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

[tsmall]

In keeping with this recent discussion

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41166

And because I am really trying to understand the reasoning for using either the tropical or sidereal zodiac, I wanted to start a thread to debate the use of one or the other. I am speaking only of the zodiac itself, not of Western vs. Vedic astrology. This question first came up on another thread, in which it was proposed to me that I try looking at my natal chart in sidereal. When I did that, everything fell into place, and all the books I was ready to toss out because they were incorrect (based on my tropical chart) suddenly...worked.

My understanding of the tropical zodiac (and, please, anyone feel free to tell me if this is incorrect. I want to learn. ) is that it was first created by Ptolemy, and that he set the first sign (Aries, 0*) to match the spring equinox, as it was when he did it? Since then, precession has moved the equinox?

When Ptolemy did this, do you suppose he knew that astrologers would be studying his methods a couple of thousand years later? Do you think he was operating under the assumption that the world was flat, and that the heavens revolved around the earth? If it is the planets, modified by the signs, that influence us, why wouldn't we make sure that we were looking at the actual position of the planets?

I would like to hear any and all opinions, theories, reasons, etc. Please keep in mind that this is meant to be a debate.

 

[Rebel Uranian]

Once I was complaining about how my Moon was in Cancer because I don't act like that _at all_ (I don't) and I act much more Gemini (I do) and someone told me my Vedic Moon was in Gemini so I should look at my Sidereal chart. I got a Vedic astrologer to read my chart and I totally agreed with everything that's happened so far. I think mostly people make astrology more complicated so they can get more money selling more stuff, and they haven't touched Vedic or sidereal in general, which is why they work better, but if we went through and analyzed and figured out modern Western, we could have a tropical system that makes sense as well. All systems have their own ways of working. But I kind of wonder if sidereal works better. A few other people besides me have said that their sidereal Moon suits them much better. My whole sidereal chart suits me much better, and outers can be totally left off. My Western chart only makes sense with outers added in.

 

[tsmall]

My whole sidereal chart suits me much better, and outers can be totally left off. My Western chart only makes sense with outers added in.

Rebel, my tropical chart doesn't even make sense with the outers added in. Also, I have looked at the difference, using Western and not Vedic astrology, of the charts of a few friends and family members, excluding outer planets, and their charts with the sidereal zodiac fit better as well. This circles around to one of my original questions. What about the heavens influences us?

 

[Mark]

As to the outer planets, it is my understanding that they tend to imbue the qualities of a generation (of people). This makes sense due to the fact that the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) are so distant that it takes many decades to complete a single circuit, going retrograde many times in the process (much more often than the inner planets). My own Plutonian generation lasted from 1971 to 1984 while Pluto was in Libra. Given that I share a Pluto sign with everyone born in that time frame, it doesn't give much unique information about me. The inner planets are called the "personal planets" for a reason. They move much quicker. The Moon moves quicker still, which is why it is the strongest factor for personality amongst the planets. The houses, rotating at once per day (representing the turning of the Earth), are the fastest changing part of any chart (except for mathematical points like lots). That's why the houses (when you can get the time of first breath exactly correct) can give you information that is most unique to the individual. So, basically, the outer planets are at the bottom of the list of things that provide personal information because of how slowly they move.

As to the tropical/sidereal discussion, both are different measurements of the same thing. Therefore, I would expect that each one will provide unique information based on the same components. Let's look at a grade school science example. You can measure the speed of a passing wave by frequency or wavelength (the wave has inherent characteristics, but here we're measuring change). As the wave gets faster, the frequency goes up and the wavelength goes down. The wave is the same either way, but your information looks wildly different, even measuring in different units. The only difference between the two points is the frame of reference, much like the tropical and sidereal zodiacs.

On a fundamental level, every zodiac functions like a calendar/clock in its own right. (Note: I have a bit of software that allows me to input planetary positions and scan the last 3,000 years and next 3,000 years to find any occurrences of that planetary configuration.) Every planet can be its own clock-hand, if that's the way you want to model it. Anyway, we see in the calculation of the tropical zodiac a key point that functions as a yearly zero, eliminating any long-term drift. That point is the equinox. So, basically, all tropical measurements are gauged to the current yearly configuration of the Sun-Earth system.

I'm not sure when the use of the tropical zodiac first started, but I'm quite confident that it pre-dated Ptolemy. The origins of most astrological systems have been lost to the irrational hordes of conquerers, governors, and automatons over the ages. Sadly, when authority trumps Truth, all science and reason suffers, especially the particularly useful disciplines like astrology. It is unfortunate, but such attitudes are just as strong today as ever before.

The angular relationships between the planets at any given moment is the same for both a sidereal and tropical chart (all aspects are identical). The only fundamental difference between the two is the fact that the tropical system is reset once per year (ideally), while the sidereal system just keeps running on like one long counting of days. So, in a certain light, the sidereal zodiac measures angular relationships within the solar system and the tropical zodiac adjusts these measurements according to the "wobbles of Earth." I presume there was a reason that the creators of the tropical zodiac thought these wobbles to be important. Though the probability is immeasurable, it is possible that the precessional drift itself can function as a timer of sorts. Any natural cycles longer than our accepted, recorded history (which is painfully short) would be invisible to us until we see something unexpected.

 

[JerryRR]

"Hodgson describes an experiment made in 1963 in which forty mixed volunteers were asked to compare the accuracy of brief interpretations of their own tropical and sidereal charts......"
25 Tropical chart was the most accurate
4 Sidereal chart was the most accurate
11 Both were accurate in different ways
0 Neither were accurate
Source Recent Advances in Natal Astrology

Perhaps you could try a similar experiment.

Void of course Moon.
If valid,the void of course Moon should easily disriminate between tropical and sidereal zodiacs.
Recent Advances again.

Jerry.

 

[JerryRR]

"Thom has shown that in NW Europe,in times at least as long ago as Ancient Egypt,standing stones were used to provide a calendar based directly on the tropical marking points via the Sun and Moon.This calendar was far more precise than any based on the stars and was unaffected by precession."

Recent Advances in Natal Astrology Dean.

I recommend the booklet "Zodiacs Old and New" by Cyril Fagan.

Jerry.

 

[JerryRR]

"A learned battle between leading experts in the correspondence column of the quarterly Astrology(UK) continued unabated until it was terminated editorially after nearly two years." Vol 37 no3-Vol 39 no1.
Tropical vs Sidereal.
Recent Advances' Dean
They might be available on line from The Astrological Lodge of London?

Jerry.

 

[byjove]

http://www.twelvestaralmanac.com/

I just tried this site as linked above ^^ and I cannot get my natal chart. It doesn't calculate based on location on birth or even coordinates. And I don't understand entirely what it's saying. I directed my education into other areas (not science) and my mathematical abilities are limited so I don't understand what's there. If the Average Joe here can understand that then I'd be shocked.

I'm keen to continue to read this thread though. I never considered the tropical/siddereal perspective from the angle that they are both perspectives of the same thing-therefore neither is 'correct' or 'wrong' and both theoretically 'true'. Good analogy re: waves.

 

[tsmall]

As to the tropical/sidereal discussion, both are different measurements of the same thing. Therefore, I would expect that each one will provide unique information based on the same components. Let's look at a grade school science example. You can measure the speed of a passing wave by frequency or wavelength (the wave has inherent characteristics, but here we're measuring change). As the wave gets faster, the frequency goes up and the wavelength goes down. The wave is the same either way, but your information looks wildly different, even measuring in different units. The only difference between the two points is the frame of reference, much like the tropical and sidereal zodiacs.

Mark, it is interesting that you chose waves to make your analogy. If I remember correctly, changing the frequency of a wave will change the wavelength, but the speed of the wave is determined by distance traveled over time, through a medium. Changing the frequency or wavelength won't change the speed, but changing the medium will. In this case could we consider the medium to be the zodiacs? Also interesting to me is the use of waves in communication. In astrology, are we in fact not working with light waves? We look at translation of light, casting rays...all of which suggests that it is the light of the planets that has influence. Even more interesting to consider how we use light to communicate information over long distances here on earth.

Anyway, we see in the calculation of the tropical zodiac a key point that functions as a yearly zero, eliminating any long-term drift. That point is the equinox. So, basically, all tropical measurements are gauged to the current yearly configuration of the Sun-Earth system.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean here. Does the tropical zodiac self correct every year to take into account the precession of the equinox? By long term drift, are you referring to the drift of the constellations from their original tropical sign position?

I'm not sure when the use of the tropical zodiac first started, but I'm quite confident that it pre-dated Ptolemy.

Yes, I read more last night and it seems that Ptolemy only passed on the tropical zodiac.

The angular relationships between the planets at any given moment is the same for both a sidereal and tropical chart (all aspects are identical). The only fundamental difference between the two is the fact that the tropical system is reset once per year (ideally), while the sidereal system just keeps running on like one long counting of days. So, in a certain light, the sidereal zodiac measures angular relationships within the solar system and the tropical zodiac adjusts these measurements according to the "wobbles of Earth." I presume there was a reason that the creators of the tropical zodiac thought these wobbles to be important. Though the probability is immeasurable, it is possible that the precessional drift itself can function as a timer of sorts. Any natural cycles longer than our accepted, recorded history (which is painfully short) would be invisible to us until we see something unexpected.

My understanding of the difference between the two is the reverse? This link http://astrologynotes.org/wiki/Zodiac is one of many examples.

The tropical zodiac therefore uses a view of the heavens as seen from Earth approximately 2600 years ago when the northern hemisphere vernal equinox did actually occur within the constellation of Aries.

And from the same article

Those who favor the sidereal zodiac take into account the precession of the equinoxes. Because of a "wobble" in the earth's axis of rotation over a period of about 26,000 years the point at which the vernal equinox advances in the sky by about 50.25 seconds of arc every year, or 1° 23' 45" per century. Advocates of the sidereal zodiac believe that the position of the signs should be fixed relative to the constellations.

As you have mentioned, the aspects between the planets do not change from one zodiac to the other, only the sign/house positions. However, all astrologers use the sign and house positions to determine how planets will behave. So which would be more accurate, a natal chart against the backdrop of the sky 2600 years ago, or a natal chart against a more current placement of the constellations?

 

[tsmall]

"Hodgson describes an experiment made in 1963 in which forty mixed volunteers were asked to compare the accuracy of brief interpretations of their own tropical and sidereal charts......"
25 Tropical chart was the most accurate
4 Sidereal chart was the most accurate
11 Both were accurate in different ways
0 Neither were accurate
Source Recent Advances in Natal Astrology

Perhaps you could try a similar experiment.

Void of course Moon.
If valid,the void of course Moon should easily disriminate between tropical and sidereal zodiacs.
Recent Advances again.

Jerry.

Jerry this is an interesting idea. I did consider trying to post my own charts in both tropical and sidereal for interpretation. Maybe if other members express interest in doing this we could try an experiment here.

I don't have Recent Advances. Could you elaborate a little on how the void of course Moon could help?

 

[JerryRR]

Hi T,
I suggest you look at void of course charts employing tropical and sidereal positions.
"Unfortunately tropical vs sidereal void of course Moon phenomena have not been studied."
Dean.

Here is another avenue you may wish to explore?

I also suggest you look at family and friends charts,if they have AA Data?

I would be interested to see one your Sidereal Solar/Lunar returns for an important year.Is it more accurate than Tropical?

Jerry.

 

[tsmall]

Hi T,
I suggest you look at void of course charts employing tropical and sidereal positions.
"Unfortunately tropical vs sidereal void of course Moon phenomena have not been studied."
Dean.

Here is another avenue you may wish to explore?

I also suggest you look at family and friends charts,if they have AA Data?

I would be interested to see one your Sidereal Solar/Lunar returns for an important year.Is it more accurate than Tropical?

Jerry.

Jerry, I will freely admit that since I have only been learning astrology for three months I don't feel qualified to attempt to interpret a Solar return chart. My guesses would be just that. Here are charts from an important year. I have them in whole sign because that is the house system I have been using, but I can post them in any house system preferred, as we are not debating house systems here.

Lunar returns are monthly? I chose a very important month, though at the time it didn't seem so important.

 

[Rebel Uranian]

I think we should all do a survey. I'm going to find the best forum to post one in and post one there right now.

Here's a brief system of astrology I came up with if this survey proves true:

1. Switch to sidereal.

2. Drop the significance of sign archetypes. Are they important? Yes. Are they the single most important thing? Heck no. Add them on after you look at the significance of the planets to see how they'll actually play out.

3. Use the outers as important objects, but not as rulers of anyone. The asteroids and lunar nodes are very important, and some give the nodes planetary status, but they don't rule any signs. The rulers of signs should be the traditional rulers of those signs because they make more sense.

Really. I can't believe according to traditional I have a strong Moon and a weak Sun and Mars (OK, this is elevated, which fixes some things) and Saturn. I like being independent and even in charge, not a dependent needy moon child (there's nothing wrong with this, it's just not me.) But in sidereal, the most important planet on my chart is Saturn (because of more planets in Capricorn + ruler of stronger houses) in reception with Jupiter. I'd use sidereal long before I'd use traditional. However, I'm not strongly swayed towards using modern as it is with nothing taken from other systems since a lot of things simply don't make sense.

 

[JUPITERASC]

"Thom has shown that in NW Europe,in times at least as long ago as Ancient Egypt,standing stones were used to provide a calendar based directly on the tropical marking points via the Sun and Moon.This calendar was far more precise than any based on the stars and was unaffected by precession." Recent Advances in Natal Astrology Dean.
I recommend the booklet "Zodiacs Old and New" by Cyril Fagan. Jerry.

Proof the Babylonian Zodiac was the original astrological zodiac was established 14 May 1949 when the mysterious origins of traditional exaltation degrees of planets in the zodiac (hypsomata) was solved. The figures proved to be sidereal longitudes of planets at their heliacal risings and settings for lunar year 786 BC, the mean value of the ayanamsa being 14.5 degrees. This reduced to the epoch -100 (101BC), equated to 4.6 degrees, thereby agreeing with what was determined from Babylonian and Egyptian records. The fact the ayanamsa for the hypsomata agreed with that from these ancient records set the seal of authenticity on its discovery.

Primer of Sidereal Astrology by Cyril Fagan

 

[JerryRR]

Thank you for posting the charts Tamara.Perhaps we can look at these at a later date? Or you may wish to start a new thread and ask for members views?

Jerry.

 

[JUPITERASC]

"Hodgson describes an experiment made in 1963 in which forty mixed volunteers were asked to compare the accuracy of brief interpretations of their own tropical and sidereal charts......"
25 Tropical chart was the most accurate, 4 Sidereal chart was the most accurate, 11 Both were accurate in different ways, 0 Neither were accurate..... Source Recent Advances in Natal Astrology
Perhaps you could try a similar experiment.
Void of course Moon. If valid,the void of course Moon should easily disriminate between tropical and sidereal zodiacs. Recent Advances again.
Jerry.

This was (and still is) a flawed experiment because no consideration was given to the fact that the Sign of some people remains unchanged whether one is using Tropical Zodiac or Sidereal Zodiac.

I'm not sure when the use of the tropical zodiac first started, but I'm quite confident that it pre-dated Ptolemy.

Because the vernal point perpetually rose exactly due East and set exactly due West in what the Greeks termed the eighth, or rotating, sphere, the ancients were convinced and more so after the discovery of precession - that the equinoctial and solstitial points were the only fixed points in the heavens, and hence no zodiac could be valid unless riveted to one of them. This conviction obtained until Copernicus, in the 17th Century devised what is now known as the Copernican system in contradistinction to the Ptolemaic system, when he discovered that it was the earth that went around the Sun, not vice versa. In consequence therefore it was the equinoctial and solsticial points that were precessing - or rather regressing, and not the fixed stars.

Hipparchus, when compiling his star catalogue, plotted the positions of the fixed stars from the equinoctial and solstitial points for the year 139BC, approximately, and Posidonius apparently improved on this idea by making the zodiac as a whole commence with the vernal point fixed in 0 Aries. This then was the birth of the modern version of the Tropical zodiac. Before Hipparchus's time it had no existence, and it was entirely a Greek innovation, based on Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.); "...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." (Dr. Robert Powell 2007)

 

[tsmall]

2. Drop the significance of sign archetypes. Are they important? Yes. Are they the single most important thing? Heck no. Add them on after you look at the significance of the planets to see how they'll actually play out.

3. Use the outers as important objects, but not as rulers of anyone. The asteroids and lunar nodes are very important, and some give the nodes planetary status, but they don't rule any signs. The rulers of signs should be the traditional rulers of those signs because they make more sense.

Rebel, I am not sure what you mean by this. If we drop the significance of sign archetypes, are we not then losing the reasoning for using the zodiac at all? You go on to mention though that the rulers of signs should be kept, but if we drop the significance of signs does it really matter re rulers?

To give an example I think you will appreciate, tropically I have Saturn in Taurus natally. If I look at The Only Astrology Book You'll Ever Need by Joanna Woolfolk, (btw, one of the first that was going to go into the garbage) it says (paraphrasing) Saturn in Taurus is stubborn and rigid, materialistic and selfish. It also makes one susceptible to colds, sore throats and thyroid problems. This...does not describe me at all. I am no more materialistic than the next person, can be willful but am not stubborn to the point of ridgity, and even when my children bring home colds I don't get them. No thyroid problems either.

Using the sidereal zoidac, I have Saturn in Aries, and here that same book starts to resonate. With this placement she says that the native can be strong and powerful one minute and irresolute and wavering the next. It makes one ambitious and determined and helps with the power to control people, but can make one stuborn, dictatorial, sometimes solitary and grumpy (say hello to tsmall, lol.) These struggles are often worked out earlier in life. Saturn here can often cause headaches and dental problems. Headache every day for over 10 years? First trip to dentist at age 7 with 6 cavities?

 

[tsmall]

Thank you for posting the charts Tamara.Perhaps we can look at these at a later date? Or you may wish to start a new thread and ask for members views?

Jerry.

Thank you, Jerry, maybe I will later.

 

[Alice McDermott]

The tropical zodiac is the zodiac of the Earth and I think it is probably the way we measure the energy field of the Earth.

From the view point of the Earth, it is measured from the time the Sun is at 0 declination on the Equator, this is 0 Aries. As the Sun moves into the Northern Hemisphere it activates Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo and Virgo, then, when it reaches 0 Libra, it moves into the Southern Hemisphere and activates Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces.

I have explained this more thoroughly, with a graphic, here: http://aliceportman.com/?p=703

Sidereal astrology also starts its calculation from the time the Sun moves to the equator as it moves into the Northern Hemisphere, but does a further calculation to adjust to the sidereal this is called the ayanamsa. Unfortunately there a number of methods to calculate this ayanamsa and they can vary quite a few degrees, so siderealists vehemently argue as to which is the correct method of calculation as this can throw out all the positions of the planets, angles and houses in the chart. For example, I have one of my planets in either Leo or Cancer, depending upon the aynamasa used. It think true sidereal astrology should start its calculation from the fixed star Spica, but few siderealists do.

After years of study of both Tropical and Vedic astrology I came to the conclusion that for me, Tropical astrology was much more accurate astronomically and in forecasting and interpretation.

In addition, my current thinkiong is that the constellations themselves, which are quite uneven, were arranged in even, 30 degree segments to echo the zodiac of the Earth; not the other way around. I came to this conclusion when I started studying Chinese astrology and realized that they arranged the same stars into quite different constellations - as did many, many other cultures.

Alice

 

[Mark]

byjove: My site was intended more for the developers of astrological theory and software than it was "the average Joe." Still, most of the site is self-explanatory once you decide that you won't be intimidated. I'm not sure what trouble you had acquiring a natal chart, but I've linked the correct page for it below. It asks the normal questions. The only two things you must remember are that the time entered must be UTC (not local nor local standard) and the longitude and latitude must both be entered as decimals, not minutes and seconds. For the longitude and latitude, there is a converter below the input form. As for time UTC, just add or subtract hours according to your time zone. As an example, Eastern Standard Time is UTC - 5 normally and UTC - 4 during daylight savings time. If you were born in EST during daylight savings time, add 4 hours to your clock time to get UTC. As with astrodienst, you can use this form to create "Western" or "Eastern" charts, depending on the configuration you provide.
http://www.twelvestaralmanac.com/digiscope.shtml

tsmall: As to the measurements of waves, I was referring to the process of measuring the changing speed of a wave of set wavelength (which, if referring to light, might be caused by a change in medium). Perhaps light makes a better example. Light guarantees only constant speed, not frequency nor wavelength. So, if it looks like your light wave is speeding up, that means both that your frequency is increasing and your wavelength is decreasing. One measurement goes up while the other goes down, both using their own units. I see this paradigm as analogous to the tropical/sidereal split.

I refer to the tropical zodiac as a "self-correcting" system because our definition of the entire sky changes according to the position of the Sun at the moment of the equinox (we redefine the positions of stars every 50 years or so when we change astronomical epoch). Basically, in a tropical system, the stars drift around an unchanging Sun (Aries 0 is always the vernal equinox). In a sidereal system, the position of the Sun at the moment of the equinox drifts across unchanging stars. This is the same precession seen from the two different perspectives. When you base your view of the sky on the Sun, the stars drift. When you base your view of the sky on the stars, the Sun drifts. It's that simple.

As to the "reversed understanding," I once came to the same conclusion as you, so I see how you got to where you are. The tropical system includes precession in its measurements because Aries 0 points to a different place in the sky with every update. The sidereal system excludes precession and so requires an ayanamsa to keep in agreement with its interpretations. It's difficult to say how this difference should impact interpretation, but it seems obvious that it should.