Sidereal Astrology is More Accurate

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Rebel Uranian said: Edit: Cancer Moons and Aqua Suns are supposed to have really light and jovial dispositons. Do either of those signs like scary or heavy things, like I use in my arts all the time? I don't think so, but I could be wrong... Of course I'm a :capricorn: :pisces: (my final dispositors.) :capricorn: = the darkest sign, :pisces: = the most creative sign.

well...I suppose Cancer sun/Aquarius moon has a more happier effect than vice versa, and for me Cancer ascendant with a more Capricorn-Pisces (?) mood plus the triple planet combination of Mars/Jupiter/Saturn in Virgo (or Leo)...and Uranus in Scorpio (or Neptune) gave me dark negative vibes.
 

Inconjunct

Well-known member
Where do you get the idea that Aquarius is supposed to be jovial? It's ruled by Saturn!

Both the sidereal and the tropical zodiacs are imaginary divisions of the heavens. The one is not more "accurate" than the other. It seems to me that your posts on this subject are largely based on a rather superficial reading of the symbolism of the signs and planets.
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Aquarius is ruled by Saturn, but it does not equal Saturn.

"Traditional sources refer to it as a 'sanguine sign', as all the air signs are, indicating that it is underwritten by healthy attributes of grace, charm and attractiveness, and has no leanings towards crude, violent or unpleasant extremes. Since they tend towards a position of balance, Aquarians are generally seen as popular, polite and sociable members of society. They offer harmonising influences upon groups, especially with their penchant for bringing cool reason to heated debates and thus steering attention away from personal and emotional trysts to communal and intellectual problems that concern and unite us all."

Cancer (not Aquarius) is always considered light, flexible, and jovial. The only part of the Cancer descriptions I agree with are that I can be sensitive to what is going on (but not really in an emotional way, so I'm not sure,) and that I'm conservative with resources (i.e. money.)

Sidereal and tropical astrology say very different things about my chart and the charts of people I know. I find sidereal to portray reality more accurately. Mars in Scorpio can't keep a secret because it's actually in Libra. Saturn in Aries is a hard worker because it's in Pisces.
 

Zonark

Well-known member
I know that. My geocentric chart makes more sense I think,but still there is NO LOGIC ,how can you use planets of the Solar System and say that the Sun moves around the Earth? It's imaginary astrology, not reality-based, that's what bothers me.

What is it about geocentric astrology that doesn't make sense? I'm not understanding this assertion.

Astrology is the position of the stars relative to the event being charted. The best example of course being a birth, it is the position of the birth on the planet Earth relative to the locations of the stars that determine the layout of the chart. Taking into account the birth position with as exacting coordinate data as possible, gives far more astrological data about the birth itself than it would simply taking the positions of the stars in relation to the Sun at the day and time of birth.

The point of Geocentric is to add a third dimension which previously could not be added in traditional systems due to incomplete cartographic knowledge, that of birth location.

Am I missing something here?

Also an interesting article on House systems that posits Topocentric as the most logical system, well worth a read. I think you'd enjoy this one, Uranian; http://www.astrowisdom.net/articles/in-search-of-best-house-system.htm
 

Choe

Well-known member
What is it about geocentric astrology that doesn't make sense? I'm not understanding this assertion.

Astrology is the position of the stars relative to the event being charted. The best example of course being a birth, it is the position of the birth on the planet Earth relative to the locations of the stars that determine the layout of the chart. Taking into account the birth position with as exacting coordinate data as possible, gives far more astrological data about the birth itself than it would simply taking the positions of the stars in relation to the Sun at the day and time of birth.

The point of Geocentric is to add a third dimension which previously could not be added in traditional systems due to incomplete cartographic knowledge, that of birth location.


Am I missing something here?

Also an interesting article on House systems that posits Topocentric as the most logical system, well worth a read. I think you'd enjoy this one, Uranian; http://www.astrowisdom.net/articles/in-search-of-best-house-system.htm

I have no idea what you are saying,and I read it twice! :confused:
 

Zonark

Well-known member
I have no idea what you are saying,and I read it twice! :confused:



Okay when you make someone's chart, the positions of the planets in the chart, as well as the positions of all the important points are all relative to a single point of reference. In heliocentric this point of reference is the Sun, which means if you were at the center of the Sun and could take a picture of all the planets and stars in what position they were at when you were born, you'd have the data for the Heliocentric chart.

Back in less technologically advanced times, this is the way they had to do it because they didn't even know the Earth was round and had no reliable way to plot your birth position on Earth with the latitude and longitude. What they could do, was calculate the position of the Earth relative to the Sun and use that data.

However once the Earth was mapped out as a three dimensional spherical object, astrologers could start using this new dimension in their calculations. So rather than using a one dimensional point as the axis (the center of the Sun, roughly) they had a point that exists in three dimensional space (the spot on the Earth that you were born). This exponentially increases the variation in data received from a chart because it more accurately charts what the Heavens actually looked like when you were born in relation to where you were born! No longer does your location of birth have to be discounted. Thanks to modern astronomical understanding of our Earth's shape and rotation, astrologers can more accurately determine how the heavens really looked, to you at that moment of birth, not just how they looked from the Sun's perspective.

Make sense?
 

Choe

Well-known member
Okay when you make someone's chart, the positions of the planets in the chart, as well as the positions of all the important points are all relative to a single point of reference. In heliocentric this point of reference is the Sun, which means if you were at the center of the Sun and could take a picture of all the planets and stars in what position they were at when you were born, you'd have the data for the Heliocentric chart.

Back in less technologically advanced times, this is the way they had to do it because they didn't even know the Earth was round and had no reliable way to plot your birth position on Earth with the latitude and longitude. What they could do, was calculate the position of the Earth relative to the Sun and use that data.

However once the Earth was mapped out as a three dimensional spherical object, astrologers could start using this new dimension in their calculations. So rather than using a one dimensional point as the axis (the center of the Sun, roughly) they had a point that exists in three dimensional space (the spot on the Earth that you were born). This exponentially increases the variation in data received from a chart because it more accurately charts what the Heavens actually looked like when you were born in relation to where you were born! No longer does your location of birth have to be discounted. Thanks to modern astronomical understanding of our Earth's shape and rotation, astrologers can more accurately determine how the heavens really looked, to you at that moment of birth, not just how they looked from the Sun's perspective.

Make sense?

Yes.

However, my point was: How can we have Sun in different signs, when the Sun doesn't rotates in the system of planets we all use.

It's more logical to have Earth in signs,that means where the Earth was when you were born.
 

Zonark

Well-known member
Yes.

However, my point was: How can we have Sun in different signs, when the Sun doesn't rotates in the system of planets we all use.

It's more logical to have Earth in signs,that means where the Earth was when you were born.

Because we are calculating the Sun sign not by the position of the Sun but by the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun.
 

MSO

Well-known member
Aquarius is ruled by Saturn, but it does not equal Saturn.

"Traditional sources refer to it as a 'sanguine sign', as all the air signs are, indicating that it is underwritten by healthy attributes of grace, charm and attractiveness, and has no leanings towards crude, violent or unpleasant extremes. Since they tend towards a position of balance, Aquarians are generally seen as popular, polite and sociable members of society. They offer harmonising influences upon groups, especially with their penchant for bringing cool reason to heated debates and thus steering attention away from personal and emotional trysts to communal and intellectual problems that concern and unite us all."

Cancer (not Aquarius) is always considered light, flexible, and jovial. The only part of the Cancer descriptions I agree with are that I can be sensitive to what is going on (but not really in an emotional way, so I'm not sure,) and that I'm conservative with resources (i.e. money.)

Sidereal and tropical astrology say very different things about my chart and the charts of people I know. I find sidereal to portray reality more accurately. Mars in Scorpio can't keep a secret because it's actually in Libra. Saturn in Aries is a hard worker because it's in Pisces.
I've never read that Cancers are light, flexible, and jovial. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a jolly Cancer Sun that didn't have something else going on in the chart.
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
http://www.findyourfate.com/astrology/moon-astrology/cancer.html

(quote not from URL)

"On the positive side, Cancerians contribute qualities of empathy, sympathy, nurturing, leadership, organization, practicality, intuition, kindness, open-heartedness, protectiveness, emotional availability, generosity, joviality, creativity, amicability, diplomacy, business saavy and accounting talents. Let's go - Cancer is a great sign to have represented in your chart!"

Jupiter is also clearly exalted in Cancer.

(I've heard that Cancer is jovial quite a few times. Got to keep searching and searching...

IT'S TOO LATE TO BE GRATEFUL...

Never mind. No randomness. But still searching.)
 
Last edited:

serafin5

Well-known member
There are Western Sidereal Astrologers - eg Cyril Fagan http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/cyrilfagan/cyrilfagan.asp and here's another website that refers to Cyril Fagan http://www.eclipses.biz/ancient_mistake.html

Vedic is sidereal and has a reputation for accuracy
:smile:

QUOTE: HOT TOPICS IN ASTROLOGY http://www.mybirthchart.com/hotfaq.aspx

"There are two zodiacs. The Sidereal zodiac is a physical reality depicting commonly acknowledged pictures made up of groups of stars used by astronomers, Vedic and Sidereal astrologers.

The Tropical zodiac is a mathematical construct used by astrologers only.

Most people in the Western Hemisphere think of their astrological signs based on the Tropical zodiac, which is a math-only based system of division with the zero point starting at the Vernal Equinox. On March 20, 2004 when the Sun crosses the ecliptic, it’s the first day of Spring in the Northern Hemisphere. New babies born on the following day will be told that they have an Aries Sun sign. And they will Tropically. All the Tropical astrologers will mark out the 12 signs, Aries to Pisces, 30 degrees each, from that point in space.

If you could see where the Sun actually was, you would see it in the 7th degree of the constellation Pisces. Sidereal Astrologers use the physical Zodiac which consists of 12 constellations. So if you were born on March 20 or 21, the Sun is physically in the Sign Pisces, not the constellation Aries.

What does this mean to you? Well, it might explain why you weren’t like all those other “Aries” born at the end of the month. But then again, you could have other planets in Aries that gives you the giddy-up that we associate with Aries. You need to see your birth chart to know how many planets are in each constellation. Look at both and see for yourself which makes more sense to you"

Wow, JupAsc, I had no idea that this was so your explanation was really great! This is a topic that I have promised myself that I would study on and find out what the differences are but I had no idea that they are so blatant. So which is the right one? If the Sun was actually in Aquarius and not Pisces when I was born that no wonder I have always identified with Aquarius all of my life! However, I do also identify with my Asc. sign being in Scorpio, I'm not sure if that changes or not. Now I am questioning the validity of the Tropical system and why we use it.

Food for thought.....
Thanks astrologers-Serafin5
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
If the Sun was actually in Aquarius and not Pisces when I was born that no wonder I have always identified with Aquarius all of my life! However, I do also identify with my Asc. sign being in Scorpio, I'm not sure if that changes or not.

It depends on which ayanasyma you use if your Asc degree is late enough. I personally think I'm more of a Capricorn and Pisces that Aquarius. I first thought I was more of a Pisces when I was reading Sun signs, but after a while I was like no, I like reality and responsibility and I don't like sob stories or pity, but if you mix that with Capricorn you get exactly that, a creative and intuitive disciplined person. I don't even look like an Aquarius. Aquarius are supposed to have really bright blue eyes but mine are brown and darker than most people's.
 

Inconjunct

Well-known member
Can I just point out that you are not just your Sun sign - you have nine other planets and two major points to consider. Basing your judgement of tropical astrology solely on superficial, cookbook interpretations of Sun positions is like deciding a cake is delicious because the icing is a nice colour.

Can I also point out that astrology uses geocentric positions of the planets because we are all born and live on the Earth, not the Sun.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
As I have posted elsewhere, I myself (albeit a dedicated Tropicalist) have respect for sidereal approaches, but I have been disappointed with the common Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley corrections (ayanamsa); my experiments with the little known Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa (used by certain adepts in India) have been much more positive/interesting in results-to test this, simply take all tropical placements back 30 degrees*, and see what you come up with (currently this correction is approx 5 to 6 degrees more than the Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley corrections)


(*formula for the Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa is: given year + 149 X 50.25 divided by 3600 = exact number of degrees and minutes to be subtracted from the tropical zodiacal degrees and planetary positions)
 

SniperBomber328

Well-known member
Well if I use Sidereal Astrology, every single planet of mine, minus Saturn and the Moon are all found in the 1st House Libra. Meaning Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Mercury are all there! The Moon and Saturn (in Sidereal) are found in the 4th House Capricorn.

What does this all mean? All my traditional planets are Cardinal and Angular in Sidereal Astrology, and my chart would implicate that I am very Venusian and Librian. Heck even my PoF would be found in the 4th House Capricorn.

The Outers are as follow in Sidereal:

Pluto in Libra
Uranus in Capricorn
Neptune in Capricorn

So using Sidereal Modernly, would still leave me with a Cardinal/Angular based chart! I don't really see myself as Capricornian or Librian in any way. Then again I don't see myself as very much Scorpionic or Aquarian either (which would be the results of my Tropical Angular Chart).

Though, with tha above statted, I can relate more to my Tropical Chart, then my Sidereal one, because with my Tropical I am a mix of Libra, Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces, which I think fits the bill for my personality much better. Well at least more than my sidereal chart which consists again, of Libra and Capricorn only.
 
Last edited:

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Can I just point out that you are not just your Sun sign - you have nine other planets and two major points to consider. Basing your judgement of tropical astrology solely on superficial, cookbook interpretations of Sun positions is like deciding a cake is delicious because the icing is a nice colour.

Yes, I have nine other planets, like my shy, easily persuaded and heart-over-head Cancer Moon, my weak Aries Saturn, my even weaker Libra Mars, and my LoG Venus that always avoids fights. Well, what am I doing now?

my experiments with the little known Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa (used by certain adepts in India) have been much more positive/interesting in results-to test this, simply take all tropical placements back 30 degrees*, and see what you come up with (currently this correction is approx 5 to 6 degrees more than the Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley corrections)


(*formula for the Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa is: given year + 149 X 50.25 divided by 3600 = exact number of degrees and minutes to be subtracted from the tropical zodiacal degrees and planetary positions)

I thought you used the Hipparchus ayanamsa...

Though, with tha above statted, I can relate more to my Tropical Chart, then my Sidereal one, because with my Tropical I am a mix of Libra, Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces, which I think fits the bill for my personality much better. Well at least more than my sidereal chart which consists again, of Libra and Capricorn only.

Planets are more important than signs. In tropical I'm Venusian and Lunarian (or vice versa.) In sidereal I'm (extremely) Mercurial and (less so in most systems) Saturnian. How do you see me? Try thinking about how you see you and then look at your planets in both systems too.
 
Last edited:

SniperBomber328

Well-known member
Planets are more important than signs. In tropical I'm Venusian and Lunarian (or vice versa.) In sidereal I'm (extremely) Mercurial and (less so in most systems) Saturnian. How do you see me? Try thinking about how you see you and then look at your planets in both systems too.

Too which I exactly point out. I see myself more in the light of my Tropical Chart, rather than my sidereal, which I think I mentioned. But other than that, I was trying to make the point where I personally think one should stick too one chart rather than both.

Which I was seeing in some posts, you can't just say, "Well I am this, since this and that on this chart" and "This and that on another". It pretty much ruins the whole regime, no?

Also in my way of expertise (which holds no accountability) isn't Sidereal a Vedic system, therefore must be delineated quite differently?
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Also in my way of expertise (which holds no accountability) isn't Sidereal a Vedic system, therefore must be delineated quite differently?

No. It can be, and (@Zonark -) I'm actually thinking about using Vedic, especially since I use some of their techniques such as sect, but sidereal does not require Vedic delineations. In fact, astronomers use it in determining (generally unimportant) things such as the Great Year.

Sidereal - of or pertaining to the stars

Sidereal astrology is astrology that uses the position of the stars rather than the invented 12-sign division based on equinoxes and solstices. Of course, most sidereal systems use the same constellations in their 30* divisions as crossed the ecliptic 2000 years ago, but the astrological zodiac is such an imaginary thing it doesn't matter much anyhow.
 
Top