Zonark noticed this as well just days agoI am very confused. I took a glance at my chart in vedic astrology and it seems to exemplify that my Moon is in Cancer and my Mars is in Leo, whereas my natal chart is Moon in Leo and Mars in Virgo. Please can someone explain to me how this works scientifically?
Zonark also mentioned that planets/stars seen in the skies with naked eye viewing differ markedly from planets/stars as shown on Tropical charts on astro.comHello, I downloaded a program called Stellarium eager to learn the constellations and, well, it puts them all in the right place
but I look on astrology sites like astro.com and it says the Sun is in Leo when it's clearly right in the center of Cancer according to this program
and that the Moon is in Gemini when it is clearly right in the middle of Taurus conjuncting Aldebaran.
I'm looking at the stars right now with my eyeballs... the planets and stars are not in the constellations astro.com is saying they are. They're consistently off by about a whole sign for each object.
EXPLANATIONPlease can someone explain to me how this works scientifically?
Ok thanks! It's still very confusing though!
Apparently Western Tropical astrology is regarded as more psychologically oriented and delineates natal charts from that perspective
The crossing of the Ecliptic by the Celestial Equator occurs twice a year at two points directly in opposition to each other, known as the Equinoctial points – these two points demarcate the Spring Equinox and/or Vernal Point and the Autumnal Equinox and/or Autumnal PointA zodiac is a system of measurement, just as the metric system of lengths, weights,volumes is a system of measurement.
The metric system has a counterpart (a different system of measurement) in the English system.
Both systems measure things accurately, within that system, and a measurement from one system can be translated into the other. For example, one meter is the same as 39.37 inches.
The two commonly used zodiacs, the tropical and the sidereal, are two systems of measuring the sky for purposes of locating celestial bodies. The difference in the two systems is their point of beginning.
The tropical zodiac begins (0 Aries) at the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year (the vernal equinox). It is observed and measured by astronomers annually
It is the Tropical Zodiac that 'begins at a point believed to have been the vernal equinox at some given date in the distant past when astrology was in its infancy, it's point of beginning' is permanently now fixed at 0º AriesThe sidereal zodiac begins at a point believed to have been the vernal equinox on some given date in the distant past, when astrology was in its infancy. Its point of beginning is fixed in the heavens (is the same as a fixed star)
And as of this moment, the Tropical Zodiac remains permanently fixed, as it has done for approximately the past two thousand years at 0º Aries BECAUSE THE TROPICAL ZODIAC IGNORES PRECESSIONAs of this moment, using the Lahiri Ayanamsa (the official ayanamsa of India), the sidereal zodiac is 24 degrees and 3 minutes earlier in the signs than the tropical zodiac. There are different ayanamsa (Fagan, Krishnamurti, Raman, etc.) which vary slightly in their point of beginning. If your Moon is at 18 Leo 38 in tropical, you will find it at 24 Cancer 35 in sidereal (Lahiri). (5-18-38 minus 23 deg 03 min = 4-24-35). The separation of the two points of beginning (0 Aries) increases slightly with the passing years (about 1 degree every 70 years); in other words, 70 years ago, the difference between the two was about 23 degrees rather than the current 24. On 10 August 1943, the difference was 23 d 04 m. [Lahiri])
Tropical and Sidereal do both work as methods of natal chart delineationBoth systems work
If this was true then both systems would be identical. Instead, clearly Sidereal and Tropical are different. This brief video clearly explains the differences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=relatedBoth systems take the Precession of the Equinoxes into account
Zonark clearly states the differences between the two systems(many sidereal astrologers will disagree with me here, but that is because they have not thought out the problem.) But each system must be taken and used on its own terms. To translate from one zodiac to the other is not so simple as converting from the Metric to the English system, because not only is there a quantitative value, but also a qualitative one (the "meanings" of sign, or of specific degrees).
The tropical zodiac is the one used by most western astrologers. The sidereal zodiac is used by the Vedic astrologers (Indian). The two systems of astrology, while sharing most of the fundamentals, differ greatly in method. I would suggest to beginning students of astrology that they arbitrarily choose one system or the other and work within its confines. Once the student gains proficiency in the fundamentals and basic methods of the chosen system, then the other system may be profitably explored without causing confusion.
Let's assume that a person has a tropical Ascendant of 12 Cancer 28. Then, subtracting 24 d 03 m, we find that in the sidereal zodiac the Ascendant falls in 18 Gemini 25. First, if the Ascendant represents "personality" [physical constitution, appearance, behavioral presentation], then we should be able to see which description -- Gemini or Cancer -- best fits the actual person; the two signs are quite different in their qualities and characteristics. Second, the lord of Gemini is Mercury and the lord of Cancer is Moon. These two planets will probably be posited in different signs and houses in the given chart, and behold different aspects and other conditioning. So, with some study of a particular chart -- of a person whose character is well understood -- the astrologer should be able to decide (at least on this basis) which of the two zodiacs seems to be "the correct one."
Also, in about 80% of all instances, the signs on the house cusps will change (use whole sign houses for this experiment, to simplify). This means the lords of the houses will also change. This should result in very different readings for the affairs of the houses. If you have already acquired basic skill in chart interpretation, I invite you to try this experiment with three or four charts. You may be very surprised by what you discover.
There is an approximately 24 degree difference between the location of the Moon in the eye of Aldebaran as observed with naked eye viewing and the location of the Moon as given on astro.com Tropical charts.Hello, I downloaded a program called Stellarium eager to learn the constellations and, well, it puts them all in the right place but I look on astrology sites like astro.com and it says the Sun is in Leo when it's clearly right in the center of Cancer according to this program and that the Moon is in Gemini when it is clearly right in the middle of Taurus conjuncting Aldebaran.
Tropical ZodiacAs I said, "many sidereal astrologers will disagree with me here [in saying that both zodiacs allow for precession], but that is because they have not thought out the problem."
I have no desire to debate the question.
If this was true then both systems would be identical. Instead, clearly Sidereal and Tropical are different. ...this statement is simply not true. The reasoning is fallacious. Any and all Systems of Measurement, of whatever sort, must rely on at least one arbitrarily chosen standard. For example, the Metric system defines "the Meter" arbitrarily, and then the entire system (how elegant) unfolds from that. The English system relies on several arbitrary -- and unrelated -- standards (hence its clumsy and unwieldy character), but both systems serve to measure length, volume, weight, etc. with equal accuracy. They are not identical.
And as of this moment, the Tropical Zodiac remains permanently fixed, as it has done for approximately the past two thousand years at 0º Aries BECAUSE THE TROPICAL ZODIAC IGNORES PRECESSION. Also fallacious.
Tropical and Sidereal do both work as methods of natal chart delineation I hope you are not implying that tropical works only for "natal chart delineation." It would take even a modestly-skilled tropical astrologer less than ten minutes to demolish such a contention.
...that event no longer takes place at 0º Aries or thereabouts as it once did over two thousand years ago approximately or thereabouts. Depends on definition of 0 Aries. This is the key to the entire question, coupled with the "arbitrary standard" I mention above.
There are radical astrologers who maintain that the "zodiac" should consist of 13 unequal divisions, including Ophiucus, a constellation which holds a small part of the ecliptic. There is also the draconic zodiac, which uses the lunar north node as its point of beginning -- a sort of moveable feast. The Mesoamerican astrologers used a twenty-sign zodiac (I am oversimplifying); their predictive work stands up to rigorous examination, as demonstrated by recently translated temple inscriptions.
I will repeat and reaffirm what I said. Both systems take precession of the equinoxes into account.
We are agreed that 'a sky with absolutely no fixed stars'I don't care to debate......
Now, let's imagine a sky with absolutely no fixed stars. All that we see in the sky are the planets of our solar system. Under these conditions, the sidereal zodiac is impossible. There is no Spica to serve as fiduciary. But the tropical zodiac continues on its merry way, unperturbed. Thus the criterion of parsimony is met. We have eliminated an entire set of units (fixed stars) and still our mathematical model of the sky (the tropical zodiac) is effective in every sense of the word, while the sidereal zodiac is consigned to oblivion.