Is Sidereal Astrology more accurate than Tropical?

LunarEclipse

New member
I was born in the beginning of November, so that makes me a Scorpio in the tropical zodiac, but according to the sidereal zodiac I should be a Libra. I live up to every aspect of the Scorpio sign, so the tropical zodiac is better for me. However, everyone is different, and with so many people in the world it's impossible to say which zodiac is more accurate without having to interview everyone on the planet about it.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I was born in the beginning of November, so that makes me a Scorpio in the tropical zodiac, but according to the sidereal zodiac I should be a Libra...
LunarEclipse, you were born at the beginning of November, therefore you are a Tropical Scorpio AND a Sidereal Libra

brief video illustrates HOW we are all BOTH Sidereal AND Tropical
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related
I live up to every aspect of the Scorpio sign, so the tropical zodiac is better for me. However, everyone is different, and with so many people in the world it's impossible to say which zodiac is more accurate without having to interview everyone on the planet about it.
'Tropical' and 'Sidereal' are different ways of measuring planet Earth's Yearly Orbit of our Sun

(1) Tropical is referenced to the Equinoxes and Solstices

(2) Sidereal is referenced to the 'Fixed Stars'

BOTH Tropical AND Sidereal are 'ACCURATE' MEASURES of Earth's yearly journey around our Sun :smile:
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
outerhaven.6- I have done massive research on this topic and I am continuously researching it. I have read many books, articles, and have done experimentations between the two charts. There shouldn't be two zodiacs, because the actual stars are in the same place objectively, that is regardless of perspective and perception. It is an astronomical fact. So how could both be right? They cannot.

Hi James

The Tropical Zodiac has nothing at all to do with the position of the stars. It is calculated from when the Sun moves over the Equator at 00N00 declination. This point is called 0 Aries and the tropical signs of the zodiac are measured in 30 degree segments from there. You may be interested in reading further about this here: http://aliceportman.com/what-is-the-difference-between-northern-and-southern-hemisphere-astrology/

The Sidereal zodiac doesn't use the constellations, though proponents of this system say they do. The Sidereal zodiac uses equal 30 degree segments measured along the ecliptic, the constellations along the ecliptic are anything but even 30 degree segments.

In addition, the constellations aren't 'real'. They are an arrangement of the stars based on Greek mythology and, as another poster has already explained, one can perceive all kinds of patterns with the stars. Many cultures in the world, including the Asian cultures which contain most of the world's population, have derived quite different constellations made up of the same stars in the sky.

The stars in the sky of course are real but the man made perceptions of the arrangements of these stars, called constellations, depend entirely upon which culture in the world you use as a perspective.

So the most real and accurate measurement is that of the tropical zodiac.

There was a time when both zodiacs did match up with each other. Something went wrong and that is Tropical never adjusted for the precession of the equinox whereas Sidereal did.

This isn't true, as I have explained in my above paragraphs. The measurements of the tropical signs of the zodiac are quite accurate and based on real astronomy. There was a short period of time when the measurements of the tropical and sidereal zodiacs co-incided but for almost all of the current history of humankind, these measurements have been different.

Based on Tropicals' logic they cannot adjust for "ages" because when the spring equinox comes around it's always in the same place, in Aries. So they are always in the age of Aries. And of course that cannot be accurate.

The tropical zodiac is not connected to the long ages of mankind, it is a seasonal zodiac measured by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The long Ages of Man are said to be measured by the sidereal zodiac, but as these measurements are not all that accurate, there are many arguments about the start and finish of these ages.

This doesn't make the tropical zodiac invalid, it just means that different forms of measurement are used for these quite different factors.

Sidereal doesn't have any known problems. Tropical has some big ones.

As a long term student of both western and Vedic astrology I have found that Vedic astrology has many, many, many more problems and inaccuracies contained within it than the tropical zodiac. The first of many is the various measurements of the anayasama! You might be interested in Deiter Koch's article on this matter: http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_vedic2_e.htm

The tropical zodiac measurements are based on accurate mathematics involving the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. I haven't found any problems in understanding the tropical zodiac and the way it is calculated and interpreted, in my many, many years of study in this field, so would like to be informed on what they are?

Expect people to get upset and defensive. That's one big problem too, subjectively. People have invested so much in the idea that their sun and planets are in cancer and so on for example, that they get upset they have to change. Then they rationalize and say stuff like, I don't feel this is right, or I know I'm not a Virgo (just examples). When really they should listen to reason and not their whim.

Perhaps it is you who isn't listening to reason? The tropical zodiac is so very,very accurate that I am surprised that, if you have studied it in any depth at all, you could call its measurements "whims".

Alice
 

Cypocryphy

Well-known member
The Sidereal zodiac doesn't use the constellations, though proponents of this system say they do. The Sidereal zodiac uses equal 30 degree segments measured along the ecliptic, the constellations along the ecliptic are anything but even 30 degree segments.

In addition, the constellations aren't 'real'. They are an arrangement of the stars based on Greek mythology and, as another poster has already explained, one can perceive all kinds of patterns with the stars. Many cultures in the world, including the Asian cultures which contain most of the world's population, have derived quite different constellations made up of the same stars in the sky.

The stars in the sky of course are real but the man made perceptions of the arrangements of these stars, called constellations, depend entirely upon which culture in the world you use as a perspective.

Just to add to this, the constellations as we know them now will change in the future. Stars have their own orbit, subject to great galactic gravitational fields and are traveling extremely fast through our universe. So, for example, what we recognize as the Great Dipper currently will look drastically different many years now. The constellations are not static but dynamic. In time, they could resemble anything, and the stars that comprise them currently could move into some other possible constellational configuration.
 
Last edited:

Moog

Well-known member
Hi James

The Tropical Zodiac has nothing at all to do with the position of the stars. It is calculated from when the Sun moves over the Equator at 00N00 declination. This point is called 0 Aries and the tropical signs of the zodiac are measured in 30 degree segments from there. You may be interested in reading further about this here: http://aliceportman.com/what-is-the-difference-between-northern-and-southern-hemisphere-astrology/

The Sidereal zodiac doesn't use the constellations, though proponents of this system say they do. The Sidereal zodiac uses equal 30 degree segments measured along the ecliptic, the constellations along the ecliptic are anything but even 30 degree segments.

In addition, the constellations aren't 'real'. They are an arrangement of the stars based on Greek mythology and, as another poster has already explained, one can perceive all kinds of patterns with the stars. Many cultures in the world, including the Asian cultures which contain most of the world's population, have derived quite different constellations made up of the same stars in the sky.

The stars in the sky of course are real but the man made perceptions of the arrangements of these stars, called constellations, depend entirely upon which culture in the world you use as a perspective.

So the most real and accurate measurement is that of the tropical zodiac.

That last line doesn't logically follow from what you said previous to it, accurate though that information was.
 

Shanti

Well-known member
a path of liberation might be not picking a side.. another option is to pick a zodiac you'd like to work with.. go with it while not getting caught up on the idea someone else is using a different crayon to draw with or that it isn't the 'right' type of crayon they're working with.. think of astrology as an art as opposed to something cast in cement forever. if you live long enough you'll see the relativity of both so called zodiacs.. blame my natal jupiter at top of a t square for my preach-i-ness, 9th or 10th house, tropical leo or sideral cancer, lol - U-PICK! it doesn't matter that much in an ever expanding universe..

I like this post.

Fundamental aproaches don't work in astrology. If one is not particularly have a special fondness on falling plat periodically ! :surprised:

Actually as having used both zodiacs in by practice I see that some placements in the charts works actually better in sidereal, some can work better in tropical.
As an art astrology works as a whole if choosing a system, use it, having faith in it. Anyone saying that their system is foolproof is really not clear about it imo.:smile:

As in sandstones post preaching can be seen in many ways.

blame my natal jupiter at top of a t square for my preach-i-ness, 9th or 10th house, tropical leo or sideral cancer, lol - U-PICK! it doesn't matter that much in an ever expanding universe

prominent leo jupiter in a tropical chart or a strong exalted jupiter in the sidereal chart, and on it goes.....:lol:

Robert Hand although using tropical positions in his work, is never downsizing sidereal in his writings. On the contrary he is using some sidereal methods in his work.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hi James
The Tropical Zodiac has nothing at all to do with the position of the stars
Correct.

In fact the Tropical Zodiac is relative SOLELY to the position of one star alone i.e. our Sun

WITH PARTICULAR SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE FOUR SPECIFIC YEARLY SEASONAL MARKERS
WHICH ARE THE TWO EQUINOXES AND THE TWO SOLSTICES
It is calculated from when the Sun moves over the Equator at 00N00 declination.
Precisely

This point is called 0 Aries
'This point' IS as you have said 'CALLED 0[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] Aries' BUT 'BEING CALLED 0[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] Aries' is very different from BEING located at 0[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] of the constellation or group of stars of Aries

BECAUSE every Spring when the Sun moves over the Equator at 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º [/FONT]N 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT]
declination THE SUN IS NOT POSITIONED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF the group of stars in the sky known in the West for more than two thousand years as 'the constellation of Aries'.

'This point is called 0[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] Aries' BECAUSE at the time of Claudius Ptolemy when the Sun moved over the Equator at 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] N 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] declination the Sun WAS at that time positioned directly in front of the group of stars in the sky known in the West for more than two thousand years as the constellation of Aries. When astronomer mathematician Claudius Ptolemy who was not a practicing astrologer wrote ideas that influenced astrology for the next 1500 he used a seasonal calendar

BUT THAT WAS ALMOST TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO


DUE TO PRECESSION WHEN THE SUN MOVED OVER THE EQUATOR AT 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] N 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] DECLINATION IN THE WESTERN CALCULATED YEAR 2012, THE SUN WAS POSITIONED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE GROUP OF STARS IN THE SKY KNOWN IN THE WEST FOR MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND YEARS AS THE CONSTELLATION OF PISCES. The precise location of the Sun at that time with reference to the fixed stars in front of which it was position was 6[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] Pisces. And as a consequence of Precession during the next several hundred years, when the Sun moves over the Equator 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] N 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] DECLINATION, the Sun shall be located at 0[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] Aquarius directly in front of the group of stars in the sky known in the west as the constellation of Aquarius HENCE THE DAWNING OF THE AGE OF AQUARIUS :smile:
...and the tropical signs of the zodiac are measured in 30 degree segments from there

AND THE TROPICAL ZODIAC BY TAKING NO NOTICE OF PRECESSION, IS A MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTION THAT ENTIRELY IGNORES THE FIXED STARS

So the most real and accurate measurement is that of the tropical zodiac
Not at all. The Tropical Zodiac IS NOT 'the most real and accurate measurement' INSTEAD as I previously said, the Tropical Zodiac is simply a DIFFERENT way to measure the orbit of Earth around our Sun and here is a video that CLEARLY explains the differences and why neither 'is more accurate than' the other http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related
The measurements of the tropical signs of the zodiac are quite accurate and based on real astronomy
That comment is misleading because astronomical maps of the skies above planet Earth are entirely reliant on The Fixed Stars.

If at sea one's computer becomes inaccessible, one may steer at night using the guidance of Fixed Stars
, just as in ancient times

There was a short period of time when the measurements of the tropical and sidereal zodiacs co-incided
Hipparchus, Claudius Ptolemy, Valens et al lived at that time AND FURTHERMORE that 'short period of time when the measurements of the tropical and sidereal zodiacs coincide recurs every approximately 26,000 years :smile:
...but for almost all of the current history of humankind, these measurements have been different. The tropical zodiac is not connected to the long ages of mankind, it is a seasonal zodiac measured by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun
Which raises the interesting conundrum that if the Tropical Zodiac IS seasonal then how can it apply to those people born in the Southern Hemisphere where the seasons are 'reversed' to the seasons of the Northern Hemisphere
Perhaps it is you who isn't listening to reason? The tropical zodiac is so very,very accurate that I am surprised that, if you have studied it in any depth at all, you could call its measurements "whims". Alice
'Mathematical accuracy' is not the issue. The Tropical Zodiac accurately tracks the two solstices and the two equinoxes BUT ignores precession.

Therefore n
onsensical to precess charts when using the Tropical Zodiac because as you have said:

Hi James
The Tropical Zodiac has nothing at all to do with the position of the stars
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
BECAUSE every Spring when the Sun moves over the Equator at 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º [/FONT]N 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] declination THE SUN IS NOT POSITIONED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF the group of stars in the sky known in the West for more than two thousand years as 'the constellation of Aries'.

DUE TO PRECESSION WHEN THE SUN MOVED OVER THE EQUATOR AT 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] N 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] DECLINATION IN THE WESTERN CALCULATED YEAR 2012, THE SUN WAS POSITIONED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE GROUP OF STARS IN THE SKY KNOWN IN THE WEST FOR MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND YEARS AS THE CONSTELLATION OF PISCES. The precise location of the Sun at that time with reference to the fixed stars in front of which it was position was 6[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] Pisces. And as a consequence of Precession during the next several hundred years, when the Sun moves over the Equator 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] N 00[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] DECLINATION, the Sun shall be located at 0[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] Aquarius directly in front of the group of stars in the sky known in the west as the constellation of Aquarius HENCE THE DAWNING OF THE AGE OF AQUARIUS :smile:

Yes, this is all correct. The Sun at 0 Aries tropical is now activating a group of stars that westerners call the constellation of Pisces and later will activate a group of stars that Westerners call the Constellation of Aquarius.


AND THE TROPICAL ZODIAC BY TAKING NO NOTICE OF PRECESSION, IS A MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTION THAT ENTIRELY IGNORES THE FIXED STARS

The tropical zodiac is not a mathematical abstraction, it clearly measures the movement of the Earth around the Sun and describes the Sun activating different sections of the Earth's energy field during this orbit. We call these sections Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc., The Sun activates Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo and Virgo whilst in the Northern Hemisphere of Earth and Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces whilst in the Southern Hemisphere of Earth.

Not at all. The Tropical Zodiac IS NOT 'the most real and accurate measurement' INSTEAD as I previously said, the Tropical Zodiac is simply a DIFFERENT way to measure the orbit of Earth around our Sun and here is a video that CLEARLY explains the differences and why neither 'is more accurate than' the other

Given that the constellations we know are a imaginative arrangement of the stars that is only used in the Western cultures, perhaps these measurements are not real?

As far as I know, we have yet to discover why the ecliptic was divided into a specific arrangement of constellations and why these were clearly not even 30 degree segments, but are measured as such in sidereal astrology.

That comment is misleading because astronomical maps of the skies above planet Earth are entirely reliant on The Fixed Stars.
If at sea one's computer becomes inaccessible, one may steer at night using the guidance of Fixed Stars, just as in ancient times

Indeed the fixed stars have fascinated the minds of humankind in every culture in every time we have been on Earth and have always been used for navigation, but they are not the constellations! The constellations are an imaginative arrangement of fixed stars that western cultures use. The same stars make up quite different constellations in Asia and different constellations again in the star lore of my country's most ancient race, the Aboriginies of Australia. I imagine these stars were arranged in other different patterns by the Red Indians of America... and so on.

Which raises the interesting conundrum that if the Tropical Zodiac IS seasonal then how can it apply to those people born in the Southern Hemisphere where the seasons are 'reversed' to the seasons of the Northern Hemisphere


At times I do find discussing astrology with Northern Hemisphere astrologers quite frustrating!! For heavens sake, Astrology and the signs of the zodiac aren't based on the seasons of the mid to north latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere! What has happened is that most astrology books have been written by astrologers in these locations and their mapping of how the signs of the zodiac work is naturally through their observations in these locations - but these are just observations on how the signs work in these localities not set in stone as 'Astrology'. For example, Capricorn is always Capricorn, but in my land the Sun is in that sign at the hottest time of the year, so most Capricorns tend to be tall, with light coloured hair and a lot more expressive and flexible than those born in the Northern Hemisphere, but they still have the dry sense of humour and the ability to organise people and situations very well.

'Mathematical accuracy' is not the issue. The Tropical Zodiac accurately tracks the two solstices and the two equinoxes BUT ignores precession.


Well, precession is not relevant to the tropical zodiac.

Therefore it is n
onsensical to precess charts when using the Tropical Zodiac

Yes, I agree.

Alice

P.S. sorry about the broken up quotes, for some reason quotes have been put in the middle of your posts and I can't get rid of them. I have tried to take them out a couple of times.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The long Ages of Man are said to be measured by the sidereal zodiac, but as these measurements are not all that accurate, there are many arguments about the start and finish of these ages
100 word QUOTE source Vedic astrologer James Braha

“...when the first degree of Aries in the tropical zodiac differs from the first degree of Aries in the sidereal system, it is assumed that one zodiac is incorrect. This is not the case. The problem is exacerbated because there is a consistent mathematical relationship between the two zodiacs so that the first degree of Aries in the sidereal zodiac is always a perfect mathematical formula away from the first degree of Aries in the tropical zodiac. This makes it SEEM that the two zodiacs are based upon the same reference point but that one zodiac has somehow been miscalculated...”

Yes, this is all correct. The Sun at 0 Aries tropical is now activating a group of stars that westerners call the constellation of Pisces and later will activate a group of stars that Westerners call the Constellation of Aquarius.
The tropical zodiac is not a mathematical abstraction, it clearly measures the movement of the Earth around the Sun and describes the Sun activating different sections of the Earth's energy field during this orbit. We call these sections Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc., The Sun activates Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo and Virgo whilst in the Northern Hemisphere of Earth and Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces whilst in the Southern Hemisphere of Earth
On the contrary, fwiw IMO clearly the 'Tropical Zodiac' is a mathematical abstraction based on misunderstanding which for the past nearly two thousand years is no longer in reality related at all to Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces BUT INSTEAD directly related to the SEASONS and therefore to the 12 months of the year which was its original format.

1st month of the year = Aries
2nd month of the year = Taurus
3rd month of the year = Gemini... and so on and so forth... that is the origin of Tropical Zodiac.

After another approximately 24,000 years have passed Tropical re-syncs with the Sidereal. Until then Tropical Zodiac is dis-associated from Aries, Taurus, Gemini and so on and so forth.


No need to write a book on the subject because, 100 word quote:

"Robert Russell Newton 7 July 1918 – 2 June 1991 physicist, astronomer, science historian , Supervisor of Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins University was known for a book 'The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy' (1977) asserting Ptolemy was "the most successful fraud in the history of science". Newton showed Ptolemy had predominantly obtained the astronomical results in 'The Almagest' by computation, and not by direct observations that Ptolemy described.

Distrust of Ptolemy's observations were raised in16th century by Tycho Brahe and 18th Century by Delambre. Arthur Berry made similar remarks 1899. R. R. Newton also made a charge of conscious falsification"


Given that the constellations we know are a imaginative arrangement of the stars that is only used in the Western cultures, perhaps these measurements are not real?
That's a misleading statement because, the actual stars that compose the constellations aka groups of stars ARE as real as the Sun our Earth orbits annually.
Well, precession is not relevant to the tropical zodiac.
How then do you explain astrologers who claim they precess Tropical Zodiac natal charts? :smile:

There is a facility to 'precess' a Tropical natal chart on astro.com however you have said "precession is not relevant to the tropical zodiac"
 

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
100 word QUOTE source Vedic astrologer James Braha

“...when the first degree of Aries in the tropical zodiac differs from the first degree of Aries in the sidereal system, it is assumed that one zodiac is incorrect. This is not the case. The problem is exacerbated because there is a consistent mathematical relationship between the two zodiacs so that the first degree of Aries in the sidereal zodiac is always a perfect mathematical formula away from the first degree of Aries in the tropical zodiac. This makes it SEEM that the two zodiacs are based upon the same reference point but that one zodiac has somehow been miscalculated...”


There are several formulas to find the anaysama i.e. the difference between the point when the Sun moves to the equator (tropical zodiac) and the start of the sidereal zodiac. There are a number of arguments as to which anaysama is the correct one and this, at times, makes a huge difference in Jyotish charts. James Braha doesn't mention these problems in his book.


On the contrary, fwiw IMO clearly the 'Tropical Zodiac' is a mathematical abstraction based on misunderstanding which for the past nearly two thousand years is no longer in reality related at all to Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces BUT INSTEAD directly related to the SEASONS and therefore to the 12 months of the year which was its original format.

1st month of the year = Aries
2nd month of the year = Taurus
3rd month of the year = Gemini... and so on and so forth... that is the origin of Tropical Zodiac.


No, there is no misunderstanding. The Tropical zodiac is based on the movement of the Sun to the equator at 00N00 declination, this point is called 0 Aries, the movement of the Sun to 23N26 declination at 0 Cancer, the movement of the Sun to 00S00 declination at 0 Libra and the movement of the Sun to 23S26 and 0 Capricorn. This steady yearly rotation of the Earth around the Sun activates the signs of the zodiac and maps the Tropical zodiac.

As you have alreadly noted, the Tropical Zodiac is only in alignment with the constellations of the zodiac once every approximately 26,000 years. It is not meant to be in alignment as it is a completely different measurement. It is a pity that the signs and the constellations have the same names as I am sure that if they didn't there would be these constant misunderstandings.

That's a misleading statement because, the actual stars that compose the constellations aka groups of stars ARE as real as the Sun our Earth orbits annually.
I really don't know how to explain this to you any clearer than I have before. To repeat: The stars are not the constellations! The constellations are an imaginary arrangement of stars that is peculiar to western civilisation. Other civilisations arrange the same stars in different constellations. The stars are real, the constellations are a construct of the mind.

How then do you explain astrologers who claim they precess Tropical Zodiac natal charts?

There is a facility to 'precess' a Tropical natal chart on astro.com however you have said "precession is not relevant to the tropical zodiac"


Beats me!! I have read their reasoning again and again, but can't see why they keep trying to apply the tropical zodiac to the precession of the equinoxes.

You seem to be arguing against yourself, because in a previous post you said this was not reasonable and I agreed with you.

Most astrology programs will provide what astrologers request, they don't determine whether it is correct or not. I recall on an astrodienst forum Alois (who I believe is one of the programmers of astro.com) said he didn't apply precession to the solar and lunar returns of the tropical zodiac in his own work.

Alice
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I really don't know how to explain this to you any clearer than I have before. To repeat: The stars are not the constellations! The constellations are an imaginary arrangement of stars that is peculiar to western civilisation. Other civilisations arrange the same stars in different constellations. The stars are real, the constellations are a construct of the mind.
For anyone interested, here's the OP from a thread I posted more than ten months ago, January 2012
IMO it is common knowledge that at that ancient time when most people thought the universe was a living being, it was "The Norm" to imagine tiny points of light they saw in the night sky as being grouped into separate, distinct sets of 'Images'. These 'Images' were made up of separate stars which - in the opinion of the ancient people of this planet - seemed to be grouped together. Thousands of years ago, on various parts of the planet Earth, different cultures imaginatively 'connected the dots' of the tiny points of light that they thought were close to each other and personified them as 'Mythical Beings' and narrated stories about the lives of these Mythical Beings. The Mythical Beings and the stories of their lives varied from culture to culture. Different cultures imagined different images in the patterns of the stars of the night sky. The ancient people of this planet did not know that these tiny points of light were hundreds - perhaps even thousands - of light years distant from each other. :smile:

THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA
Former constellations are constellations that are no longer recognized by the International Astronomical Union for various reasons. Many of these constellations existed for long periods of time, even centuries in many cases, which means they still have a large historical value and can be found on older star charts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_constellations

THE FOLLOWING ENCAPSULATED INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND AT http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/astro/asp/constellation.faq.html

The oldest description of the constellations as we know them comes from a poem called Phaenomena written by Greek poet Aratus 270 B.C. and it is clear from the poem that the constellations mentioned originated long before Aratus' time. Some detective work reveals a plausible origin. Firstly, Aratus' constellations excluded any near the south celestial pole because that was always below the horizon of the ancient constellation-makers. From the size of this uncharted area of the sky, we can determine that the people responsible for the original constellations lived near a latitude of 36° north which is south of Greece and north of Egypt but similar to the latitude of the ancient Babylonians and Sumerians.

Because of a "wobble" of the Earth's axis of rotation, the position of the celestial poles changes slowly with time - which is a phenomenon known as precession. The constellation-free zone is not centered exactly on the south celestial pole, instead the uncharted area is centered on the place in the sky where the south celestial pole would have been around the year 2000 B.C. This date matches the time of the Babylonians and Sumerians. So it seems likely that the Greek constellations originated with the Sumerians and Babylonians. From there, knowledge of the constellations somehow made its way to Egypt - perhaps through the Minoans on Crete who had contact with the Babylonians and settled in Egypt after an explosive volcanic eruption destroyed their civilization, and from there early Greek scholars first heard about the constellations and wrote about them.

When most ancient cultures looked at the night sky they saw 'pictures' aka 'Images' in the stars. The earliest known efforts to catalogue the stars date to cuneiform texts (i.e. Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian texts and artefacts)and artefacts dating back roughly 6000 years. These remnants, found in the valley of the Euphrates River, suggest that the ancients observing the heavens saw the lion, the bull, and the scorpion in the stars.

here's a link to an interesting British Museum web page regarding the origins of writing in Mesopotamia
http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/writing/story/sto_set.html
 
I found out about the two different natal charts when I consulted an astrologist about my solar return. She explained it to me in the following way: the tropical natal chart (most commonly used in Western society) reflects how an individual sees him/herself, while the sidereal natal chart is a factual chart that explains the way the individual interacts with the external environment. Basically, a person may see him/herself in a certain way, while in situations s/he might act and respond in a way that is not characteristic of the personality depicted in the tropical chart. The astrologist placed greater emphasis on the sidereal chart because it gave better insight into the way I act, and is a more factual representation. Ultimately, the two can be used in conjunction. The take-home message for me was that I may have been underestimating myself in certain ways, and that the sidereal natal chart can allow a person to learn about his/her potential, and ultimately evolve beyond the levels s/he thinks s/he's capable of.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hi Community!
This is the deal with sidereal astrology, or Fagan-Bradley system. Most of you think that tropical astrology is the only option, that its inaccuracies and ambiguity are part of the astrological heritage. Most people are told the wrong signs, using tropical, and ALL the planet's and Moon signs are completely unfounded by reality. Astrology, as practiced my 99% of American and European astrologers, has become a pathetic joke. In other words, we accept astrology to be irrelevant, and that's why astrology has been banned to the funny pages, along with the comics and word games.

Sidereal astrology corrects Ptolemy's error in ignoring the precession of the equinoxes; the astronomical Zodiac discards the entire misogynist Roman truncation of the eponymous constellations to 12, mostly male-represented signs. Ptolemy and the Romans sabotaged astrology with their revisionist 12-sign system, and intercepted signs, and, of course, the 27 degree error present in all tropical astrology charts.

So, anyone using the tropical, 12-sign system is essentially pulling any delineations out of their butt. There is NO WAY that tropical readings are worth the endless supply of time and energy that astrologers spend on them. Astrologers are not only wasting their time and their client's time, but mocking themselves and all astrology, as the entire astronomical and scientific community rightly poits out that all our numbers are bogus.

What do numbers matter? A surprising number of astrologers answer the doubts with an esoteric word salad that avoids the salient point: tropical astrologers are full of s**t.

If you are interested in an accurate astrology, where readings are meaningful and transits work, please go to my website for a complete explanation of the superiority of sidereal/13-sign astrology. You'll NEVER go back to the bootsy tropical gab fest! http://siderealist.com
Fb: https://www.facebook.com/siderealsigns

I'll be happy to answer emails to clarify my position. If you want, however, to find your true sign, using the sidereal/13-sign Zodiac, you can find out the dates on my website free. Personal readings, however, start at $10.

Thanks for your attention,
Eric (the only sidereal astrologer in New York City)
Hi Siderealist! Discussion on this thread highlights the usual quandry a newbie member seeking answers regarding the Sidereal Tropical issue is experiencing http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41281

My signature has link to a helpful brief video clearly illustrating the rationale of Sidereal and Tropical
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related :smile:
 

XenaSharon

New member
Hello Everyone, I, too, am unsure about whether to choose sidereal or tropical. I *like* my sidereal chart better - just because the intercepted houses (6 and 12) contain two signs in their entirety, while the tropical version of my chart is quite different. A moon in Sagittarius (sidereal) seems positive to me, however a moon in Capricorn seems negative (tropical)... because the New Moon in Capricorn of 1 Feb 2003 has particular significance for me with regards to the past. I will try and post both charts.

Tropical
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid=cdufilev93Dt5-u1386024179&lang=e&gm=a1&nhor=1&nho2=1&btyp=2&mth=gw&sday=2&smon=12&syr=2013&hsy=-1&zod=&orbp=150&rs=0&add=18&add=19&add=20&add=22&add=12&add=13&add=14&add=15&add=136199&add=23&add=7066&add=28978&add=90482&add=50000&add=90377&add=20000&add=27&add=28&add=29&add=30&add=31&add=32&add=33&add=34&add=35&add=36&add=37&add=38&add=39&add=40&ast=4581%2C+5

Sidereal
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?...dd=36&add=37&add=38&add=39&add=40&ast=4581,+5

I've been looking at my 12th house where I have Chiron. Incidentally, Chiron was discovered on or around my birthday which is just great (not). From the 12th house on the sidereal chart I have something like: the house of secrets, the subconscious... but Chiron is there so there is an injury to this house, a secret injury to the house of the subconscious, self-inflicted (like the self-inflicted wound of Chiron), Astrea brings in the idea of "all the way to the end" or "holding on for too long", strife and discord, a struggle for survival... I have gone "down to the bottom of the sea" like Sedna. I speak but I am not believed. What's more, it's an intercepted house... I've read about a *way through* the strife and discord being indicated by a "duplicate house". Any thoughts on this? Thank you :)

PS. Also, any thoughts on the place of birth? I may have been born below sea level.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hello Everyone, I, too, am unsure about whether to choose sidereal or tropical. I *like* my sidereal chart better - just because the intercepted houses (6 and 12) contain two signs in their entirety, while the tropical version of my chart is quite different.

Hello XenaSharon - Using Whole Sign house system
TOTALLY solves the dilemma
of intercepted houses
http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.html :smile:

Extended Chart Selection page of astro.com offers a selection of fourteen different house systems to choose from
INCLUDING whole sign



QUOTE

'...In no other area of astrology is there so much mess and confusion than in the area of the so-called "houses". There are at least twenty or thirty different house systems or means of dividing the so-called "birthchart" into twelve segments of life activity. In astrology, houses, mansions, or domains, represent general areas of life activity and are the grounding areas or arenas of expression for planets. Originally, the words "houses" and "signs" were interchangeable or meant the same thing. A planet in Aries was also a planet in the house of Aries, so that in effect. there were no real houses as we know them today....'


'….Artificial divisions now known as houses were attempts by early Greeks and Hindus to measure strength "points" in the horoscope, which during 7th and 8th centuries AD were construed or confused as means of dividing the birth chart. The ascendant and midheaven degrees and their opposites, for example, were definite power points or areas of intense focus, but not necessarily the beginnings of a house or quadrant. In fact, there is no real basis for the astrological houses at all. They derive from a misunderstanding of the true nature of the Ascendant and Midheaven factors in astrology, Ascendant representing Earth/terrestial sphere, and Midheaven representing Sky/Heaven /celestial sphere....'


'...If any house system should be used at all, it should be the Whole Sign House system, where the ascendant sign becomes the whole first house and the others follow. Ascendant point can then fall anywhere in the first house and the midheaven point anywhere in the upper half of the chart. The Whole Sign House system was used by the ancient Greeks and the Hindus(who still use it today). It is the oldest and simplest house system in existence, and immediateley eliminates the awful mess astrologers have made on the issue over the last 1300 years or so....'

A moon in Sagittarius (sidereal) seems positive to me, however a moon in Capricorn seems negative (tropical)... because the New Moon in Capricorn of 1 Feb 2003 has particular significance for me with regards to the past. I will try and post both charts.

Tropical
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid=cdufilev93Dt5-u1386024179&lang=e&gm=a1&nhor=1&nho2=1&btyp=2&mth=gw&sday=2&smon=12&syr=2013&hsy=-1&zod=&orbp=150&rs=0&add=18&add=19&add=20&add=22&add=12&add=13&add=14&add=15&add=136199&add=23&add=7066&add=28978&add=90482&add=50000&add=90377&add=20000&add=27&add=28&add=29&add=30&add=31&add=32&add=33&add=34&add=35&add=36&add=37&add=38&add=39&add=40&ast=4561%2C+5

Sidereal
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?...dd=36&add=37&add=38&add=39&add=40&ast=4561,+5

I've been looking at my 12th house where I have Chiron. Incidentally, Chiron was discovered on or around my birthday which is just great (not). From the 12th house on the sidereal chart I have something like: the house of secrets, the subconscious... but Chiron is there so there is an injury to this house, a secret injury to the house of the subconscious, self-inflicted (like the self-inflicted wound of Chiron), Astrea brings in the idea of "all the way to the end" or "holding on for too long", strife and discord, a struggle for survival... I have gone "down to the bottom of the sea" like Sedna. I speak but I am not believed. What's more, it's an intercepted house... I've read about a *way through* the strife and discord being indicated by a "duplicate house". Any thoughts on this? Thank you :)
You can use both Sidereal and Tropical
- they're just different methods of measurement of Earth's journey around our Sun from our perspective

- as illustrated visually on brief video
EARTH'S MOTION AROUND THE SUN NOT AS SIMPLE AS I THOUGHT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related

 

Krewster

Well-known member
Why choose between such two systems when you can enjoy rejecting them both...! (kidding...partly...)


Regardless of the actual truth (learnable in some afterlife), the continued non-resolution of this zodiac issue causes (for adherents like me who have not delved as deeply as the above comments) a perennial, silent state of pre-embarrassment in case any overly-curious client/layman urges an explanation devoid of a perceived hocus-pocus component.

...and since, deep down, I prefer to believe this avocation works primarily because of energy(?) flows(?) rather than primarily because of some species-generated unconscious mythology, the embarrassment seems best escapable by reducing reliance on sign-based analysis and analogies in favor of refilling the data coffers to a level required to feed the synergistic blender with something else (e.g., asteroids, fixed stars and/or minors).

Among them, perhaps minors appear least embraced because they mostly don't play-by-the-rules of sign-based analysis and analogies (e.g., elements and whole sections of the sky that get along vs. those that don't) but I swear by them (now after 4 years of refocusing on aspects instead of signs) and perceive an appreciable improvement (say from 70% to 90%) in my right:wrong guess ratio (both in remote and face-to-face mini-reading), compared to the 40 years prior sign-based experience.

So I'm wondering whether some of the heat poured-in to justifying belief in either of these systems could be productively spent on loosening reliance on sign-based analysis of either tradition and, instead, selecting another source to fill up the data bank from which synergistic analysis is performable.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
In the East (India), before sign/rashi systems arose, they had an entire system based on the nakshatras (Lunar Mansions), planets placed in them, planets transiting through them, etc etc; remnants of that system are found still in Vedic astrology (their dasha periods, the use of various 28 and 27 nakshatra based chakras, etc) and also to a certain extent in tthe West through the continued use by some, of the 28 Lunar Mansions (aka "Arabic Mansions")...so, in fact, one could work with these ancient matrices in preference to or even in place of the 12 signs (or constellations)-certainly the literature is availlable to do so (if one looks for it)
...me? I think the signs are of maximum importance and would not care to give them up (although as "Fixed star Farr" I pay considerable attention to stars-individual ones especially-but also constellations and Lunar Mansions/nakshatras as well)...
 
Top