Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frank

Well-known member
vasilis:

You apparently either willfully ignore whatever is presented to you or are intentionally being obtuse and are trying to frustrate discussion.

It is an obvious fact that that Tropical Zodiac places 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox. I really don't care what misguided, ill-thought out, hair-brained scheme you've created out of ignorance - but if you deny that fact, I have no more to say to you.

The Tropical Zodiac defines 0 Aries as coincident with the Vernal Equinox. Period.
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
Zodiac Signs are areas in the sky that contain stars. These areas are also called Constellations.
But what affect us are the planets, the Sun and the Moon. They are placed in the Zodiac Constellations.

I'm waiting your answer about Jupiter who's chilling somewhere else than Taurus. He is chilling in Aries. What do you think about this situation?

If you were not an educated author (of a book on this new Astrology), and I'm assuming the administer of that website that promotes your book, I would have given up long ago. I do respect your opinion and think it worth the time for us to understand the nature of Astrology. But, you are not listening to either of us, and it may be we do not appear to be listening to you, either. The fact that you do not think I have answered your question of where Jupiter is reflects your incomprehension of the concept we are trying to explain.

In our argument, the stars and signs are independent from one another to the point of there being a difference between where the constellations are and where we consider the signs to be. IF the stars do not form the signs, THEN the signs are not entirely affected by the stars. Remember! This is our side, ok?

My understanding is as follows: This key point, the Vernal Equinox, is where the Tropical Zodiac begins. This is where the signs begin. From there, each signs follows as 30 degrees of the 360 possible as viewed from earth. WHEREVER that point happens to be in the constellations is where 0 degrees Aries is. It does not matter where the constellation of Pisces is to define the Vernal Equinox. This is why your astronomical data is irrelevant.

Are you hearing this?

In your argument, I understand that the Vernal Equinox point moves in the constellations and even the constellations move themselves(as our entire solar system moves in relation to other systems), and how Jupiter is, at the time, in the constellation of Aries. Even the individual stars move within the constellations, right?

This movement does not affect where the zodiac begins, because the stars are NOT where the signs are! That point of the Equinox IS the sign of Aries, where the cycle begins. NOT the stars. Does this make sense? Lol. NOT THE STARS. Even if this is your theory, wherein the zodiac IS the constellations, you are misrepresenting ours. Or, in the least, portraying a profound misunderstanding of the Tropical Zodiac, and how Astrology works in this system.

As Frank said, if you cannot understand this, then it's hardly worth continuing.
 
Last edited:

vasilis

Well-known member
Frank:
“It is an obvious fact that that Tropical Zodiac places 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox.”

I agree 100%. The Tropical Zodiac placed 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox 2094 years ago. Please do not forget the second part of this last sentence.

Frank:
“I really don't care what misguided, ill-thought out, hair-brained scheme you've created out of ignorance - but if you deny that fact, I have no more to say to you.”

Of course! After forgetting to answer my previous questions about the Zodiac Signs that derive and are equal with the Zodiac Constellations, it is the end of your arguments.
 

Frank

Well-known member
Some points:

- Claudius Ptolemy didn't "make Horoscopic Astrology" from the same Wikipedia article quoted above:

Much of the content of the Tetrabiblos was collected from earlier sources; Ptolemy's achievement was to order his material in a systematic way, showing how the subject could, in his view, be rationalized.

- Astrologers already are aware - and have been since Ptolemy's time - of precession, and someone claiming they are not will not change that fact.

- I am well aware of Ptolemy's work and have read it both in translation, in Latin and and working on it in Koine Greek. Please do not presume that I do not know of which I speak. Nowhere does Ptolemy state that the signs and constellations are identical.

- The Vernal Equinox is where the Ecliptic intersects the Celestial Equator northbound - which describes the beginning of the sign Aries at 0 degrees in the Tropical Zodiac.

- It is an exercise in futility for someone trying to invent a new system based on a misreading of source material.

- Assertions are not facts.

- I've been studying astrology for virtually my entire life. When someone who seems to have little grasp of how astrology is practiced proposes illogical changes based on his or her own insufficient knowledge of the subject - and tries to promote and sell a self-published book and charge for calculating charts the "right" way, I smell a rat.
 

Frank

Well-known member
Frank:


I agree 100%. The Tropical Zodiac placed 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox 2094 years ago. Please do not forget the second part of this last sentence.

Frank:


Of course! After forgetting to answer my previous questions about the Zodiac Signs that derive and are equal with the Zodiac Constellations, it is the end of your arguments.

And the Tropical Zodiac still starts at 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox.

I'm not going to waste my time refuting assertions. Give me actual proof that the Signs got their names from the Constellations and not the other way around.
 

Frank

Well-known member
Also, since you put so much stock in Ptolemy, why didn't he use Ophiuchus in his delineations?

I would hazard a guess to say that it was because it was never considered an astrological sign.
 

vasilis

Well-known member
Pisceanfool
“In our argument, the stars and signs are independent from one another to the point of there being a difference between where the constellations are and where we consider the signs to be. IF the stars do not form the signs, THEN the signs are not entirely affected by the stars. Remember! This is our side, ok?”

You do not have any right to remove the Zodiac Signs from the Constellations.
I'm terribly sorry that it is simply impossible.
I explained it to you so many times. Please read my texts again. Your are not allowed to reinvent Tropical Astrology. Some people found it long ago. Read their texts.

Astrology is not fantasy it is based on science. It was based on science of 100 A.D. When Ptolemy wrote his “Tetrabiblos”.
Now it is based once again on sciences with my New theory of the “Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac”

“My understanding is as follows: This key point, the Vernal Equinox, is where the Tropical Zodiac begins. This is where the signs begin. From there, each signs follows as 30 degrees of the 360 possible as viewed from earth. WHEREVER that point happens to be in the constellations is where 0 degrees Aries is. It does not matter where the constellation of Pisces is to define the Vernal Equinox. This is why your astronomical data is irrelevant.”

No, Vernal Equinox was in 0 Aries 2094 years ago. Read some books of Astronomy to understand it.

Let me ask you a question now. Since Jupiter is in Aries, why do you make your Horoscopes and predictions assuming that Jupiter is in Taurus?
 

vasilis

Well-known member
Dear Frank,

You cannot imagine how many people, that read my book, said that their life has changed.
It was so obvious that the old Signs do not correspond to the New Astronomic data, that "Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" came to fertilize a fertile ground.

Anyway, thank you for your critical point of view, even if you have not read my book, you look so sure about its falseness. That's ok. Every New theory should be dropped into the Kaiadas of Knowledge. Also ok.
I did not expect from a Tropical Astrologer something different.
 
Last edited:

Frank

Well-known member
vasilis:

Whose definition of constellation boundaries do you use and when were they codified?
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
vasilis,

You simply don't understand at all what we are saying. This is painfully clear based on your perpetual spouting of the same information over and over despite our explanations. And we are saying the same thing about the Vernal Equinox, over and over, and you clearly do NOT understand. I find your attitude and website incredibly pretentious and frustrating. Just trying to see if I relate to your version of "Aquarius" I apparently have to pay?

Jupiter in Taurus:

"The Vernal Equinox is where the Ecliptic intersects the Celestial Equator northbound - which describes the beginning of the sign Aries at 0 degrees in the Tropical Zodiac." Jupiter is 37 degrees from that point, in the constellation of Aries, and at 7 degrees in the sign Taurus.

What is so confusing about this? The Tropical Zodiac is used by many very renowned and respected Astrologers, and you sit here saying we are all ignorant of our own system?
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
At this point it's not who is right or wrong, it is you understanding what we are saying before you continue with your system/theory.
 

vasilis

Well-known member
Pisceanfool:
You simply don't understand at all what we are saying. This is painfully clear based on your perpetual spouting of the same information over and over despite our explanations. And we are saying the same thing about the Vernal Equinox, over and over, and you clearly do NOT understand. I find your attitude and website incredibly pretentious and frustrating. Just trying to see if I relate to your version of "Aquarius" I apparently have to pay?

Frank:
Whose definition of constellation boundaries do you use and when were they codified?

On the contrary, you both understand what I'm saying but there is no way to accept it. You are not used to work with scientists. You don't care about scientific data and methodology. I can see why. You don't want to start it over again! You've learned Tropical Astrology once and everything is rolling fine except for some New theory that comes to stir the waters of the discipline. No, you just don't want to let anybody spoil your labor.
And of course when a New theory comes to solve Astrology's problems, you smell rats, you can hardly continue talking. And you keep saying the same old unscientific and untenable argument:

the Tropical Zodiac still starts at 0 Aries at the Vernal Equinox

My answer is the same:
No, Vernal Equinox was in 0 Aries 2094 years ago.

Since I have so many things to do, I'll discuss further only if you come up with something new.
By the way, I had a conversation with a reader of my book today. He was so happy to be an Aquarius instead of Pisces. He found why, all those years, the Piscean characteristics did not suit his character: He has always been an Aquarian but did not know about it.

Just take a brief look into you new Zodiac Signs, Frank and PisceanFool, you never know what you could discover. You know where to find the book.
 

Frank

Well-known member
I've studied all sorts of astrology - including Vedic and Western Sidereal and your assumption that I am unfamiliar with what you are speaking about is insulting.

I also studied astronomy at a University level, so your posts are doubly misinformed and insulting.

Face it - you're here to sell your book and get hits on your website.
 

vasilis

Well-known member
Frank:
I've studied all sorts of astrology - including Vedic and Western Sidereal and your assumption that I am unfamiliar with what you are speaking about is insulting.

"Συ είπας" - You said so !
(answer of Jesus to someone who was pressing him to say what he was asked for, Matthew 26:64)
 
Last edited:

Frank

Well-known member
I'd also like to point out a few things from what seems to be a preferred "source" for the original poster.

I suggest reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac

This article has an excellent table wich shows the difference between the Signs (both Tropical and Siderea) and the Constellations (as described by the IAU).

It also has this telling statement (bold emphasis mine):

Unlike the zodiac signs in astrology, which are all thirty degrees in length, the astronomical constellations vary widely in size. The boundaries of all the constellations in the sky were set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 1930. This was, in essence, a mapping exercise to make the work of astronomers more efficient, and the boundaries of the constellations are not therefore in any meaningful sense an 'equivalent' to the zodiac signs.

Now,isn't that what I've been saying all along?

The IAU codified those constellation boundaries only in 1930. Astronomers ignorant of how astrology is practiced have been using those boundaries (which they themselves set) to attempt to debunk astrology - which those boundaries have nothing to do with.

I wonder if there is something more nefarious at work here other than express a naive viewpoint and trying to sell books?

The author also seems to be self-promoting shamelessly via a Wikipedia page - which certainly appears to be self-authored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasilis_Kanatas

I also ask people interested to read the Talk entries about this page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vasilis_Kanatas

Is it possible that the self-admitted astronomer author is trying sneakily to discredit astrology?

Perhaps the thought process was something like, "Let's make up a completely ludicrous and ill-founded system touting a new kind of astrology, and once we get enough people to bite on it and actually pay for charts and interpretations, we can expose it all as a hoax, just to make astrologers and the people who use astrology look like idiots."
 

Frank

Well-known member
To shed further light on this using real astrology, some might what to consider the chart for the original poster's first post to this forum.
 

Attachments

  • vfirstpost.jpg
    vfirstpost.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 25

vasilis

Well-known member
Frank:
I also studied astronomy at a University level,
Yes, you definitely did.

Actually you are 100% qualified to talk about Astronomy.

And of - course, yesterday you learned about the father of Astrology, Claudius Ptolemy.

Claudius Ptolemy didn't "make Horoscopic Astrology" from the same Wikipedia article quoted above:
I also learned yesterday that Physics is not enough to deal with Astrology. What you need is only volition. To accept what Tropical Astrologers tell you. To say that Vernal Equinox is in Aries 0 NOW and not 2094 years ago.

Anyway, "Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac" is a New Astrological Theory which is adapting this ancient discipline in the New Scientific Data.

Astrology is not a religion to stay unchanged through Centuries. It is a discipline, a field of study. It has to evolve.

I'm not forcing nobody to accept my New theory. I believe that there is enough evidence to support this theory.

It is not the first time to see people attacking new ideas. Sometimes politely and more often evilly. To tell you the truth, I more concerned about my colleagues and not Frank's.

Good night from the navel of the Earth.
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
On the contrary, you both understand what I'm saying but there is no way to accept it. You are not used to work with scientists. You don't care about scientific data and methodology. I can see why. You don't want to start it over again! You've learned Tropical Astrology once and everything is rolling fine except for some New theory that comes to stir the waters of the discipline. No, you just don't want to let anybody spoil your labor.
And of course when a New theory comes to solve Astrology's problems, you smell rats, you can hardly continue talking. And you keep saying the same old unscientific and untenable argument:



My answer is the same:
No, Vernal Equinox was in 0 Aries 2094 years ago.

Since I have so many things to do, I'll discuss further only if you come up with something new.
By the way, I had a conversation with a reader of my book today. He was so happy to be an Aquarius instead of Pisces. He found why, all those years, the Piscean characteristics did not suit his character: He has always been an Aquarian but did not know about it.

Just take a brief look into you new Zodiac Signs, Frank and PisceanFool, you never know what you could discover. You know where to find the book.

First of all, I don't think Aquarius makes any sense in my relatively educated opinion unless you have reinvented it's interpretation.

I am currently involved in research with the Psychology department in my University and finishing a straight Psychology B.A. this May(not clinical, but for research), and am looking towards a Ph. D. in a sub-field to conduct experimental psychology related to a sub-field.

The scientific method is going to be my career, people much more qualified than yourself have commended my ability, and thanks for assuming that due to your own incomprehension of our painfully explicit explanation of the Signs being independent of the constellations that I do not care for scientific data or methodology. Hopefully this does not seem as if I am attacking the OP.

I suppose there is nothing left to discuss, for you clearly do not understand that the 0 Aries you refer to (the beginning of the constellation of Aries) is completely independent of the 0 Aries we are referring to (the point of the vernal equinox). We KNOW the vernal equinox is not where is was 2094 years ago. I don't know how else to explain this.

At this point I would also beg to argue as Frank has, that you are simply 'trolling'.
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
Again, this is not about the validity of your system to our system, it is about you and your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Tropical Zodiac.
 

vasilis

Well-known member
Since we agree that we disagree, there is no reason to continue this dialog.

If somebody wants to understand what we support, there is enough dialog material on the previous posts of this thread.

it is about you and your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Tropical Zodiac

It looks like you want to talk over again, doesn' t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top