Different Moons with Vedic and Western

M

MissScorpio

Well-known member
I am very confused. I took a glance at my chart in vedic astrology and it seems to exemplify that my Moon is in Cancer and my Mars is in Leo, whereas my natal chart is Moon in Leo and Mars in Virgo. Please can someone explain to me how this works scientifically?
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
MissScorpio said:
I am very confused. I took a glance at my chart in vedic astrology and it seems to exemplify that my Moon is in Cancer and my Mars is in Leo, whereas my natal chart is Moon in Leo and Mars in Virgo. Please can someone explain to me how this works scientifically?
Click to expand...
Zonark noticed this as well just days ago :smile:
Zonark said:
Hello, I downloaded a program called Stellarium eager to learn the constellations and, well, it puts them all in the right place
but I look on astrology sites like astro.com and it says the Sun is in Leo when it's clearly right in the center of Cancer according to this program
and that the Moon is in Gemini when it is clearly right in the middle of Taurus conjuncting Aldebaran.

What gives?
Click to expand...
Zonark also mentioned that planets/stars seen in the skies with naked eye viewing differ markedly from planets/stars as shown on Tropical charts on astro.com
Zonark said:
I'm looking at the stars right now with my eyeballs... the planets and stars are not in the constellations astro.com is saying they are. They're consistently off by about a whole sign for each object. :pouty:
Click to expand...

This marked difference is often a source of puzzlement
MissScorpio said:
Please can someone explain to me how this works scientifically?
Click to expand...
EXPLANATION

Those who wish to create a chart on astro.com that shows the actual location of the Moon as viewed by with naked eye viewing of their local night skies
then on astro.com's EXTENDED CHART SELECTION PAGE choose the option 'Sidereal' and then either Lahiri ayanama or Fagan Bradley
Notice that a sidereal night skies natal chart for your location corresponds exactly to the night skies as seen by the physical observer.

Tropical astrology and Sidereal astrology are simply different ways of measuring the yearly journey of the Earth around the Sun - i.e. one orbit of the Earth around the Sun = One Solar Year :smile:

EARTH'S MOTION AROUND THE SUN NOT AS SIMPLE AS I THOUGHT is a video explanation in visual form of the differences between these two methods of measuring One Solar Year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related

btw tsmall has an accurate/reliable time of birth but then one day while observing the night sky realization dawned that Moon/planets visible to her were clearly 'out of sync' with Tropical - so tsmall questioned why her sidereal natal chart chimes with the actual locations in the night skies BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY for the same time of birth her Tropical ascendant sign is 'out of sync' with the sidereal and actual night skies - so then that generated a thread discussion exploring the very reasonable question: What sign was "actually" breaking the horizon at the time of my birth? http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=41281

more discussion at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=490602#post490602
 
IleneK

IleneK

Premium Member
MissScorpio said:
Ok thanks! It's still very confusing though!
Click to expand...

Planets are all about 20 some degrees earlier in Vedic/sidereal than in Western/tropical charts, like 20-23 [I can't remember exactly]. Unless you have planets in the later degrees of a sign in your Western/tropical chart, they will be in a different sign in your Vedic chart. So in your chart, all your inner planets change sign except for Sun and Jupiter.

JupiterAsc's materials refer to why this is so, which is called the precession of the equinoxes.
 
M

MissScorpio

Well-known member
I understand this, but it still does not make any sense as surely a Moon in Leo individual is entirely different to a Moon in Cancer?
 
IleneK

IleneK

Premium Member
MissScorpio said:
I understand this, but it still does not make any sense as surely a Moon in Leo individual is entirely different to a Moon in Cancer?
Click to expand...

I only dabbled in Vedic for a bit quite a while ago, but as I recall [and this is a very broad generalization, that Vedic folks can explain better if they agree with me] you will be described pretty much the same with a Western or Vedic chart, because, after all, you are the same person.

So the Vedic Moon in Cancer and the Western Moon in Leo share attributes. Perhaps not one-to -one exact, but similarities. Now, I am way out of my depth here, so I can't say too much more. You probably can get a better answer if you pose the question in the Vedic forum.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
MissScorpio said:
I understand this, but it still does not make any sense as surely a Moon in Leo individual is entirely different to a Moon in Cancer?
Click to expand...
Apparently Western Tropical astrology is regarded as more psychologically oriented and delineates natal charts from that perspective

Vedic is considered a powerful predictive method

Remember also that SOME individuals planets are the same in BOTH Tropical AND Sidereal :smile:

For example any Tropical natal chart that has planets located at 25 degrees - 29 degrees of any sign may shift the DEGREE of the sign when converted to Sidereal,
BUT the Sign remains the same.

e.g. any planet at Tropical 25 - 29 degrees Sagittarius

is located

at Sidereal 1 - 5 degrees Sagittarius

INTERPRETATION IN SIDEREAL ASTROLOGY http://www.solunars.com/interp/
 
Moog

Moog

Well-known member
I understand this, but it still does not make any sense as surely a Moon in Leo individual is entirely different to a Moon in Cancer?
Click to expand...

When you take into consideration the many individuating modifying factors upon those moons, perhaps we're looking at more (perhaps many more) than 2 distinct things.
 
G

greybeard

Well-known member
A zodiac is a system of measurement, just as the metric system of lengths, weights,volumes is a system of measurement.

The metric system has a counterpart (a different system of measurement) in the English system.

Both systems measure things accurately, within that system, and a measurement from one system can be translated into the other. For example, one meter is the same as 39.37 inches.

The two commonly used zodiacs, the tropical and the sidereal, are two systems of measuring the sky for purposes of locating celestial bodies. The difference in the two systems is their point of beginning.

The tropical zodiac begins (0 Aries) at the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year (the vernal equinox). It is observed and measured by astronomers annually.

The sidereal zodiac begins at a point believed to have been the vernal equinox on some given date in the distant past, when astrology was in its infancy. Its point of beginning is fixed in the heavens (is the same as a fixed star). As of this moment, using the Lahiri Ayanamsa (the official ayanamsa of India), the sidereal zodiac is 24 degrees and 3 minutes earlier in the signs than the tropical zodiac. There are different ayanamsa (Fagan, Krishnamurti, Raman, etc.) which vary slightly in their point of beginning. If your Moon is at 18 Leo 38 in tropical, you will find it at 24 Cancer 35 in sidereal (Lahiri). (5-18-38 minus 23 deg 03 min = 4-24-35). The separation of the two points of beginning (0 Aries) increases slightly with the passing years (about 1 degree every 70 years); in other words, 70 years ago, the difference between the two was about 23 degrees rather than the current 24. On 10 August 1943, the difference was 23 d 04 m. [Lahiri])

Both systems work. Both systems take the Precession of the Equinoxes into account (many sidereal astrologers will disagree with me here, but that is because they have not thought out the problem.) But each system must be taken and used on its own terms. To translate from one zodiac to the other is not so simple as converting from the Metric to the English system, because not only is there a quantitative value, but also a qualitative one (the "meanings" of sign, or of specific degrees).

The tropical zodiac is the one used by most western astrologers. The sidereal zodiac is used by the Vedic astrologers (Indian). The two systems of astrology, while sharing most of the fundamentals, differ greatly in method. I would suggest to beginning students of astrology that they arbitrarily choose one system or the other and work within its confines. Once the student gains proficiency in the fundamentals and basic methods of the chosen system, then the other system may be profitably explored without causing confusion.

Let's assume that a person has a tropical Ascendant of 12 Cancer 28. Then, subtracting 24 d 03 m, we find that in the sidereal zodiac the Ascendant falls in 18 Gemini 25. First, if the Ascendant represents "personality" [physical constitution, appearance, behavioral presentation], then we should be able to see which description -- Gemini or Cancer -- best fits the actual person; the two signs are quite different in their qualities and characteristics. Second, the lord of Gemini is Mercury and the lord of Cancer is Moon. These two planets will probably be posited in different signs and houses in the given chart, and behold different aspects and other conditioning. So, with some study of a particular chart -- of a person whose character is well understood -- the astrologer should be able to decide (at least on this basis) which of the two zodiacs seems to be "the correct one."

Also, in about 80% of all instances, the signs on the house cusps will change (use whole sign houses for this experiment, to simplify). This means the lords of the houses will also change. This should result in very different readings for the affairs of the houses. If you have already acquired basic skill in chart interpretation, I invite you to try this experiment with three or four charts. You may be very surprised by what you discover.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
greybeard said:
A zodiac is a system of measurement, just as the metric system of lengths, weights,volumes is a system of measurement.

The metric system has a counterpart (a different system of measurement) in the English system.

Both systems measure things accurately, within that system, and a measurement from one system can be translated into the other. For example, one meter is the same as 39.37 inches.

The two commonly used zodiacs, the tropical and the sidereal, are two systems of measuring the sky for purposes of locating celestial bodies. The difference in the two systems is their point of beginning.

The tropical zodiac begins (0 Aries) at the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year (the vernal equinox). It is observed and measured by astronomers annually
Click to expand...
The crossing of the Ecliptic by the Celestial Equator occurs twice a year at two points directly in opposition to each other, known as the Equinoctial points – these two points demarcate the Spring Equinox and/or Vernal Point and the Autumnal Equinox and/or Autumnal Point

- btw when our Sun is at these points we must not look at it – in fact we must never look directly at the Sun.

Nevertheless, astronomers ancient as well as modern, viewed the skies BEFORE SUNRISE, noting fixed stars and/or constellations that were visible at these Equinoctial points

Approximately two thousand years ago (or thereabouts) one of these two points was indeed 0º Aries.
greybeard said:
The sidereal zodiac begins at a point believed to have been the vernal equinox on some given date in the distant past, when astrology was in its infancy. Its point of beginning is fixed in the heavens (is the same as a fixed star)
Click to expand...
It is the Tropical Zodiac that 'begins at a point believed to have been the vernal equinox at some given date in the distant past when astrology was in its infancy, it's point of beginning' is permanently now fixed at 0º Aries

HOWEVER

'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year - aka the vernal equinox' - IS NO LONGER located at 0º Aries

Two thousand years ago or thereabouts - BOTH Tropically AND Sidereally - 'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year' - aka the Vernal Equinox - WAS located at 0º Aries

In AD 2013, the location of 'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year' - aka the Vernal Equinox - is, according to the Lahiri Ayanamsa currently located at 05º Sidereal Pisces 57'17"

The Lahiri Ayanamsa is the official Ayansama used by Indian Sidereal Vedic astrologers - the Lahiri Ayanamsa = 24º 02' 30"
greybeard said:
As of this moment, using the Lahiri Ayanamsa (the official ayanamsa of India), the sidereal zodiac is 24 degrees and 3 minutes earlier in the signs than the tropical zodiac. There are different ayanamsa (Fagan, Krishnamurti, Raman, etc.) which vary slightly in their point of beginning. If your Moon is at 18 Leo 38 in tropical, you will find it at 24 Cancer 35 in sidereal (Lahiri). (5-18-38 minus 23 deg 03 min = 4-24-35). The separation of the two points of beginning (0 Aries) increases slightly with the passing years (about 1 degree every 70 years); in other words, 70 years ago, the difference between the two was about 23 degrees rather than the current 24. On 10 August 1943, the difference was 23 d 04 m. [Lahiri])
Click to expand...
And as of this moment, the Tropical Zodiac remains permanently fixed, as it has done for approximately the past two thousand years at 0º Aries BECAUSE THE TROPICAL ZODIAC IGNORES PRECESSION

THE FACTS

- no matter how 'distinct exact mathematical and actual' the crossing of the great circle of the Ecliptic by the great circle of the celestial Equator at 'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year' - aka the Vernal Equinox aka THE EQUINOCTIAL POINTS

that event no longer takes place at 0º Aries or thereabouts as it once did over two thousand years ago approximately or thereabouts.

IN FACT

the crossing of the Ecliptic by the celestial Equator aka the Equinoctial Points aka 'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year' occurred at 05º Sidereal Pisces 57' 17" in 2013 DUE TO PRECESSION

Nevertheless Tropical astrologers continue to describe this Equinoctial point
aka 'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year' at the Vernal Equinox
as 0º Aries.

That is how the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs differ


Robert A Powell's HISTORY OF THE ZODIAC EXPLAINS that
Hipparchus (190 BC – 120 BC) compiled a catalogue of 850 stars and then decided to compare his catalogue of stars with the star catalogues of two earlier observers Timocharis and Aristillus detailing observations covering the previous 150 years.

TIMOCHARIS and ARISTILLUS had created their own different methods of keeping track of the sky:

HIPPARCHUS realized that
in order to compare data and/or discuss observations with others
- as well as pass accurate observations to later generations - there was a need for a common or conventional map of the sky.


The most fundamental point on a map is the “Origin” – the (0) location.

HIPPARCHUS selected the Vernal Equinox as the Origin for his map of the sky
and fixed it at 0º Aries
 even though HIPPARCHUS did observe and also recorded that the Vernal Equinox was drifting very slowly westward
being at the time of Hipparchus at approximately 12º Aries or thereabouts

Hipparchus noticed as well that all the stars seemed to continually change their places with reference to his Origin (0) point – the Vernal Equinox
- but he offered no written explanation.

Robert A Powell informs us in “HISTORY OF THE ZODIAC” that

an agricultural calendar of seasons based on the Vernal Point and developed at Athens by the astronomers METON and EUCTEMON
was gradually merged over the centuries with HIPPARCHUS astrologically orientated map of the sky which had also based itself on the Vernal Point
As time passed, the original calendar months merged with and/or were replaced by the twelve signs of the zodiac.

These are the origins of 'The Tropical Zodiac' of modern astrology
i.e. 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 http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Zodiac-Robert-Powell/dp/1597311529 9

The average time for the Vernal Equinox to move from one constellation of the zodiac into the next is known as an Astrological Age.

Astrological Ages exist as a result of precession of the equinoxes.

Approximately every 2,150 years the sun's position at the time of the vernal equinox will have moved into a new zodiacal constellation.

dr. farr has previously advised us that zodiacal constellations are not uniform in size and also that there is overlap between zodiacal constellations which has led some astrologers to surmise that the corresponding ages should also vary in duration.

In 1929, the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations and the edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600. However this is a contentious issue amongst astrologers.
Link to diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0/Seasons1.svg

greybeard said:
Both systems work
Click to expand...
Tropical and Sidereal do both work as methods of natal chart delineation :smile:
greybeard said:
Both systems take the Precession of the Equinoxes into account
Click to expand...
If this was true then both systems would be identical. Instead, clearly Sidereal and Tropical are different. This brief video clearly explains the differences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related
greybeard said:
(many sidereal astrologers will disagree with me here, but that is because they have not thought out the problem.) But each system must be taken and used on its own terms. To translate from one zodiac to the other is not so simple as converting from the Metric to the English system, because not only is there a quantitative value, but also a qualitative one (the "meanings" of sign, or of specific degrees).

The tropical zodiac is the one used by most western astrologers. The sidereal zodiac is used by the Vedic astrologers (Indian). The two systems of astrology, while sharing most of the fundamentals, differ greatly in method. I would suggest to beginning students of astrology that they arbitrarily choose one system or the other and work within its confines. Once the student gains proficiency in the fundamentals and basic methods of the chosen system, then the other system may be profitably explored without causing confusion.

Let's assume that a person has a tropical Ascendant of 12 Cancer 28. Then, subtracting 24 d 03 m, we find that in the sidereal zodiac the Ascendant falls in 18 Gemini 25. First, if the Ascendant represents "personality" [physical constitution, appearance, behavioral presentation], then we should be able to see which description -- Gemini or Cancer -- best fits the actual person; the two signs are quite different in their qualities and characteristics. Second, the lord of Gemini is Mercury and the lord of Cancer is Moon. These two planets will probably be posited in different signs and houses in the given chart, and behold different aspects and other conditioning. So, with some study of a particular chart -- of a person whose character is well understood -- the astrologer should be able to decide (at least on this basis) which of the two zodiacs seems to be "the correct one."

Also, in about 80% of all instances, the signs on the house cusps will change (use whole sign houses for this experiment, to simplify). This means the lords of the houses will also change. This should result in very different readings for the affairs of the houses. If you have already acquired basic skill in chart interpretation, I invite you to try this experiment with three or four charts. You may be very surprised by what you discover.
Click to expand...
Zonark clearly states the differences between the two systems
Zonark said:
Hello, I downloaded a program called Stellarium eager to learn the constellations and, well, it puts them all in the right place but I look on astrology sites like astro.com and it says the Sun is in Leo when it's clearly right in the center of Cancer according to this program and that the Moon is in Gemini when it is clearly right in the middle of Taurus conjuncting Aldebaran.

What gives?
Click to expand...
There is an approximately 24 degree difference between the location of the Moon in the eye of Aldebaran as observed with naked eye viewing and the location of the Moon as given on astro.com Tropical charts.

For those who want to create a chart on astro.com that shows the actual location of the Moon as viewed by with naked eye viewing in the skies then go to astro.com's EXTENDED CHART SELECTION PAGE and choose the option 'Sidereal' and then Lahiri ayanama or Fagan Bradley whichever you prefer.

Tropical astrology and Sidereal astrology are simply different ways of measuring the yearly journey of the Earth around the Sun - i.e. one orbit of the Earth around the Sun = One Solar Year :smile:
 
G

greybeard

Well-known member
As I said, "many sidereal astrologers will disagree with me here [in saying that both zodiacs allow for precession], but that is because they have not thought out the problem."

I have no desire to debate the question.

If this was true then both systems would be identical. Instead, clearly Sidereal and Tropical are different. ...this statement is simply not true. The reasoning is fallacious. Any and all Systems of Measurement, of whatever sort, must rely on at least one arbitrarily chosen standard. For example, the Metric system defines "the Meter" arbitrarily, and then the entire system (how elegant) unfolds from that. The English system relies on several arbitrary -- and unrelated -- standards (hence its clumsy and unwieldy character), but both systems serve to measure length, volume, weight, etc. with equal accuracy. They are not identical.

And as of this moment, the Tropical Zodiac remains permanently fixed, as it has done for approximately the past two thousand years at 0º Aries BECAUSE THE TROPICAL ZODIAC IGNORES PRECESSION. Also fallacious.

Tropical and Sidereal do both work as methods of natal chart delineation I hope you are not implying that tropical works only for "natal chart delineation." It would take even a modestly-skilled tropical astrologer less than ten minutes to demolish such a contention.

...that event no longer takes place at 0º Aries or thereabouts as it once did over two thousand years ago approximately or thereabouts. Depends on definition of 0 Aries. This is the key to the entire question, coupled with the "arbitrary standard" I mention above.

There are radical astrologers who maintain that the "zodiac" should consist of 13 unequal divisions, including Ophiucus, a constellation which holds a small part of the ecliptic. There is also the draconic zodiac, which uses the lunar north node as its point of beginning -- a sort of moveable feast. The Mesoamerican astrologers used a twenty-sign zodiac (I am oversimplifying); their predictive work stands up to rigorous examination, as demonstrated by recently translated temple inscriptions.

I will repeat and reaffirm what I said. Both systems take precession of the equinoxes into account.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
greybeard said:
As I said, "many sidereal astrologers will disagree with me here [in saying that both zodiacs allow for precession], but that is because they have not thought out the problem."

I have no desire to debate the question.

If this was true then both systems would be identical. Instead, clearly Sidereal and Tropical are different. ...this statement is simply not true. The reasoning is fallacious. Any and all Systems of Measurement, of whatever sort, must rely on at least one arbitrarily chosen standard. For example, the Metric system defines "the Meter" arbitrarily, and then the entire system (how elegant) unfolds from that. The English system relies on several arbitrary -- and unrelated -- standards (hence its clumsy and unwieldy character), but both systems serve to measure length, volume, weight, etc. with equal accuracy. They are not identical.

And as of this moment, the Tropical Zodiac remains permanently fixed, as it has done for approximately the past two thousand years at 0º Aries BECAUSE THE TROPICAL ZODIAC IGNORES PRECESSION. Also fallacious.

Tropical and Sidereal do both work as methods of natal chart delineation I hope you are not implying that tropical works only for "natal chart delineation." It would take even a modestly-skilled tropical astrologer less than ten minutes to demolish such a contention.

...that event no longer takes place at 0º Aries or thereabouts as it once did over two thousand years ago approximately or thereabouts. Depends on definition of 0 Aries. This is the key to the entire question, coupled with the "arbitrary standard" I mention above.

There are radical astrologers who maintain that the "zodiac" should consist of 13 unequal divisions, including Ophiucus, a constellation which holds a small part of the ecliptic. There is also the draconic zodiac, which uses the lunar north node as its point of beginning -- a sort of moveable feast. The Mesoamerican astrologers used a twenty-sign zodiac (I am oversimplifying); their predictive work stands up to rigorous examination, as demonstrated by recently translated temple inscriptions.

I will repeat and reaffirm what I said. Both systems take precession of the equinoxes into account.
Click to expand...
Tropical Zodiac

'begins at a point believed to have been the vernal equinox at some given date in the distant past when astrology was in its infancy, it's point of beginning'
Tropical Zodiac is permanently now fixed at 0º Aries

HOWEVER


DUE TO PRECESSION
'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year
- also known as the vernal equinox'
IS NO LONGER located at 0º Aries


Two thousand years ago plus or thereabouts
- BOTH Tropically AND Sidereally -
'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year'
- also known as the Vernal Equinox -
WAS located at 0º Aries

TODAY'S UPDATE

AD 2013, the location of
'the place in the sky where the center of the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the beginning of the northern spring each year'
- also known as the Vernal Equinox -
is, according to the Lahiri Ayanamsa currently located at 05º Sidereal Pisces 57'17" :smile:

Therefore it is obvious that, while the Sidereal Zodiac DOES account for precession, the Tropical Zodiac DOES NOT account for precession

The Lahiri Ayanamsa is the official Ayansama used by Indian Sidereal Vedic astrologers - the Lahiri Ayanamsa = 24º 02' 30"
 
G

greybeard

Well-known member
I don't care to debate.

As I said, "They have not thought out the problem."

Put down your books (whose authors have personal agendas or perspectives) and think it out.

We both agree, the sidereal zodiac takes precession into account.

The bone of contention (on your part, not mine) is my assertion that the tropical zodiac takes precession into account to the same degree as the sidereal. Your challenge is to understand the why and how of it, or to disprove it. Or to go on to more fruitful pursuits.

Personally, it makes no difference to me. It's not worth a debate or argument. "Discussing" this topic with a convinced siderealist is on a par with arguing with a religious zealot; no amount of reason or fact will dissuade or convince them. Notice that I accept the validity of both systems, while you doggedly insist on the Rightness of only one.

The world's astronomers use the tropical zodiac. They are well aware of (and understand as well as anyone) precession. When one understands precession and its mechanisms, it is easy to see how the tropical zodiac embraces precession.

I have said this before, in some other thread. But I will repeat the idea, as it may be of some use. In modern science one of the four "tests" for a theory or mathematical model is called "parsimony" (known to us laymen as Occam's Razor.) For a good explanation see E.O. Wilson's Consilience. -- an excellent book. He says, "...scientists look for four qualities in theory generally and mathematical models in particular. The first is parsimony: the fewer the units and processes used to account for the phenomenon, the better."

Now, let's imagine a sky with absolutely no fixed stars. All that we see in the sky are the planets of our solar system. Under these conditions, the sidereal zodiac is impossible. There is no Spica to serve as fiduciary. But the tropical zodiac continues on its merry way, unperturbed. Thus the criterion of parsimony is met. We have eliminated an entire set of units (fixed stars) and still our mathematical model of the sky (the tropical zodiac) is effective in every sense of the word, while the sidereal zodiac is consigned to oblivion.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
greybeard said:
I don't care to debate......

Now, let's imagine a sky with absolutely no fixed stars. All that we see in the sky are the planets of our solar system. Under these conditions, the sidereal zodiac is impossible. There is no Spica to serve as fiduciary. But the tropical zodiac continues on its merry way, unperturbed. Thus the criterion of parsimony is met. We have eliminated an entire set of units (fixed stars) and still our mathematical model of the sky (the tropical zodiac) is effective in every sense of the word, while the sidereal zodiac is consigned to oblivion.
Click to expand...
We are agreed that 'a sky with absolutely no fixed stars'
from our current geocentric perspective
is an imaginary sky

and the permanent fixing of the Tropical Zodiac at 0º Aries is also an imaginary device

That imaginary device works very well of course because the Tropical Zodiac works

just as does the Sidereal

both Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs are
as I have already said on several other threads
simply different systems of measurement

- in fact my signature has for years displayed a link to a visual explanation of the differences which I now highlight for those who have not already viewed it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related :smile:

 
Top