The real astrological positions (a question)

Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place for my question but I spent a lot of time trying to find out a way in Astrodienst and I gave up. Does anybody know how I can see my real sidereal horoscopic positions? I tried the Lahiri option on the site but its division is the common one - 30 degrees for a sign and no Ophiucus. I want to see a map of my personal natal chart with the true size of the constellations and Ophiucus included - a real astronomical 'photograph' of my birth. Can I do that with Astrodienst?
Sorry if this was asked before but I'll be really happy if someone could tell me how I can cast such a chart. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yanel said:

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place for my question but I spent a lot of time trying to find out a way in Astrodienst and I gave up. Does anybody know how I can see my real sidereal horoscopic positions? I tried the Lahiri option on the site but its division is the common one - 30 degrees for a sign and no Ophiucus. I want to see a map of my personal natal chart with the true size of the constellations and Ophiucus included - a real astronomical 'photograph' of my birth. Can I do that with Astrodienst?
Sorry if this was asked before but I'll be really happy if someone could tell me how I can cast such a chart. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I recommend Rumen Kolev's Ancient Astrology Programs http://alabe.com/placidus.html

and

Curtis Manwarings DELPHIC ORACLE 7 http://www.astrology-x-files.com/ :smile:
 
G

greybeard

Well-known member
What do you mean "real" positions?

Does the tropical zodiac give "false" positions?

Have you ever examined a map of the constellations? What did you notice?

Question: Are the constellations "real" astronomical figures?
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
greybeard said:
What do you mean "real" positions?

Does the tropical zodiac give "false" positions?

Have you ever examined a map of the constellations? What did you notice?

Question: Are the constellations "real" astronomical figures?
Click to expand...

QUOTE


'…..man did not see pictures in the night skies
and then circumscribe the constellations
according to artistic vision.
Instead
man noted that people born when certain groupings of stars were rising
or setting
or directly overhead
exhibited certain characteristics in common :smile:


These characteristics seemed animalistic,
bird like,
aquatic
heroic
or ultra humanistic.

Once this correlation was made,
the symbolic mind of man
assigned SHAPE to groupings of stars
for easy reference.

Some shapes were earthly, human

some creative fantasies

but each shape or constellation
represented symbolically
THE OBSERVED EFFECTS OF THAT GROUP OF STARS
when manifested in the life of a person...' Robert Huntz Granite
 
miquar

miquar

Well-known member
Hi Yanel. Its probably best to measure any zodiac along the ecliptic, in which case you need to find the celestial longitude of the starting point of each constellation. Then you can draw a zodiacal wheel with the unequal constellations marked on it. Keeping in mind where the vernal point (0 degrees tropical Aries) is on this wheel, you can plot the planets on it using their tropical zodiacal positions (which are also expressions of celestial longitude). It will be a chart rather than a photograph, but is this what you mean?

Something to keep in mind is that when the zodiacal wheel was first divided into 12 constellations, Ophiucus wasn't one of those twelve, so there would be no space for it on the chart.
 
Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
Hello, sorry for not replying earlier. What I meant is a more astronomical chart that is based upon the positions of the constellations and fixed stars or what I think is considered a sidereal chart. I found in astrodienst the option "astrodienst with fiexd stars". I can't upload it right now but from what I see it includes more constellations then the normal 12 and it changes many positions of my chart(even my Sun sign). Is that what the sky looked like when I was born? Or is it(like everything in astrology xD) just an option I have for more "exotic" interpretation?
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yanel said:

Hello, sorry for not replying earlier.
What I meant is a more astronomical chart
that is based upon the positions of the constellations and fixed stars
or what I think is considered a sidereal chart.
I found in astrodienst the option "astrodienst with fiexd stars". I can't upload it right now
but from what I see it includes more constellations then the normal 12

and it changes many positions of my chart

(even my Sun sign).

Is that what the sky looked like when I was born?

Or is it(like everything in astrology xD) just an option I have for more "exotic" interpretation?
Click to expand...
The Sidereal natal chart is the sky as it appeared to any observer at that location at the time of birth :smile:

i.e.
for example
currently

Moon is 24 TROPICAL Aries

AND

Moon is in final degree of SIDEREAL Pisces/transiting to SIDEREAL Aries

If there are clear skies
then personal observation verifies the constellation background of the Moon :smile:


VISUAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE SIDEREAL AS COMPARED WITH TROPICAL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related
 
miquar

miquar

Well-known member
Hi Yanel. I think that the software is offering to plot the zodiacal positions (i.e. celestial longitude reframed as signs and degrees rather than simply 360 degrees) of some individual fixed stars. The only way that your Sun sign could have changed is if you switched from using the tropical zodiac to a sidereal zodiac, or vice versa. The positions of the whichever fixed stars the software is programmed to use can be plotted along side the planets in either type of zodiac. Because the sidereal signs are equal in arc along the ecliptic, a star which is part of a particular zodiacal constellation won't necessarily be in the corresponding sidereal sign.

You could use that software to find the tropical zodiacal positions of the stars which care used to define the constellations, and the planets also, and then plot all of the positions round the wheel, but without actually marking on the tropical degrees and signs. Then you would finish up with a zodiacal wheel of constellations with the planets located with respect to them.

But because zodiacal position is measured in celestial longitude, a planet may have the same zodiacal position as a star which occurs within the bounds of a constellation, but be nowhere the constellation in the sky. This is like two people being on the same line of terrestrial longitude, but being thousands of miles apart. Lines of celestial longitude run perpendicular to the ecliptic in the same way that lines of terrestrial longitude run perpendicular to the equator.
 
G

greybeard

Well-known member
"astronomical" chart?

I'm afraid you have a very sketchy understanding of astronomy.

You have been misled by your sources. You've been hornswoggled.

A chart cast using the sidereal zodiac is no more "accurate", "astronomical", "real" or "true" than a chart cast in the tropical zodiac, or one cast using constellations, or one cast using the coordinates of spherical geometry.

A caveman could (and did) locate particular stars by referring the position of the star to terrestrial landmarks. Primitive, not very precise perhaps, but serviceable.

"See that yellow star two hands-width to the right of the tip of the rock pillar and two hands-width and two fingers above the apparent horizon." From the rock where our primitive astronomer and his friend are sitting, this locates the star with reference to something else (the rock pillar and horizon). Using his hand's width as his unit of measurement (we use degree and minutes, or hours and minutes) and a fixed point (the tip of the rock pillar) the caveman located the star in relationship to his point of view. That is all a zodiac is...a system of measurement using arbitrary systems of coordinates and points of reference...

Instead of saying what the caveman said, we say "See that yellow star at a distance of twelve days travel for the sun eastward of the point where the Sun reaches farthest north and twenty-two days solar travel north of the equator?"

A two-dimensional chart cannot accurately depict a three-dimensional space. No astrological chart depicts the heavens as they actually are. No matter what sort of chart is used, there is always sacrifice of one thing for another.
 
Last edited:
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Yanel said:
Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place for my question but I spent a lot of time trying to find out a way in Astrodienst and I gave up. Does anybody know how I can see my real sidereal horoscopic positions? I tried the Lahiri option on the site but its division is the common one - 30 degrees for a sign and no Ophiucus. I want to see a map of my personal natal chart with the true size of the constellations and Ophiucus included - a real astronomical 'photograph' of my birth. Can I do that with Astrodienst?
Sorry if this was asked before but I'll be really happy if someone could tell me how I can cast such a chart. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Yanel, go to the house system options at Astrodienst. I think the one you want is the "Astrodienst fixed stars" option. Then specify separately whether you want a sidereal or tropical zodiac.

I've attached a copy of Barack Obama's chart in this system so you can see what it looks like.
 

Attachments

  • barack_obama_fixed stars.jpg
    barack_obama_fixed stars.jpg
    72 KB · Views: 46
miquar

miquar

Well-known member
How cool is that! Hope you've found what you've been looking for Yanel.

The black radius lines are showing the cusps of the sidereal (Lahiri method) signs rather than the boundaries of the constellations, but you can see the constellations really clearly. I love the way the chart depicts the relationship between the ecliptic (black circle) and the rational horizon (red circle), with the planets' celestial latitudes also shown graphically.

You can see that the Moon is slightly closer to the celestial meridian than is implied by the zodiacal positions of the Moon and the ic, because of the Moon's high celestial latitude.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Thanks, Miquar. I note that Astrodienst allows all kinds of options with this format, such as inputting more fixed stars and asteroids, specifying tropical or sidereal zodiacs (the Cyril Fagan one, for example,) as well as the preferred house systems. Since some planets do go off the ecliptic and out-of-bounds, it is helpful that this chart includes some of the non-zodiac constellations. It also demonstrates where constellations overlap in 2-dimensional space, so a given planet might be more in one other than its traditional assignment.
 
Bunraku

Bunraku

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
The Sidereal natal chart is the sky as it appeared to any observer at that location at the time of birth :smile:

i.e.
for example
currently

Moon is 24 TROPICAL Aries

AND

Moon is in final degree of SIDEREAL Pisces/transiting to SIDEREAL Aries

If there are clear skies
then personal observation verifies the constellation background of the Moon :smile:


VISUAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE SIDEREAL AS COMPARED WITH TROPICAL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related
Click to expand...

Wait what? Why are we using the tropical zodiac then? :biggrin:
(I'm 2000 years late to the debate, sorry)
 
miquar

miquar

Well-known member
Hi Jup - in relation to the quote in the previous post, observation shows that the ecliptic has zero declination at the first points of tropical Aries and Libra, and maximum declination at the first points of tropical Cancer (northerly) and Capricorn (southerly). This is the observable basis of the tropical zodiacal cycle, in which the changing declination of the ecliptic reflects the changing meaning throughout the cycle.

I don't think that the sidereal zodiac is necessarily defunct, but, as has been shown by the number of sidereal zodiacs proposed, it is not something which we can observe and say, 'look, there is the first point of sidereal Aries - see how that point on the ecliptic overtly reflects the meaning of this point of the sidereal zodiacal cycle.' So if we are looking for 'observable', the tropical zodiac has a great deal more to offer - the seasonal cycle itself is the Sun's tropical zodiacal cycle, and this is one of the two most observable cycles in our lives (the other being the diurnal cycle).
 
Last edited:
Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
greybeard said:
"astronomical" chart?

I'm afraid you have a very sketchy understanding of astronomy.

You have been misled by your sources. You've been hornswoggled.

A chart cast using the sidereal zodiac is no more "accurate", "astronomical", "real" or "true" than a chart cast in the tropical zodiac, or one cast using constellations, or one cast using the coordinates of spherical geometry.

A caveman could (and did) locate particular stars by referring the position of the star to terrestrial landmarks. Primitive, not very precise perhaps, but serviceable.

"See that yellow star two hands-width to the right of the tip of the rock pillar and two hands-width and two fingers above the apparent horizon." From the rock where our primitive astronomer and his friend are sitting, this locates the star with reference to something else (the rock pillar and horizon). Using his hand's width as his unit of measurement (we use degree and minutes, or hours and minutes) and a fixed point (the tip of the rock pillar) the caveman located the star in relationship to his point of view. That is all a zodiac is...a system of measurement using arbitrary systems of coordinates and points of reference...

Instead of saying what the caveman said, we say "See that yellow star at a distance of twelve days travel for the sun eastward of the point where the Sun reaches farthest north and twenty-two days solar travel north of the equator?"

A two-dimensional chart cannot accurately depict a three-dimensional space. No astrological chart depicts the heavens as they actually are. No matter what sort of chart is used, there is always sacrifice of one thing for another.
Click to expand...
I just couldn't remember how astrologers using sidereal charts explain why they do it. But if even such big and basic things like two astrological systems are arbitrary and a matter of choice then...I just think that astrology today is too tolerant. Everyone is saying "choices, choices, choices". Based on what?

waybread said:
Yanel, go to the house system options at Astrodienst. I think the one you want is the "Astrodienst fixed stars" option. Then specify separately whether you want a sidereal or tropical zodiac.

I've attached a copy of Barack Obama's chart in this system so you can see what it looks like.
Click to expand...
Thank you! It was this method that I finally found but couldn't post. It unnerves me by the way because it's complete chaos, I can't even tell what signs my planets are in. Is the Moon a Sagittarius or a Capricorn Moon. And Uranus? It seems like it is in the middle of nowhere. Can someone please just tell me what are the signs and houses of my planets? I'd be so grateful!

Bunraku said:
Wait what? Why are we using the tropical zodiac then? :biggrin:
(I'm 2000 years late to the debate, sorry)
Click to expand...
Yeah, that ^.
 

Attachments

  • astro_2afz_07_az_hw.73310.2426.jpg
    astro_2afz_07_az_hw.73310.2426.jpg
    77.5 KB · Views: 24
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Unfortunately, in ca. 400 BCE when the Babylonians switched from constellations to signs for easier calculations, they named the signs for the constellations which they overlapped. This made sense back when they didn't have to distinguish between a sidereal or tropical zodiac. By Ptolemy's era (ca. 150 CE) it was clear some slippage (precession) had taken place, and that the spring equinox was moving back into Pisces. Most western astrologers simply decided to peg the equinox to 0 degrees Aries (already an echo from 2000 years previously) and go with tropical signs.

Unfortunately the tropical signs still have the names of the constellations for which they were named, causing no end of confusion. It might have been better if the Babylonians or Hellenistic astrologers called the signs something else, but I don't suppose they could visualize the astrology of so far into the future. (Sign A, sign B, sign C, &c, perhaps?)

The constellation-sign match-up with sidereal astrology is imperfect, as well, because few constellations are 30 degrees: Libra and Cancer are far less, and Virgo occupies over 40 degrees along the ecliptic. Constellations Capricorn and Aquarius overlap considerably.

But I think it is really nice to see how one's natal planets would have looked against the constellations. Maybe we're due for a revival-- which could start with delving into the extensive astrological lore on fixed stars.
 
Yanel

Yanel

Well-known member
Thanks waybread, for explaining it so well! For the first time I understood something that has to do with the history and logistics of astrology(I mean, the technical part). But if signs and constellations are two different things then they would have different ways of affecting us and differenet characteristics. The Aries constellation wouldn't be the same like the Number 1 sign, it would have another interpretation, I guess...
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Yanel, you are using a sidereal zodiac, with the sidereal sign positions of the planets given in the column in the lower left. I am not exactly sure what the fractional house positions mean, but with a whole sign system, just count the signs. Depending upon the sidereal system you choose, your planets in the tropical western zodiac will move 23 or 27 degrees prior to their accustomed place. This means that unless your tropical zodiac planets are in a very late degree of their sign, they will appear in the preceding sign in a sidereal zodiac. This is due to precession of the equinoxes: over the millennia, the location of the spring equinox appears to move backwards across the backdrop of the heavens. It has been in sidereal Pisces for the past 2000 years, giving rise to speculations about our transition into the Age of Aquarius.

But constellations occupy different widths along the ecliptic. They leave gaps in places. They overlap in others. Ophichus crosses the ecliptic, whereas Aries scarcely touches it. Your moon appears closest to the constellation Sagittarius. But note that it is off the ecliptic-- some planets do go "out of bounds", which is why this chart shows other non-zodiacal constellations.

Your Uranus appears in the sidereal sign of Capricorn but not embedded in a constellation. You might look at fixed stars (you can get on Astrodienst special free charts that might give you a fixed star to consider.
 
Top