outerhaven.6
Member
I am a taurus in tropical but an aries in sidereal. I have found out that most of the stuff in sidereal fits me in sidereal than tropical why is that. Also should i follow tropical or sidereal.
Is Sidereal Astrology more accurate than Tropical?
- Thread starter outerhaven.6
- Start date
That is a tough decision but you really need to make it for yourself imo. I have found that some people relate more to their sidereal charts than their tropical. I think it is a personal thing because some just relate better to one than the other. I have never been able to relate to my sidereal planetary placements, and it changes a lot of my pLanets. My Sun, Moon and Venus, ruler of my asc, ALL change in sidereal. I would become a Libra,with Sag Moon and that just does not feel right to me at all. But that does not mean it is not valid to others. If you feel that it describes you better as an Aries than a Taurus, then perhaps you are a sidereal astrologer at heart.
astrologer50
Banned
If you are new to learning astrology, just stick to the default on astro.com which is western tropical... You need a lot of experience to play around with different systems--- same with house systems too.
You may be identifying with aries cos you have planets in aries, planets in first house. there's lots of reason why this could be, but unless you post your chart can't help much further.
MantisReligiosa
Well-known member
I found this to be a serious issue, as well, and it really bugs me.
I started studying astrology(Western Tropial perspective, with Placidus House System) at 16, and while I did check whole sign house system, and sidereal, and draconic, and what not, I simply dismissed all of them without much further analysis..until I was like 19 or 20, when a Sidereal astrologer gave me a free reading that blew me away in its accuracy.
I thought I'd look closely to my Sidereal chart, mixed with the Whole Sign house system, like most people use it, and I was amazed at how well it all seemed to suit me.
I had dismissed it right off the bat because Sidereal gave me a Leo Rising, and since I had issues with self-confidence and self-esteem my whole life, and would scarcely be considered "energetic", having been plagued with depression from an early age, I thought it would be impossible for me to have a Leo Rising, which was described s confident, daring, domineering, and what not..
But then, when I looked at the ENTIRE Sidereal chart, it all seemed to fall into place: yes, I did have a Leo Rising, but my Sun was in Aquarius, conjunct Venus on the DC, which is a weakened place for the ego, and a bad position for a Leo Rising, which is ruled by the Sun.
On top of that, I have Saturn-Neptune-Uranus all conjunct one another, in my 5th house, which would weaken the expression of a Leo Rising even further.
Furthermore, I had a tight stellium of Moon, Mars and Jupiter in Taurus, which explained my love of pleasure and usually slow, passive personality.
Have never been much of a risk-taker, or too outgoing.
Also, my chart in Sidereal consists mainly of equal amounts of air and earth, which would actually explain my issues with depression better, since Earth and Air are energies which suppress emotions, or try to rationalize them, preventing release of tension, and suppression of emotions is one of the main explanations for depression.
And, overall, my entire chart turns to Fixed Mode instead of Mutable, which explains my epic stubbornness and fear of change...
After having read through the entire chart, I realized I definitely sounded more like a damaged Leo than a Virgo Rising of any caliber.
I have always had the love of attention, the flair for drama, and egocentric nature, but without the "loud" expression one would naturally expect from a Leo Rising.
I started studying astrology(Western Tropial perspective, with Placidus House System) at 16, and while I did check whole sign house system, and sidereal, and draconic, and what not, I simply dismissed all of them without much further analysis..until I was like 19 or 20, when a Sidereal astrologer gave me a free reading that blew me away in its accuracy.
I thought I'd look closely to my Sidereal chart, mixed with the Whole Sign house system, like most people use it, and I was amazed at how well it all seemed to suit me.
I had dismissed it right off the bat because Sidereal gave me a Leo Rising, and since I had issues with self-confidence and self-esteem my whole life, and would scarcely be considered "energetic", having been plagued with depression from an early age, I thought it would be impossible for me to have a Leo Rising, which was described s confident, daring, domineering, and what not..
But then, when I looked at the ENTIRE Sidereal chart, it all seemed to fall into place: yes, I did have a Leo Rising, but my Sun was in Aquarius, conjunct Venus on the DC, which is a weakened place for the ego, and a bad position for a Leo Rising, which is ruled by the Sun.
On top of that, I have Saturn-Neptune-Uranus all conjunct one another, in my 5th house, which would weaken the expression of a Leo Rising even further.
Furthermore, I had a tight stellium of Moon, Mars and Jupiter in Taurus, which explained my love of pleasure and usually slow, passive personality.
Have never been much of a risk-taker, or too outgoing.
Also, my chart in Sidereal consists mainly of equal amounts of air and earth, which would actually explain my issues with depression better, since Earth and Air are energies which suppress emotions, or try to rationalize them, preventing release of tension, and suppression of emotions is one of the main explanations for depression.
And, overall, my entire chart turns to Fixed Mode instead of Mutable, which explains my epic stubbornness and fear of change...
After having read through the entire chart, I realized I definitely sounded more like a damaged Leo than a Virgo Rising of any caliber.
I have always had the love of attention, the flair for drama, and egocentric nature, but without the "loud" expression one would naturally expect from a Leo Rising.
jamescondor
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.
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. So really if one's Tropical Moon is in 1 degrees Aries it's really in 6 degrees Pisces. Also sidereal adjusts for 'ages', like the age of Pisces that we are in right now. 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.
Sidereal doesn't have any known problems. Tropical has some big ones.
There is a "war" going on between sidereal and tropical so it is sort of a touchy subject. 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.
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. So really if one's Tropical Moon is in 1 degrees Aries it's really in 6 degrees Pisces. Also sidereal adjusts for 'ages', like the age of Pisces that we are in right now. 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.
Sidereal doesn't have any known problems. Tropical has some big ones.
There is a "war" going on between sidereal and tropical so it is sort of a touchy subject. 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.
Last edited:
retinoid
Well-known member
The signs for me in sidereal do not make sense. I feel very 'scorpio-like' yet my chart has no water influence in sidereal and I am all Libra and Sagittarius. I WISH I could be all Libra and Sagittarius in 'feeling'. But I am not. However, I also have 5 planets in the 8th house in sidereal. I tend to think sidereal is better with predictions, transits and aspects. But the signs don't make too much sense to me.
I use sidereal whole sign for transits. In western astrology, for instance, saturn is in my 5th house for almost another year, but I definitely feel it in my 6th house now and with sidereal it has been in there for a couple of months now. Just my opinion. Sidereal--->better for predictions, transits, aspects. Modern---->better to put the interpretations in more 'real' terms as well as better at explaining psychology. Sometimes sidereal has interpretations that are a bit primitive.
I use sidereal whole sign for transits. In western astrology, for instance, saturn is in my 5th house for almost another year, but I definitely feel it in my 6th house now and with sidereal it has been in there for a couple of months now. Just my opinion. Sidereal--->better for predictions, transits, aspects. Modern---->better to put the interpretations in more 'real' terms as well as better at explaining psychology. Sometimes sidereal has interpretations that are a bit primitive.
jamescondor
Well-known member
retinoid- you said in your sidereal chart you have 5 8th house planets. Well there you go . The 8th house is ruled by Scorpio. That is probably why you feel Scorpio-like.
Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.
When to Be Objective and Subjective
Objective : it is important to be objective when you are making any kind of a rational decision. It might involve purchasing something or deciding which job offer to take. You should also be objective when you are reading, especially news sources. Being objective when you are meeting and having discussions with new people helps you to keep your concentration focused on your goal, rather than on any emotions your meeting might trigger.
Subjective : can be used when nothing tangible is at stake. When you are watching a movie or reading a book for pleasure, being subjective and getting caught up in the world of the characters makes your experience more enjoyable. If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective.
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.
Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.
Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.
Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.
2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.
3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.
Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.
When to Be Objective and Subjective
Objective : it is important to be objective when you are making any kind of a rational decision. It might involve purchasing something or deciding which job offer to take. You should also be objective when you are reading, especially news sources. Being objective when you are meeting and having discussions with new people helps you to keep your concentration focused on your goal, rather than on any emotions your meeting might trigger.
Subjective : can be used when nothing tangible is at stake. When you are watching a movie or reading a book for pleasure, being subjective and getting caught up in the world of the characters makes your experience more enjoyable. If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective.
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.
Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.
Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.
Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.
2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.
3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.
Last edited:
MSO
Well-known member
Lol wow. I almost don't even want to respond to this, but it's just too juicy
Your entire post was rationalizing sidereal astrology. Surely you must realize that the constellations are nothing more than imaginative patterns dreamed up by ancients. Different cultures have different shapes and names.
It is far more likely that since the ancients didn't have accurate methods of mapping the cosmos, they merely used the dreamed up constellations as place markers to be able to tell where a planet is without hopping on their computer to have it drawn up on their pretty sidereal software.
There is no 'war' between tropical and siderealists, just people like you that trumpet noise about how one system is wrong.
jamescondor
Well-known member
I meant to say Known, not know problems.
Debate then not war. Whatever you want to call it. And your response proves the debate. Also check different Internet sites and you will it see for yourself.
The constellations are not made up. They do really exist. They are concrete solid objects in the sky. You know that. There are 88 standard constellations recognized by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). The names of 12 of them really do share the same names as the zodiac. Aries-Pisces really are the names of concrete star constellations.
I don't want to debate. I want people to be more objective here, listen to reason, instead of just saying something is so because they think it is. Me feeling like a professional baseball player doesn't make me one.
What will happen 11,200 years from now when the Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs are exactly opposite each other? That is why it is important for me and many others to fix this now. To prevent future mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, but you must learn from them otherwise we might make them over and over again. "The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing"
Debate then not war. Whatever you want to call it. And your response proves the debate. Also check different Internet sites and you will it see for yourself.
The constellations are not made up. They do really exist. They are concrete solid objects in the sky. You know that. There are 88 standard constellations recognized by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). The names of 12 of them really do share the same names as the zodiac. Aries-Pisces really are the names of concrete star constellations.
I don't want to debate. I want people to be more objective here, listen to reason, instead of just saying something is so because they think it is. Me feeling like a professional baseball player doesn't make me one.
What will happen 11,200 years from now when the Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs are exactly opposite each other? That is why it is important for me and many others to fix this now. To prevent future mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes, but you must learn from them otherwise we might make them over and over again. "The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing"
Last edited:
MSO
Well-known member
Lol wut
Constellations are not "concrete." They're imaginary lines drawn between stars that happen to be unfathomably far apart. Saying a constellation is concrete is like saying a cloud formation is a concrete constellation as well. It's imagination. Have you ever even seen any of the constellations? Some of them look nothing like what they're supposed to look like. Aries is a line. Pisces is a giant V with a circle on the end. Those could have been anything. They're imaginary lines, friend. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are known problems with sidereal astrology.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Meaning of the word constellation (noun) = an arbitrary assemblage or group of stars
con·stel·la·tion (noun)
Astronomy
a. An arbitrary formation of stars perceived as a figure or design, especially one of 88 recognized groups named after characters from classical mythology and various common animals and objects.
b. An area of the celestial sphere occupied by one of the 88 recognized constellations.
Latin roots
com (prefix) = with, together
stella = star
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
The constellations, (or 'arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars' as The American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition states), are indeed as real as our sun: constellations or groups of stars are distant suns, many light years distant not only from each other, but also from our planet. Various constellations became associated with various 'Images' that vary from culture to culture and the 'Images' that western astrology and/or astronomy associate with the constellations, or arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars, are The Ram, The Bull, The Twins, and so on and so forth.
MSO
Well-known member
Meaning of the word constellation (noun) = an arbitrary assemblage or group of stars
con·stel·la·tion (noun)
Astronomy
a. An arbitrary formation of stars perceived as a figure or design, especially one of 88 recognized groups named after characters from classical mythology and various common animals and objects.
b. An area of the celestial sphere occupied by one of the 88 recognized constellations.
Latin roots
com (prefix) = with, together
stella = star
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
The constellations, (or 'arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars' as The American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition states), are indeed as real as our sun: constellations or groups of stars are distant suns, many light years distant not only from each other, but also from our planet. Various constellations became associated with various 'Images' that vary from culture to culture and the 'Images' that western astrology and/or astronomy associate with the constellations, or arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars, are The Ram, The Bull, The Twins, and so on and so forth.
Someone should teach you what "arbitrary" means.
I don't see the point in your post, other than your apparent desire to inform me what constellations are, and then verifying what I was just explaining to jamescondor.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
and I posted the meaning of the word 'constellation'
and you commented on my use of the word "arbitrary"Meaning of the word constellation (noun) = an arbitrary assemblage or group of stars
con·stel·la·tion (noun)
Astronomy
a. An arbitrary formation of stars perceived as a figure or design, especially one of 88 recognized groups named after characters from classical mythology and various common animals and objects.
b. An area of the celestial sphere occupied by one of the 88 recognized constellations.
Latin roots
com (prefix) = with, together
stella = star
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
The constellations, (or 'arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars' as The American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition states), are indeed as real as our sun: constellations or groups of stars are distant suns, many light years distant not only from each other, but also from our planet. Various constellations became associated with various 'Images' that vary from culture to culture and the 'Images' that western astrology and/or astronomy associate with the constellations, or arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars, are The Ram, The Bull, The Twins, and so on and so forth.
. Perhaps.
To clarify then:
I have clearly stated that it is the 'Images' of the constellations that are arbitrary. The individual stars themselves are as real as our own sun. Therefore jamescondor is correct. That is my point.
Contrary to your interpretation MSO, that is not what I did, instead, my post points out to you that although constellations have, over the millennia, been associated with certain 'Images' such as The Ram, The Bull, The Twins and so on and so forth, the individual stars that compose the constellations are real, as real as our own sun. Therefore jamescondor is correct.
It is the 'Images' with which the constellations are associated that are 'imaginary' the individual stars themselves ARE as real as our sun: collectively, those individual stars comprising that group of stars or constellation ARE real, thus validating jamescondor's remarks
tsmall
Premium Member
Polite: adjective showing good manners toward others, as in behavior, speech, etc.; courteous; civil: a polite reply.
The constellations, (or 'arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars' as The American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition states), are indeed as real as our sun: constellations or groups of stars are distant suns, many light years distant not only from each other, but also from our planet. Various constellations became associated with various 'Images' that vary from culture to culture and the 'Images' that western astrology and/or astronomy associate with the constellations, or arbitrary assemblages or groups of stars, are The Ram, The Bull, The Twins, and so on and so forth.
I think JUPITERASC was expressing a different viewpoint, MSO. Your post implied that you attach no meaning to the constellations in realtion to astrology. A differing opinion would suggest that the constellations, and therefore the sidereal zodiac, are inherently important to astrology. I do have a question, though.
Other than differing ayanamsa, what problems have you seen?
MSO
Well-known member
I never said the stars weren't real. What are you even talking about? The constellations are arbitrary, your own definition said so. I never once said stars weren't real. You trollin' bro.
Sorry I messed up your colors in the quote. There was so much unnecessary editing I figured it was easier to just butcher it and not waste my time fixing.
What's with everyone and their dictionary today? Do you people think I can't speak English?
Pretentious; adjective, Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Other problems include differing lengths of constellations, official start and end points for constellations that overlap or have gaps between, and of course, it offers yet another fracture in an already shattered discipline that desperately needs unity. Of course the latter most is just my own opinion.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
MSO you said:I never said the stars weren't real. What are you even talking about? The constellations are arbitrary, your own definition said so. I never once said stars weren't real. You trollin' bro.
MSO you just said that constellations (although they are groups of real stars) are not realMSO;34222[COLOR=Navy said:6]Lol wow. I almost don't even want to respond to this, but it's just too juicy
It is far more likely that since the ancients didn't have accurate methods of mapping the cosmos, they merely used the dreamed up constellations as place markers to be able to tell where a planet is without hopping on their computer to have it drawn up on their pretty sidereal software. There is no 'war' between tropical and siderealists, just people like you that trumpet noise about how one system is wrong .
MSO you also said
My post has explained that the groups of stars that compose the constellations are as real as our own sun
butch·er
a. One who slaughters and dresses animals for food or market.
b. One who sells meats.
2. One that kills brutally or indiscriminately.
3. One who bungles something.
1. To slaughter or prepare (animals) for market.
2. To kill brutally or indiscriminately.
3. To botch; bungle: butcher a project
and I posted the meaning of the word 'constellation'.........and you commented on my use of the word "arbitrary"
To clarify then:
I have clearly stated that it is the 'Images' of the constellations that are arbitrary. The individual stars themselves are as real as our own sun. Therefore jamescondor is correct. That is my point.
Contrary to your interpretation MSO, what my post explains is that that although constellations have, over the millennia, been associated with certain 'Images' such as The Ram, The Bull, The Twins and so on and so forth, the individual stars that compose the constellations are real, as real as our own sun. Therefore jamescondor is correct.
It is the 'Images' with which the constellations are associated that are 'imaginary' the individual stars themselves ARE as real as our sun: collectively, those individual stars comprising that group of stars or constellation ARE real, thus validating jamescondor's remarks
Last edited:
How about constellations (perhaps better, constellational groups*) AND signs, each having potential meaningfulness relative to any given horoscopic chart? Many of the ancients, oldtime Traditional astrologers, and Moderns (eg Vivian Robson, Sepharial) followed this outlook, and so do I...
(*constellational groups of stars)
(*constellational groups of stars)
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
I would agree dr. farr that despite the various anomalies of Tropical and Sidereal each has potential meaningfulness to the individual astrological practitioner.
Regarding signs, these same 'signs' were based originally on the constellational groups of stars but gradually 'drifted apart' over the millennia
tsmall
Premium Member
Cool, can I wear my tiara and white gloves too?
Other problems include differing lengths of constellations, official start and end points for constellations that overlap or have gaps between, and of course, it offers yet another fracture in an already shattered discipline that desperately needs unity. Of course the latter most is just my own opinion.[/QUOTE]
Whole sign houses...