Is the position of a planet in the Tropical Zodiac absolute?

[AstroNous]

The question has been written.

I am asking this because I am forming my "own" system of Astrology; which is only an attempt to correct the many logical and ontological flaws of every astrological concept I come across. Astrology is more or less corrupt, but I have seen it working, and it can only work with the most basic and/or ontological concepts. Only when it reflects existence, astrology can actually explain it.

Forgive my ignorance if I don't use the official, and/or best terms... I am no expert in astronomy...

I am sure that if we have the charts of two people from any difference of age except 0 (which means the same age, hence not a difference) and they have their, for the sake of example, Jupiter in the same exact position in their Sidereal Zodiac charts, that Jupiter is going to be in the exact same place in the dimension we call the Ecliptic... But, is the case the same if the two charts have Jupiter in the same exact degree in their Tropical charts?

Of course, the Ecliptic is the dimension of planet Earth that can be assigned an absolute spatial framework in where all planets are capable, more or less, of moving without too much eccentricities.

Signs stand for space, that's a fact. They don't move, and they shouldn't. Intead, they are transited.

Planets stand for time, that's a fact. They move and don't have a spatial framework from Earth's perspective. Also, we give timeframes only to the planets, not to the signs. Now, giving space to the planets, such as in directions is very possibly absolutely wrong.

Houses stand for space time, that's quite possibly a fact. The houses are an absolute set of coordinates of a movable entity. This definition falls in perfect alignment with the Campanus house system, which I use. Campanus is the ontologically valid house system. Of course, many Astrologers will try to look for ways an individual is different to another if they are born the same day, same ascendant, and thus will put strong emphasis on a house system that explain variety. I actually use divisional charts + the actually valid house system + house lords (and thanks to my current knowledge of Jaimini I assess the houselords (only the houselords not the houses!) from a cusp in an even sign in counting in reverse).

If a sign system isn't based on a absolute space-frame, it becomes absolutely wrong, at least in being used as a sign system. By the moment a space-frame (such as a cartesian coordinate grid) is not absolute in relation to its centre, it starts to stray far from the definition of space-frame. Space is the absolute set of coordinates relative to a source. Space can be both relative and absolute. If there is a source of all in this universe, then Space is totally absolute though... And, there is a good probability it is.

Depending on the answer I get, I will end up thinking that the Tropical Zodiac is valid as a Zodiac, or that it only offers only a single entity with implications, the Tropical Sun Sign.

 

[Alice McDermott]

The question has been written.

I am sure that if we have the charts of two people from any difference of age except 0 (which means the same age, hence not a difference) and they have their, for the sake of example, Jupiter in the same exact position in their Sidereal Zodiac charts, that Jupiter is going to be in the exact same place in the dimension we call the Ecliptic... But, is the case the same if the two charts have Jupiter in the same exact degree in their Tropical charts?

Of course, the Ecliptic is the dimension of planet Earth that can be assigned an absolute spatial framework in where all planets are capable, more or less, of moving without too much eccentricities.

I am not quite sure what you mean, but the ecliptic is the path of the Earth's rotation around the Sun. However, as we are on planet Earth, it looks to us as though the Sun and planets are moving around the Earth.

Planets will be in exactly the same place on the ecliptic whether they are calculated from a sidereal or tropical perspective, but in different zodiacs. For example, if a planet is conjunct Spica at 24 Libra in the tropical zodiac it will still be conjunct Spica in the sidereal zodiac, but at approximately 0 Libra in that system as it is calculated from a different perspective.

Signs stand for space, that's a fact. They don't move, and they shouldn't. Intead, they are transited.

The signs of the zodiac are probably the Earth's energy field divided into 12, 30 degree segments along the ecliptic (the path of the Earth's rotation around the Sun), starting when the Sun, from the point of view of Earth, is at 00N00 declination on the Equator. This point is called 0 Aries and the signs of the zodiac are mapped in even, 30 degree segments along the ecliptic from this point.

Planets stand for time, that's a fact. They move and don't have a spatial framework from Earth's perspective. Also, we give timeframes only to the planets, not to the signs. Now, giving space to the planets, such as in directions is very possibly absolutely wrong.

Progressions and directions map internal development and growth within the individual itself. These can be so accurate that I have been able to map the time my children and grandchildren said their first words and took their first steps. Transits trigger development and events in the world. When the two systems come together it usually marks important times in a person's life. For example, Rolf Harris underwent his trial for child abuse when Solar Arc Neptune conjoined his natal MC which was triggered by transiting Saturn moving over that point as well.

Houses stand for space time, that's quite possibly a fact.

Well, yes. The Midheaven-IC is calculated from the time of birth and the Ascendant-Descendant, Vertex-antiVertex and house cusps are then derived from the place of birth.

This definition falls in perfect alignment with the Campanus house system, which I use. Campanus is the ontological valid house system.

If a sign system isn't based on a absolute space-frame, it becomes absolutely wrong, at least in being used as a sign system.

All house systems are based on various ways of dividing time and space.

As far as I understand the Campanus house system is based on the prime vertical, the great circle which cuts the east and west points of the horizon and passes through the zenith and nadir at right-angles to the observer's meridian. This is divided into twelve equal sections with the corresponding intersection with the ecliptic taken as the house cusps.

This gives a three dimensional view of space by emphasizing the planet's position in relation to the horizon and meridian at the place of birth.

I have extensively studied house systems, but for some reason the methods don't stick in my mind and I have to re-read them and work them out each time, so I will leave comments to those who have a greater grasp of this area.

For those interested, here is a good explanation of the different ways house systems are calculated, with illustrations: http://www.uraniatrust.org/astrology-articles/the-astronomy-of-houses.html

Depending on the answer I get, I will end up thinking that the Tropical Zodiac is valid as a Zodiac, .

As far as I am aware, it is the only valid zodiac. The zodiac of the Constellations are a man made construct combining various stars into combinations we call 'constellations' and the combinations of stars into constellations can change according to the culture of a country. Sidereal calculations don't even do this as they are only losely related to the uneven constellations. The Tropical zodiac is based on the Earth itself and its rotation around the Sun.

I must admit I don't fully understand what you wanted to present, so please forgive me if I haven't properly commented on your post.

Alice

 

[AstroNous]

I must admit I don't fully understand what you wanted to present, so please forgive me if I haven't properly commented on your post.

I wanted to know if someone around here knows if the position of a planet in the Tropical Zodiac around the Earth is truly objective, or it is just a calculation derivated from the Tropical Sun Position. Hence, the example of two people with different Tropical Sun sign, but with a planet in the exact same degree in the Tropical zodiac. Does their planet fall in the same position in an actual significant dimension of space?

I never asked for anything else... Still, Thanks, for some facts and some interpretations. I realize that they were sent with more or less good intentions. I don't want to ignite a "Which Zodiac is the Zodiac" debate, unless it is necessary... Not until I finish my research... The time is not ripe yet...

Quote:
Depending on the answer I get, I will end up thinking that the Tropical Zodiac is valid as a Zodiac, .

As far as I am aware, it is the only valid zodiac. The zodiac of the Constellations are a man made construct combining various stars into combinations we call 'constellations' and the combinations of stars into constellations can change according to the culture of a country. Sidereal calculations don't even do this as they are only losely related to the uneven constellations. The Tropical zodiac is based on the Earth itself and its rotation around the Sun.

Like I said, I am more inclined for getting my answer and proceeding with my research... Unless the debate is necessary I won't ignite it. But, I do feel a need to speak about this point...

I totally agree that the constellations are not objective groupings of stars, but this fact actually makes the Vedic style sidereal Zodiac more valid. The sidereal Vedic is definitively an objective space around the earth. That's a fact. Now I am expecting the same for the tropical zodiac if it is to be called a Zodiac. A Zodiac is that which defines the space around the earth.

See, what is the point of an "astrologically significant object" in the end? That its energy affects us. I don't get why people think that the actual arbitrary constellation is the one supposed to be giving the specific energy associated with the sign... All the stars that adorn the night sky, all the stars that give the different variations of activity on the monotone space around earth belong to our galaxy, thus all are anchored to the Galactic center. So, one just goes ahead and divides the skies in 12 different regular sections around that totally valid definer of objective space (meaning that regardless of age difference if two people have a planet in the same exact place in the Zodiac, they actually have the planet in the exact same place in the dimension covered by the Zodiac). The true Ayanamsa is the Galactic center at 0 degrees Sagittarius. Putting the Center in between the first (Mula, Root), and last (Jyeshta, Eldest) Nakshatra (I wonder if those names are just casualties (sarcasm)), and just like a cusp it stands between two houses (two sections of space), yet it is an actual significant point (such as an Ascendant). Just as the houses are defined by spatial cusps that are subject to rotational motion (space + time), just as the Tropical Zodiac is defined by spatial cusps, the Sidereal is defined by cusps too. The spatial frame of the Sidereal Vedic is totally valid, that's a fact... Now, I am trying to find the answer to the spatial validity of the Tropical Zodiac... Of course, the seasons are not to be ignored, hence, even if I find out that the Tropical is spatially invalid, I will keep the "Tropical Sun Sign" as the sign of Terra (Planet Earth).

The question simplified:

Think of a chart with houses but no planets or stars... Very possibly, you can say nothing about it. Think of a chart with houses and planets, but no stars except for the Sun... How does the position of a planet actually makes a difference apart from being in a house, since everytime one looks at a planet in the Tropical Zodiac in a certain position, the planet is in a different "season" (position from the Sun), distance, and position from earth? Now, of course, the question is again... Is the planet actually in the same position in space as it was the previous time it was in the exact same Tropical Zodiac degree? If it does not come from an actual space in which the planets move, the "zodiac" in question is not a Zodiac. The Tropical Zodiac surefire defines an existing and constant cyclical relationship between the Sun and Earth, but what of the other planets? Is it constant with them, or not? If not, no Zodiac... Yet, if I add the stars there is an absolute background I can use... A Cartesian grid, authentic differences produced by certain spatial positions... The question simplified: Do I need the stars or not?

 

[JUPITERASC]

I wanted to know if someone around here knows
if the position of a planet in the Tropical Zodiac around the Earth is truly objective,
or it is just a calculation derivated from the Tropical Sun Position.

The position of a planet 'in the Tropical Zodiac around the Earth'
IS 'derived from the Tropical Sun Position'

i.e.

The position of a planet 'in the Tropical Zodiac around the Earth'
IS relative to the Tropical Sun Position http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related

Hence,
the example of two people with different Tropical Sun sign,
but with a planet in the exact same degree in the Tropical zodiac.
Does their planet fall in the same position in an actual significant dimension of space?

Not necessarily

because

given
'two people with different Tropical Sun sign'

and
given that

those two people with those two different Tropical Sun signs
each has some other planet that is not the sun
in the exact same DEGREE in the Tropical Zodiac

then
although those two planets appear to be in the exact same DEGREE in the Tropical zodiac

in fact,
three dimensionally,
those two planets are not necessarily in the same position in an actual significant dimension of space
IF
'an actual significant dimension of space' = latitude and/or declination

I never asked for anything else... Still, Thanks, for some facts and some interpretations.
I realize that they were sent with more or less good intentions.
I don't want to ignite a "Which Zodiac is the Zodiac" debate, unless it is necessary...
Not until I finish my research... The time is not ripe yet...

Like I said, I am more inclined for getting my answer and proceeding with my research...
Unless the debate is necessary I won't ignite it. But, I do feel a need to speak about this point...

Since you feel no need to ignite a "Which Zodiac is the Zodiac" debate,
my response thus far concentrates
on discussing an answer to your question based solely on the Tropical Zodiac

I totally agree that the constellations are not objective groupings of stars, but this fact actually makes the Vedic style sidereal Zodiac more valid. The sidereal Vedic is definitively an objective space around the earth. That's a fact.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45515

QUOTE


'…..man did not see pictures in the night skies
and then circumscribe the constellations
according to artistic vision.
Instead
man noted that people born when certain groupings of stars were rising
or setting
or directly overhead
exhibited certain characteristics in common


These characteristics seemed animalistic,
bird like,
aquatic
heroic
or ultra humanistic.

Once this correlation was made,
the symbolic mind of man
assigned SHAPE to groupings of stars
for easy reference.

Some shapes were earthly, human

some creative fantasies

but each shape or constellation
represented symbolically
THE OBSERVED EFFECTS OF THAT GROUP OF STARS
when manifested in the life of a person...' Robert Huntz Granite

Now I am expecting the same for the tropical zodiac if it is to be called a Zodiac. A Zodiac is that which defines the space around the earth.

See, what is the point of an "astrologically significant object" in the end? That its energy affects us. I don't get why people think that the actual arbitrary constellation is the one supposed to be giving the specific energy associated with the sign... All the stars that adorn the night sky, all the stars that give the different variations of activity on the monotone space around earth belong to our galaxy, thus all are anchored to the Galactic center. So, one just goes ahead and divides the skies in 12 different regular sections around that totally valid definer of objective space (meaning that regardless of age difference if two people have a planet in the same exact place in the Zodiac, they actually have the planet in the exact same place in the dimension covered by the Zodiac). The true Ayanamsa is the Galactic center at 0 degrees Sagittarius. Putting the Center in between the first (Mula, Root), and last (Jyeshta, Eldest) Nakshatra (I wonder if those names are just casualties (sarcasm)), and just like a cusp it stands between two houses (two sections of space), yet it is an actual significant point (such as an Ascendant). Just as the houses are defined by spatial cusps that are subject to rotational motion (space + time), just as the Tropical Zodiac is defined by spatial cusps, the Sidereal is defined by cusps too. The spatial frame of the Sidereal Vedic is totally valid, that's a fact... Now, I am trying to find the answer to the spatial validity of the Tropical Zodiac... Of course, the seasons are not to be ignored, hence, even if I find out that the Tropical is spatially invalid, I will keep the "Tropical Sun Sign" as the sign of Terra (Planet Earth).

The question simplified:

Think of a chart with houses but no planets or stars... Very possibly, you can say nothing about it. Think of a chart with houses and planets, but no stars except for the Sun... How does the position of a planet actually makes a difference apart from being in a house, since everytime one looks at a planet in the Tropical Zodiac in a certain position, the planet is in a different "season" (position from the Sun), distance, and position from earth? Now, of course, the question is again... Is the planet actually in the same position in space as it was the previous time it was in the exact same Tropical Zodiac degree? If it does not come from an actual space in which the planets move, the "zodiac" in question is not a Zodiac. The Tropical Zodiac surefire defines an existing and constant cyclical relationship between the Sun and Earth, but what of the other planets? Is it constant with them, or not? If not, no Zodiac... Yet, if I add the stars there is an absolute background I can use... A Cartesian grid, authentic differences produced by certain spatial positions... The question simplified: Do I need the stars or not?

 

[AstroNous]

Thanks for the answer, JUPITERASC... Your quotation of Robert Huntz makes sense, and that is what I actually take as a possibility of why the constellations had certain shapes and not others. There is a chance that constellations are just bookmarks for people to remember the effects of a certain section of space around the earth (this still is a chance though, I need to investigate).

Now, as thanks I will share my research and ideas... With the Galactic Center at 0 degrees Sagittarius Ayanamsha, I actually use Vedic Techniques, but in a way I think its corrected. For example, if a native has an ascendant in a feminine sign, I count in reverse to find the lords. So, for example, for the Virgo Ascendant, I use the Sun as the 2nd lord, and Mars as the 6th and 11th lord, and etc. Just think about it... If its an earth sign, and the planets that are responsible for action (Sun, Mars, Jupiter) bring Moksha (4th, 8th, and 12th) energy to where they fall, then we have a contradiction because Earth signs are supposed to be more practical in their actions. Counting in reverse for feminine signs is one key thing Jaimini Sutras teaches, and I do not believe it is only limited to his techniques. Then I see where it falls, but in Campanus houses (with house cusps at the start of the house). Now, things conjuct or aspecting the cusp will influence the person associated with it... For example, influences in the 4th cusp will tell us about the Mother of the native. If I want to see the mother, I go to the 4th cusp, and count forward (for male signs) or reverse (for female signs) to assess which planets rules what sign from the cusp. Then, I count the cusp as an ascendant, and thus the 4th house in campanus becomes the 1st for the mother, the 5th in campanus the 2nd, etc. With Jaimini, take the as Atmakaraka the planet closest to the end of the sign, hence, with Male signs the one with the highest degree is the AK, and in Female signs the one with the lowest degree is the AK (if both Male and Female signs have planets in similar conditions, take the one closest to the end between both)...Also I have changed the aspect system to a more logical one too, and it is based on principles of the Zodiac... Etc...

If you are interested on more, tell me.

 

[greybeard]

I am not interested in more, thank you.

"If I want to see the mother, I go to the 4th cusp.... Then, I count the cusp as an ascendant, and thus the 4th house in campanus becomes the 1st for the mother, the 5th in campanus the 2nd, etc."

I hope you don't think you invented this technique. Every astrologer in the room uses it.