View Single Post
Unread 01-24-2012, 06:33 PM
Inconjunct's Avatar
Inconjunct Inconjunct is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 828
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Originally Posted by MSO View Post
Sidereal astrology, to me, has one essential flaw; it uses the constellations.

The question isn't "does it work better?" The question is "is it the constellations that make a sign?"

Take, for example, the ancients using the actual constellations. Did they use the constellations because it was the stars that made the signs, or did they use the constellations because they lacked the processing power of a computer system to determine the signs' boundaries for them?

If the constellations overlap, where does one end and the other begin? If there's a gap between the constellations, where does one end and the other begin? Why are some signs bigger than others? And if you're using 30 degree signs, you're ignoring the actual star placements anyways.

There are too many questions, on a fundamental level, that sidereal presents.

Did the ancients, when figuring out astrology, just use the constellations as place markers? Or perhaps it was a coincidence that the signs and constellations happened to (roughly) match up. It is very much a fact that some constellations didn't even exist (Libra, which was originally the claw of the scorpion) at certain points. The previous sentence really drives home the point that the constellations are in fact just imaginary lines drawn between lights in the sky, adding evidence to them being of no effect to astrology.
Yes - excellent. The other assumption is that the signs were named after the constellations rather than vice versa.
Reply With Quote