refer to this site

BASIC DESCRIPTION

The Sidereal zodiac, like the more familiar Tropical zodiac (currently used by most Western astrologers), is divided into 12 equal segments of 30° each. These divisions bear the familiar names Aries, Taurus, etc. The basic difference is that the start of the Tropical zodiac (0° Aries) is permanently identified with the Vernal Equinox, while the Sidereal zodiac is measured in a way that fixes it against the starry celestial backdrop. The boundaries of the Sidereal zodiac have been precisely determined by purely observational means, confirmed by independent archaeological investigation. Because the Vernal Equinox is not fixed against the same celestial backdrop, the Tropical zodiac is in constant backwards motion in relation to the Sidereal zodiac (the “precession of the equinoxes”). As a result, “signs” of the same name in these zodiacs do not presently occupy the same areas of space.
That last sentence, hits the nail on the head so to speak!

#### JUPITERASC

##### Well-known member
Hi JUPITERASC,

I'd visit that youtube site you linked too but I'm on a limited wireless connection and its problematic like all online videos are for me atm
.
Hi RodJM

https://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr1230/solsys.html

https://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr1230/solsys.html

https://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr1230/solsys.html

Last edited:

#### RodJM

##### Well-known member
Thanks JUPITERASC,

Very clear and self explanatory images. Cheers!

Interesting that this discussion of understanding sidereal and tropical zodiacs has come to conscious more in astrology forum.

I can't help but notice the upcoming transits of Pluto/Uranus/Jupiter/RxMars in the sidereal zodiac mutable signs at the moment.. This is spurring on the rethink of western approach to astrology now??

My intuition tell me this...

#### greybeard

##### Well-known member
Both the tropical and the sidereal zodiacs are systems of measurement that divide the ecliptic into 12 signs of 30 degrees each. The only difference between the two is the "starting point."

The tropical zodiac uses the observed position of the boreal vernal equinox each year as its starting point, Zero Aries.

There are several sidereal zodiacs in use, each with a slightly different starting point (ayanamsa). For ease of understanding, one system uses the fixed star Spica and then proposes that the point of the ecliptic opposite that fixed star is the starting point.

The current difference between the tropical and various sidereal zodiacs is about 23.5 degrees. Zero Aries tropical is around 6 Pisces 30 sidereal.

The constellations are star groups of irregular and uneven size and shape. They are arbitrary groupings of stars that, in man's imaginative mind, "form pictures", much like clouds can form pictures. Where the ecliptic passes through these constellations the distribution is highly irregular, as Waybread pointed out in her post.

So the first thing to understand is that the zodiac (any zodiac) is first and foremost a system of measurement (it locates "degrees along the ecliptic from some arbitrary point of beginning.") The metric system of measurement is based upon a single arbitrary measure, the meter, and all other types of measure contained within the system are derived from that single arbitrary measure. In the zodiacal system of measuring degrees along the ecliptic, the arbitrary point (equivalent to the meter) is the point of beginning.

The "meanings" of the signs are derived and secondary. If we take Zero Aries to be the point of beginning (in either the tropical or sidereal system), then the significance of the following 30 degree sign (if we agree to use 30-degree divisions) must have to do with "Beginnings", and is therefore, in its nature "initiatory", "primitive", "naive" and other such analogs of "First" or "Beginning."

Regarding the "astrological ages", the recent bruhaha over the Mayan calendar (Dec 21, 2012) is nothing more than the end of the Quinto Sol (5th Sun) and the beginning of the Sexto Sol (6th Sun), which are astrological ages according to the Maya. If you are inclined toward Mayan astrology, you can take this date as the beginning of the Age of Aquarius.

But let's look at history. Near the beginning of the 17th century, Copernicus proposed the heliocentric model of the solar system. Kepler discovered the Laws of Planetary Orbits. The telescope came into use: Jupiter's Moons and Saturn's rings were discovered by Galileo. Newton studied light and gravity and the Age of Reason was upon us. Then, in 1781, Herschel discovered Uranus. Uranus was given rulership over... you guessed it, Aquarius. Revolutions were in style at the time (US, France, Latin America). Throughout this period and into the present day, the capitalist system was born and developed, until today we live in a corporate world which is now in full bloom.

The late 19th and the 20th centuries saw the triumph (and the failure) of technology. Man overcame nature. Space travel, instant global communication, nuclear weapons, ....

And now, in my lifetime, we have entered a completely new Epoch in human history. Nothing like it has existed in the past. We are on new ground socially, scientifically... in almost every way (human nature hasn't changed much, if at all, but the surrounding environment has changed drastically.)

Looked at in this way, we have seen the dawning of this New Age over the past 400 years. Nothing spectacular happened in December 2012. But I think that is a very good date for marking the beginning point of the Age of Aquarius, because it is in the past 30 years or so that I have gradually come to the realization that we are truly in a new epoch of human history. Full entry into this new epoch has happened within the past quarter-century. I was born in 1942 and have been in a position to notice the dramatic change.

I know nothing of Mayan astrology. But I am quite sure that their demarcation of astrological ages is centered on Venus cycles. The flow of history, as sketched above, shows us the cuspal nature of these ages... the change from one age to the next comes like the dawn, from darkness through gradual lighting to full-blown sun. We are now fully within the realm of El Sexto Sol.

If the sidereal and tropical zodiacs differ by 23 degrees, and precession moves at about 1 degree every 70 years, then the difference in time will be about 1600 years (23x70) with reference to the astrological ages. Personally, I have no interest in mundane astrology and the astrological ages. But clearly we have entered a new age...just now. If you want to "verify" which of the zodiacs is "the one true zodiac" (good grief), then figure out which one shows a new age beginning now. The difference in time between the two is sufficient to distinguish which is more effective.

P.S.: I use the tropical zodiac. But I recognize that both the sidereal and tropical zodiacs are valid. Both yield accurate results. What bothers me about some siderealists (particularly the Bradley-Fagan school) is their almost fanatical insistence that "the tropical zodiac does not allow for precession." That position only dramatizes their ignorance and lack of understanding. Both systems allow for precession, but they can't see it. I say this in order to vent a pet peeve, but more importantly to warn beginning students that this claim (that the tropical zodiac does not take precession into account) is false.

Last edited:

#### JUPITERASC

##### Well-known member
is their almost fanatical insistence that "the tropical zodiac does not allow for precession."
That position only dramatizes their ignorance and lack of understanding.
Both systems allow for precession, but they can't see it.
I say this in order to vent a pet peeve,
but more importantly to warn beginning students that this claim
(that the tropical zodiac does not take precession into account)
is false.
Your description of HOW the Tropical Zodiac relates to precession would clarify this issue for many beginning students

Clearly the Tropical Zodiac marks the Spring Equinox/Vernal Equinox
as occurring at 0° Tropical Aries
But that differs from the GEOCENTRIC VISUAL perspective of the Sidereal Zodiac which marks the Spring Equinox/Vernal Equinox
as being currently at approximately 5° Pisces
A difference of approximately 24°

#### greybeard

##### Well-known member
The secret to true learning is found in solving riddles for oneself.
Thinking about precession will show how the tropical zodiac takes precession into account.
The zodiac is circular. You can walk left, or you can walk right; either direction will bring you back to the point of beginning.

Parrots repeat what they have heard but understand nothing of what they say.

#### JUPITERASC

##### Well-known member
The secret to true learning is found in solving riddles for oneself.
Thinking about precession will show how the tropical zodiac takes precession into account.
The zodiac is circular. You can walk left, or you can walk right; either direction will bring you back to the point of beginning.

Parrots repeat what they have heard but understand nothing of what they say.
Ours is an astrological learning forum
so
if you would specifically detail
exactly HOW
'the Tropical Zodiac relates to precession'
then many beginning students would find that far more useful
than riddles
.... even if those riddles may or may not easily be comprehended by any 'parrots' you mentioned

#### greybeard

##### Well-known member
It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

The equinoxes precede. Aries (the tropical zodiac) slides around the fixed sphere of stars....or the fixed sphere of stars slides around the zodiac. It's a matter of point of view.

One view looks at the fixed stars as fixed on the zodiac (sidereal).
The other view looks at the equinoctial point as fixed on the zodiac (tropical).

In both cases there is precession.

Kinda like Einstein's Theory Reativity: Are you traveling at light speed away from Earth sitting on a beam of light, or are you sitting on Earth? What you see is dependent on where you sit. Reality remains the same.

#### JUPITERASC

##### Well-known member
It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

The equinoxes precede. Aries (the tropical zodiac) slides around the fixed sphere of stars....or the fixed sphere of stars slides around the zodiac. It's a matter of point of view.

One view looks at the fixed stars as fixed on the zodiac (sidereal).
The other view looks at the equinoctial point as fixed on the zodiac (tropical).

In both cases there is precession.

Kinda like Einstein's Theory Reativity: Are you traveling at light speed away from Earth sitting on a beam of light, or are you sitting on Earth? What you see is dependent on where you sit. Reality remains the same
.
Light years ago
I posted the following comment on this thread

And on that note.....
EARTH'S MOTION AROUND THE SUN
- NOT AS SIMPLE AS I THOUGHT

#### greybeard

##### Well-known member
And...? What is the point?

The video is interesting and informative.
It has little to say regarding the astrologer's choice of tropical or sidereal zodiac.
And P.S. -- not that it matters -- but I am well aware of all the motions discussed in the video and have taken them into consideration in my personal choice to use the tropical zodiac.

I waited quite a while before answering your request, to see if someone else would explain why both tropical and sidereal zodiacs "take precession into account." No one did.

Again, it boils down to "point of view", which is arbitrary.
I use tropical because it provides an earth-centered and also "immediate" view, and carries within it an "automatic adjustment" for precession. It is what I see and experience here on Earth, my galactic home. Zero Aries is always the point of beginning, the northern vernal equinox. Aries is always a spring sign, throughout the 26,000 year precessional cycle. Winter will never occur while the Sun is in Cancer using the tropical zodiac; with the sidereal zodiac it will.

To repeat myself, modern science asks that any theory or mathematical model account for the known facts as "economically" as possible, using the least complicated explanation possible. In science this is known as "parsimony"; it is commonly referred to as Occam's Razor.

The tropical zodiac meets this requirement. The sidereal zodiac does not; it requires more information, is dependent on more factors than the tropical zodiac. It requires fixed stars in the sky in order to function. The tropical zodiac can do very well with no fixed stars at all. The tropical zodiac depends on nothing more than Earth's orbit around the Sun, and its axial tilt relative to the ecliptic. Were there no fixed stars, it would still allow us to measure a year. The tropical zodiac provides us with the simplest and most fundamental "year".

And again, both zodiacs work. Use whichever of them suits your preferred point of view.

But please don't say that the tropical zodiac does not allow for precession. That is patently false.

Last edited:

#### jg1982

##### Well-known member
I have an issue to bring up. It's just an observation.

I want to make the disclaimer that I am not expert in astronomy or astrology. My observation comes from my own critical thinking and opinions.

I am fascinated by the debates between tropicalists and siderealists. My personal opinion is that the tropical zodiac is more accurate, at least when describing me and my immediate relatives.

Personal point out of the way, I think there is one glaring omission (or at least largely overlooked) in this debate, as far as I have seen :

In following sidereal astrology logic, it is assumed that the fact that the sun seems to be in this or the other sign from our point of view, must somehow mean that the influence of that sign is actually being somehow channeled into earth by the sun. I think this is a flaw. It's very lineal thinking, in my view. The universe, human consciousness, and its connection, I would like to think, has more dimensions to it, it's not only lineal.

I hold a sort of mystical view that everything has some degree of consciousness and is ever-developing. In the case of planets and stars (actual sidereal constellations), they would be the physical manifestation of very powerful and evolved consciousnesses traditionally called Logoi. The latter sending their powerful emissions in every direction according to their own nature.

What's to say that the cyclical outpouring of this, or the other sign's influence, wherever the influence comes from, has nothing to do with alignment (from our point of view) of the sun against the backdrop of the stars from our point of view... like the Siderealists assume? What if there is a less obvious mechanism going on, that acts independently of the wobble in the earth's axis? If that theory is correct, then we would be dealing with Intelligent forces, surely, they would not depend on our "point of view" in order to work and interact with each other. This is my personal view. Doesn't mean I am right, or wrong. I am still refining my view on this..

I realize some people do not believe in actual energetic influence, but rather see the alignment of the sun and constellations as synchronistic markers of sorts, with zero actual influence from the planets and constellations to us. In that case, a better argument could be made against my stance, but to me that is not a completely logical point, since there must be some sort of "energy" keeping the synchronicity, there must be a source for the phenomena, an energetic one. There must be "something" holding the clock together in perfect rhythm and synchronicity. I find that sort of materialistic thinking kind of contradictory with the general concept of Astrology itself.

I subscribe to the axiom "As above, so below" I totally think it is feasible that just like humans interact with their different personalities, agendas, etc, then so it is at a higher, incomprehensible level in the heavens. Why can't the influence of the constellations be channeled by our "local ruler" (the SUN), filtered, somewhat, before being distributed to us via the traditional tropical Earth-Sun relationship, instead of lineally coming down to us according to our precession-dependent point of view like the Siderealists (intuitively, but in my view simplistically) believe? The view I hold is not new. What I hope to bring to the discussion is the questioning of the assumption that visually seeing the Sun in front of a constellation = we are under the influence of that constellation.

In my view, the Sun (in the traditional tropical way) would be the entity that would put those powerful sidereal forces in context for earth. It is like a marriage between the tropical and sidereal views.

Just for consideration...

Please do not take this as an attack. I am not the owner of the absolute truth and try to update myself every day. I just hope my specific observation can spark another angle of this old debate.

Last edited:

#### JUPITERASC

##### Well-known member
And...? What is the point?

The video is interesting and informative.
It has little to say regarding the astrologer's choice of tropical or sidereal zodiac.
And P.S. -- not that it matters -- but I am well aware of all the motions discussed in the video and have taken them into consideration in my personal choice to use the tropical zodiac.

I waited quite a while before answering your request, to see if someone else would explain why both tropical and sidereal zodiacs "take precession into account." No one did.

Again, it boils down to "point of view", which is arbitrary.
I use tropical because it provides an earth-centered and also "immediate" view, and carries within it an "automatic adjustment" for precession. It is what I see and experience here on Earth, my galactic home. Zero Aries is always the point of beginning, the northern vernal equinox. Aries is always a spring sign, throughout the 26,000 year precessional cycle. Winter will never occur while the Sun is in Cancer using the tropical zodiac; with the sidereal zodiac it will.

To repeat myself, modern science asks that any theory or mathematical model account for the known facts as "economically" as possible, using the least complicated explanation possible. In science this is known as "parsimony"; it is commonly referred to as Occam's Razor.

The tropical zodiac meets this requirement. The sidereal zodiac does not; it requires more information, is dependent on more factors than the tropical zodiac. It requires fixed stars in the sky in order to function. The tropical zodiac can do very well with no fixed stars at all. The tropical zodiac depends on nothing more than Earth's orbit around the Sun, and its axial tilt relative to the ecliptic. Were there no fixed stars, it would still allow us to measure a year. The tropical zodiac provides us with the simplest and most fundamental "year".

And again, both zodiacs work. Use whichever of them suits your preferred point of view.

But please don't say that the tropical zodiac does not allow for precession.

That is patently false.
ON THE CONTRARY

The Tropical Zodiac DOES NOT take Precession of the Equinoxes into account

#### jg1982

##### Well-known member
"In following sidereal astrology logic, it is assumed that the fact that the sun seems to be in this or the other sign from our point of view, must somehow mean that the influence of that sign is actually being somehow channeled into earth by the sun. I think this is a flaw. It's very lineal thinking, in my view. The universe, human consciousness, and its connection, I would like to think, has more dimensions to it, it's not only lineal"

#### AstroNous

##### Active member
I wrote about the Sidereal Zodiac very logically having regular 12, 30 degree, zodiac signs here. Just check my second post in the thread I am directing you to...

I hold a sort of mystical view that everything has some degree of consciousness and is ever-developing. In the case of planets and stars (actual sidereal constellations), they would be the physical manifestation of very powerful and evolved consciousnesses traditionally called Logoi. The latter sending their powerful emissions in every direction according to their own nature.

Yes, it is true that everything has the capacity to evolve consciousness, hence, we beings supposedly composed purely of matter, which is "mindless" from the point of view of Mainstream Science, having life and consciousness. Everything has mind, but it is totally wrong to assume that everything has consciousness... Not even animals have developed consciousness well yet... Imagine an object.

And, no, a planet does not have a consciousness yet... Hence, it just spins and moves in a totally predictable direction. The Planet is a thing that is too big and powerful in comparison to us, and at the same time, has no consciousness, hence the deterministic capacity the Planet contains. Malefic planets are not called Malefics out of nowhere, I consider them genuinely malefic... Otherwise, Astrology wouldn't be able to account for the harmful people living today... If you have the right aspect system, an look at the Moon placement of criminals, it ALWAYS is fault of the Malefics (in Astrological context, I still hold some belief in free will, and I can explain that, although it seems illogical at first since a thing logically is purely determined, or purelly indetermined). The Malefics are not just Cruel, they are downright Malefic... The Sun is the only truly cruel (not malefic) planet. Yet, are those Malefics (standing for our lower nature) really divine? I don't think so.

In following sidereal astrology logic, it is assumed that the fact that the sun seems to be in this or the other sign from our point of view, must somehow mean that the influence of that sign is actually being somehow channeled into earth by the sun. I think this is a flaw. It's very lineal thinking, in my view. The universe, human consciousness, and its connection, I would like to think, has more dimensions to it, it's not only lineal.

I am sorry if it sounds rash, but you don't even understand what a Sign truly is. You stand for Tropical signs yet the Tropical signs are more or less of an identical nature to the Sidereal signs in regards to how they are taken to work.

Why don't we go ahead an apply the logic of your statement to the Tropical signs:

"In following [Tropical] astrology logic, it is assumed that the fact that the [Planet] in this or the other sign from [The tropical Sun], must somehow mean that the influence of that sign is actually being somehow channeled into earth by the [Planet]. I think this is a flaw. It's very lineal thinking in my view. The universe, human consciousness, and its connection, I would like to think, has more dimensions to it, it's not only lineal"

The influence of the Tropical Sun is totally valid, but of other planets in the Tropical Zodaic I don't expect anything. They simply are almost always in a different position, different everything, even if the Tropical Zodiac says that those are in the same exact degree. Both the Sidereal and Tropical Zodiac are based on alignments whether those alignments produce constantly the same result and spatial exactitude such as with the Sidereal Zodiac, or whether those alignments only are exact and constant with the Sun and ultra inconstant with the other planets (Tropical Zodiac) <- Even having constancy with the Sun is doubtful with Tropical as JUPITERASC has shown with his video (which I have to study carefully).

Yes, the universe is not totally linear, but it does have linear stuff. In fact, due to the very fact that planets are round objects, we have to think in terms of alignments to constellations.

Physically, the planet will throw energy to ALL directions possible, which energies the Earth is going to end up catching? The ones that are aligned with her.

Noumenally, only flowing and dynamic stuff is round and hence less predictable. What is astrology about? It is about predictions, it is about paralyzing time and hence looking at stuff as a constant. Your birth chart is a way of representing a timeframe gone constant and static. Hence, it is naturally about LINEAR alignments. Things you are ALIGNed with for the course of your life.

One of the laws of physics states that something will go forever in a straight line unless there is intervention. The Natal chart is a universe without intervention of any force, hence a static an unchanging universe. The only thing that makes the natal chart significant is that one thing remains, the implications of the ORDER it contains... In a paralyzed universe, only order remains. In astrology, and in everything, order is geometrical and mathematical. Because Astrology is a physical way of looking at something that is not actually physical, but mental, we have to relate the physical concepts to mental concepts (this is the process we call "interpretation of a chart"). What is the physical way order is manifest? Through lines and alignments, and those compose the geometrical (physical mathematics) relationships between the significant existents.

I hope I wasn't too abstract... I actually have a clear definition of everything I have stated.

Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence. Your claim can be reduced to saying that just because you do not know the mechanism behind the alignments between the Planets and the Stars, the mechanism doesn't actually exist. Do you know the mechanism behind the alignments of planets with the Tropical Zodiac (out of which only those of the Sun might fall inside of the definition of alignment)? Then, following your logic, because you don't know the mechanism behind them, those alignments don't work either...

What is really a sign in technical terms? A sign is a section of space that holds specific implications. If a "sign" doesn't even fall into the definition of what space is, then it is not a sign. Sidereal signs completely fall inside the definition of space. Tropical signs do not! They are a section of space with different implications almost everytime maybe except for the Sun (even the Sun being under scrutiny)! A section of space is not a section of space if it moves around or changes through its own "producer". The producer of the Tropical Zodiac, whether it is the Sun, or Planet Earth [!], change the nature of the space they produce. Even a a true house (campanus) goes through the definition of space better, since its producer, (its center), doesn't change the nature of the space defined. The 1st house in a place of the earth remains being the 1st house in that place of the earth. You cannot say the same of a Tropical sign that everytime Venus transits it it produces different results, because Venus is different in everyway to the previous time it was, including her spatial placements. While in a house in a certain place of the earth, you know Venus is in that house, and it will produce something specific to its position, because Venus is in the same spatial position it was the previous time we saw it. The Sun is not the central component in Geocentric astrology, hence giving it the status of spacedefiner is nuts... All tropicalists should just go ahead and jump to heliocentric astrology if they want to follow the logical implications of their system. The stars tell us the exact pure spaceframe around the earth regardless of its rotation (movement), and hence are worthy of being called the signs!

#### jg1982

##### Well-known member
Ok... this post was made a long time ago, but since you feel so strongly about it, I will answer, hummm...

Yes, it is true that everything has the capacity to evolve consciousness, hence, we beings supposedly composed purely of matter, which is "mindless" from the point of view of Mainstream Science, having life and consciousness. Everything has mind, but it is totally wrong to assume that everything has consciousness... Not even animals have developed consciousness well yet... Imagine an object.

First, there is nothing "totally wrong" you would have to be "totally right" to claim that. You don't strike me as knowing everything, but I might be wrong.

Animals have not developed consciousness well yet? Really? I think you must mean not to our level (as far as we know, not that we would really know), but consciousness it is, nonetheless. I guess you missed the part where I said that everything has SOME DEGREE of consciousness, I never said more or less than. I am sure that there are conscious beings out there to whom we are lesser than ants, yet, you would surely have a problem with them saying you have no consciousness. It is all so relative, my friend. I was talking along the lines of elementals, logoi, etc, NOT purely physical dense matter. That would be too linear on my part.

And, no, a planet does not have a consciousness yet...

Could you tell me how you possibly know that, please? Are you familiar with the theory of the planetary Logoi? If not, look it up. Now I am not claiming that is the truth, it is just something I believe in based on my experience. But, it is a little pretentious to affirm something with such degree of certainty, when it is OH so above us... amusing even.

Hence, it just spins and moves in a totally predictable direction. The Planet is a thing that is too big and powerful in comparison to us, and at the same time, has no consciousness, hence the deterministic capacity the Planet contains. Malefic planets are not called Malefics out of nowhere, I consider them genuinely malefic...

Woa.. ok, so planets must not have consciousness because they (physically) move in a totally predictable direction, hence having a deterministic quality... I guess any question of consciousness originating in higher planes of existence NOT bound by the physical movement must be out of the question, right? Also, how can you on the same breath mention that something has no consciousness AND call it malefic at the same time? Being malefic is an attribute of consciousness.

Otherwise, Astrology wouldn't be able to account for the harmful people living today...

I was not aware astrology had to account for the world population's quality. You know, that thing about stars pointing the way, NOT determining...and all that. Also, that thing about us being responsible for our actions, karma, etc... again, just my belief.

If you have the right aspect system, an look at the Moon placement of criminals, it ALWAYS is fault of the Malefics (in Astrological context, I still hold some belief in free will, and I can explain that, although it seems illogical at first since a thing logically is purely determined, or purelly indetermined). The Malefics are not just Cruel, they are downright Malefic... The Sun is the only truly cruel (not malefic) planet. Yet, are those Malefics (standing for our lower nature) really divine? I don't think so.

You are right, I think half of what you wrote here is illogical. I won't comment on the other half.

I am sorry if it sounds rash, but you don't even understand what a Sign truly is. You stand for Tropical signs yet the Tropical signs are more or less of an identical nature to the Sidereal signs in regards to how they are taken to work.

I am not sorry to sound rash, but I do not think ANYONE truly understands what a sign really is, and by the way you write, especially not you. If you disagree, fine. If you think you truly know what a sign is, fine. But, as far as I am concerned, I think we barely know anything about the powers that affect us, physical and beyond. I think we still have plenty of work ahead of us, evidence being the state of humanity today, with all its wars and strife. We are very immature, like it or not. It is, AGAIN, very pretentious to assume you know what a sign is and someone else does not. I think a lesson in humility would suit you well, unless, of course, one of those pesky malefics are making you a bit pretentious.

Why don't we go ahead an apply the logic of your statement to the Tropical signs:

"In following [Tropical] astrology logic, it is assumed that the fact that the [Planet] in this or the other sign from [The tropical Sun], must somehow mean that the influence of that sign is actually being somehow channeled into earth by the [Planet]. I think this is a flaw. It's very lineal thinking in my view. The universe, human consciousness, and its connection, I would like to think, has more dimensions to it, it's not only lineal"

Putting words in my keyboard.. is a nono, but I will play along.

The influence of the Tropical Sun is totally valid, but of other planets in the Tropical Zodaic I don't expect anything. They simply are almost always in a different position, different everything, even if the Tropical Zodiac says that those are in the same exact degree.

I find that sentence very confusing. Not sure what to make of it. Care to rephrase?

Both the Sidereal and Tropical Zodiac are based on alignments

Yes and no. I believe the Sidereal Zodiac is supposed to be based on alignment with the constellations, but we both know that is not the case at all. There is no such alignment, in fact. The tropical Zodiac is based, as far as I know, on the factual flow of the seasons based on the earth-sun relationship. So, if you want to speak of alignment, I would say the tropical Zodiac is more "scientific" in it's approach and conforms more to physical reality.

whether those alignments produce constantly the same result and spatial exactitude such as with the Sidereal Zodiac, or whether those alignments only are exact and constant with the Sun and ultra inconstant with the other planets (Tropical Zodiac) <- Even having constancy with the Sun is doubtful with Tropical as JUPITERASC has shown with his video (which I have to study carefully).

I have to study that video myself again, I forgot it by now. lol. Again, I am not sure how exact can an alignment be when is it not aligned to begin with (sidereal zodiac)? But I am kind of tired now and I don't feel like getting too much into this...right this minute.

Yes, the universe is not totally linear, but it does have linear stuff. In fact, due to the very fact that planets are round objects, we have to think in terms of alignments to constellations.

Heck, I am no scientist, but if I am not mistaken, quantum physics points to a universe in which NOTHING is linear, and everything has it's base in an abstract, multidimensional, mysterious base. Linear, mechanistic physics belongs to immature science, to early science. As humanity evolves, it seems to move more and more away from linear thinking. But I do not want to waste time philosophizing. The point i was trying to make is that the logic followed in assuming that "what we see is what we get" (sidereal) is sort of basic, and immature, in my view. I suspect there is more to the workings of Astrology than that simple view, which as a matter of fact, turns out to be incorrect, since sidereal astrology does not take the actual constellations into account, but an idealization of their position. By the way, spherical spinning objects do NOT suggest lines to me, it suggests movement, change, complexity, waves, not lines, abstract relationships, not concrete ones.

Physically, the planet will throw energy to ALL directions possible, which energies the Earth is going to end up catching? The ones that are aligned with her.

Correct me if I am wrong. But aligned with which part of her? Planets are spherical and spinning around the sun all the time. They are always aligned to each other from the right point of view (as I mentioned above). If a planet "throws" energy in all directions then it affects every other planet around it and vice-verse, by your own definition. That is the antithesis of linearity, at least two-dimensional linearity.

Noumenally, only flowing and dynamic stuff is round and hence less predictable. What is astrology about? It is about predictions, it is about paralyzing time and hence looking at stuff as a constant.

You lost me a bit here, sorry. Maybe I am too tired... but that statement is a bit confusing.

So, lets be a bit playful: only dynamic and flowing stuff is round, hence less predictable... so, since astrology is about predictions and "paralyzing" time...then it must not be round, nor flowing, not dynamic?

Your birth chart is a way of representing a timeframe gone constant and static. Hence, it is naturally about LINEAR alignments. Things you are ALIGNed with for the course of your life.

Well, there's a good way to play with words and twist the context of my original statement.

1) sidereal astrology does not observe true visual, factual alignment when claiming that the sun or any planet is in such or other constellation. So, from your own statement sidereal astrology is not in the right track itself, is it?

2) When speaking of alignment, I was talking about constellations, not planets. But it is valid that you bring up the concept of alignment as a principle to which I will respond: It is undeniable that planets have a specific physical location in the solar system at any given time, and thus in a way "aligned" or positioned in a specific spatial relationship to earth, yes. BUT, what colors that planet's characteristics, are the signs, and that's what the debate is really about.

A planet's position in the solar system is a matter of science, which any astronomer could tell you. The implications of the planets being in a position (due to the sign it is in) will be studied by astrology. Now, the trick is that siderealists and tropicalists disagree in this respect and will place the planets in different signs, according to different methods of defining the signs, and, hence, interpret differently the implications of a planets position on the same part of space. In my view, siderealists follow a very linear logic in defining signs by trying to put the planets against a (fictitious) visual background which are the constellations, instead of taking other factors into account, such as energy being channeled by the sun before arriving to earth, etc.

So yes, even though we can see planets are aligned according to our vision, it does not mean that the energetic implications/flow will follow that perceived alignment. Visual linearity does not necessarily equal functional, causal relationship. Example: the fact that you are standing in front of me, does not mean I will be thinking or connected to you. I could be concentrated in someone behind you...hence "jumping" you and connecting to that other person attention-wise. So my energetic relationship will be to that other person, not you, even though to the casual observer you are more "aligned" with me than the person behind you.

One of the laws of physics states that something will go forever in a straight line unless there is intervention. The Natal chart is a universe without intervention of any force, hence a static an unchanging universe.

Contradiction: If things will go on forever without intervention, and the chart is a universe without intervention then the chart cannot be static (by your definition) since without intervention it will go on forever. I am sure it's just a typo on your part.

The only thing that makes the natal chart significant is that one thing remains, the implications of the ORDER it contains...

Order is implied, since everything follows a law, an order. But I follow you point...

In a paralyzed universe, only order remains. In astrology, and in everything, order is geometrical and mathematical.

Paralyzed solar system, you mean, I am sure. Energy and movement are constant. Order is implied, whether in a "moving" universe (solar system), or "paralyzed", becase if you "paralyze" the universe as a snapshot and you find order, then there was order all along to begin with. But I am just being picky... I think I know what you are trying to get at.

Because Astrology is a physical way of looking at something that is not actually physical, but mental, we have to relate the physical concepts to mental concepts (this is the process we call "interpretation of a chart"). What is the physical way order is manifest? Through lines and alignments, and those compose the geometrical (physical mathematics) relationships between the significant existents.

All nice and dandy, except you are talking about elementary geometry and mathematics, again, echoes of the mechanistic physical universe of the middle ages. Those "lines" that you are talking about, break down at some point, hence are not really real, if you will. Aligned is a limited perception from a particular point of view, dependent on space and time. According to those crazy physicists, all matter is entangled, ONE, and thus apparent relationships and energetic relationships are weirder and more complex than the naked eye would suggest.

I hope I wasn't too abstract... I actually have a clear definition of everything I have stated.

I hope I wasn't too abstract either.

Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.

Nice little phrase.

Your claim can be reduced to saying that just because you do not know the mechanism behind the alignments between the Planets and the Stars, the mechanism doesn't actually exist.

Actually, I think you can "reduce" anyone's statement to anything you want it to be in order to serve your argument. I wholeheartedly disagree with your "reduction". I think you overestimate your power of synthesis a bit there. For what it's worth: No, that is not what I am saying at all.

Do you know the mechanism behind the alignments of planets with the Tropical Zodiac (out of which only those of the Sun might fall inside of the definition of alignment)? Then, following your logic, because you don't know the mechanism behind them, those alignments don't work either...

What is really a sign in technical terms? A sign is a section of space that holds specific implications.

I admit I do not really KNOW what a sign is, or where it derives its qualities and powers from, in fact, I am quite baffled by the whole thing. You, on the other hand seem to have it written in stone. Good for you?

If a "sign" doesn't even fall into the definition of what space is, then it is not a sign.

Chinese signs are not relative to space but to time. I would love to see you convince them they are wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. I would suggest to you that unless you back up your claims with hard evidence, then stay away from conclusive, authoritative statements, it's presumptuous.

Sidereal signs completely fall inside the definition of space. Tropical signs do not!

Lets see: Sidereal signs do NOT conform to actual physical spatial constellations. Tropical signs DO perfectly conform to spatial relationship to the sun and therefore the seasons... draw your own conclusions.