HELP ME! The Problem with Astrology according to Astronomy

Hey guys! I have a question that was raised as a result of something my astronomy professor told our class.

I was unaware of this, but the 12 houses are based on a model of the ecliptic, but it is not the same ecliptic that we have now. You see, in modern day, the sun travels across 13 and not 12 constellations.

He told us that the 12 house model was started sometime around 500 BC or something like that, an dthat no one has ever taken the time to fix it.

To him, this alone is proof that astrology is bogus since people go around believing they were born under one house (according to this outdated 12 house model) when they were actually born under another house.

I always thought that I was a capricorn, and as it turns out, the sun was passing through Taurus when I was born. He is technically right about all the points he makes with regards to the creation of the 12 house model, and how the sun in those days only passed through 12 constellations, whereas today it passes through 13.

What does that mean for us? Have we been doing something wrong out of ignorance? I won't lie, it does raise doubts in my mind and I wonder if anyone else has ever encountered this problem.

creedseebas said:

Hey guys! I have a question that was raised as a result of something my astronomy professor told our class.

I was unaware of this, but the 12 houses are based on a model of the ecliptic, but it is not the same ecliptic that we have now. You see, in modern day, the sun travels across 13 and not 12 constellations.

He told us that the 12 house model was started sometime around 500 BC or something like that, an dthat no one has ever taken the time to fix it.

To him, this alone is proof that astrology is bogus since people go around believing they were born under one house (according to this outdated 12 house model) when they were actually born under another house.

I always thought that I was a capricorn, and as it turns out, the sun was passing through Taurus when I was born. He is technically right about all the points he makes with regards to the creation of the 12 house model, and how the sun in those days only passed through 12 constellations, whereas today it passes through 13.

What does that mean for us? Have we been doing something wrong out of ignorance? I won't lie, it does raise doubts in my mind and I wonder if anyone else has ever encountered this problem.

Click to expand...

The question you ask has been discussed in some depth at this thread http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41281
as well as currently this thread http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43114 both of which may prove useful regarding an overview of the varied opinions on the subject

The seperation of SIGNS from constellations, dates AT LEAST to Ptolemy (2nd century AD) who specifically notes the difference between these 2 factors. Ptolemy did give meaning and influence to the constellations BUT these were distinct from the SIGNS. Further, the Sun does not pass through ONLY 13 ecliptic-touching constellations in its yearly path, but actually passes through 15 such constellations-and the ancients were aware of this fact as well.
In our Western astrological tradition, we have both SIGNS and stars/constellations, but each with their own meanings and influences.

dr. farr said:

The seperation of SIGNS from constellations, dates AT LEAST to Ptolemy (2nd century AD) who specifically notes the difference between these 2 factors. Ptolemy did give meaning and influence to the constellations BUT these were distinct from the SIGNS.

Click to expand...

At one stage in Tetrabiblos Ptolemy says “One must use natural science but also conjecture, intelligent conjecture so there is a certain amount of guessing" and then Ptolemy also uses a word that is used by archers when they try to hit the point with an arrow so it is stochastic art where you might hit the point or you might not–

Ptolemy gives the examples of shepherds watching their flocks and farmers planting their crops and watching the stars, thus drawing attention to the idea that the shepherds and the farmers are usually right and so there must be something to be gained from watching the stars

For Ptolemy astrology and mathematics were two types of astronomy

For Ptolemy it was just that the mathematical geometrical astronomy in the Almagest is more precise and its more dependable whereas the astronomy in the Tetrabiblos deals with the physical influences on our realm which is the terrestrial realm and there are different factors that make it not exact and so it is a stochastic science in that we are aiming for a target.

Ptolemy notes that even though we may not be able to predict things completely accurately there are at least some things that we might know generally such as for instance how climate changes generally in different places as well as how people might have different illnesses and dispositions in different parts of the world for example

Ptolemy notes that doing astrology is good because even if we don't know for certain if something will happen, if we have some foreknowledge that it might happen we'll be able to prepare ourselves for it. .. its something like putting ourselves in the hands of a physician – a physician isn't always going to be correct but they will be able to make the best effort at healing us from disease – they're not as reliable as a sandal maker because physicians aren't always able to do their work without any interference by different factors as, in general a sandal maker can.

Caprising said:

A sidereal chart might put your sun back a sign, but I don't see how he came up with the Taurus placement.

Click to expand...

Same here.

Caprising said:

I think that your astronomy teacher is looking at a heliocentric (sun centred) veiw (rather than "geocentric" which is an "earth centred" veiw of your birthchart

Click to expand...

How does one view the Sun from the Sun?

Heliocentric is an astrological model which views all astrological phenomena as from the perspective of the Sun being the center, rather than viewing such phenomena from the perspective of the Earth being the center. Heliocentric astrology began in the late 19th/early 20th century period, and has had a few devoted advocates, but has never gained much of a following.

creedseebas, the answer I would give your prof (and feel free to share this post with him) is:

1. Astrology is based on a geocentric model of the universe: what we see from earth when we look up at the night sky. Sort of. Since Babylonian times, astrologers have worked with both "fixed stars" and signs, which are simply 30-degree pie-sectors of the heavens. These have never matched up perfectly with constellations, which occupy varying widths along the ecliptic. In pre-Christian times, the sign-constellation match-up was obviously better than it is now. The discrepancy is a source of confusion to non-astrologers.

There was a big flap about Ophiuchus recently, for example. Ophiuchus has always been a constellation to astrologers, but not a sign.

2. In ancient times, sky-watchers and temple-builders grappled with the problem of precession of the equinoxes. Ancient Egyptians tried to align their temples to rising stars or to the sun at certain times of year; yet noted that within 300 years the temples were getting out of alignment. Astrologers who were used to coordinating the spring equinox with 0 degrees Aries began to notice that the equinox was slipping back into Pisces.

3. Hindu astrologers solved the problem by using a sidereal zodiac, where degrees-in-signs move back at a pace roughly corresponding to the precession of the equinoxes, thus keeping pace with the constellations' apparent movement from a geocentric perspective. Western astrologers around the time of Ptolemy (2nd century AD) decided to decouple the signs from constellations. Their tropical zodiac is based on the movement of the sun through its annual solstices (0 degrees Capricorn and Cancer) and equinoxes (0 degrees Aries and Libra.)

Today the difference between the two systems is about 24 degrees.

4. Astrologers distinguish between signs and houses. Houses are a 12-fold division of the heavens relating to particular topics, such as one's marriage, career, money, and so on. In the whole sign house system, 30-degree signs and houses overlap exactly. In other house systems, there are differences in their positions. Quadrant house systems, for example, are based upon the framework of the midheaven (high point on the sun's journey around the ecliptic) and points on the horizon where the sun rises and sets. Some of these house divisions are very simple; others are more mathematically sophisticated.

Houses were not in use by ancient astrologers until Roman/Hellenistic times in the West. The Babylonians ("Chaldeans" of the Bible) did not use houses, although they had other means of dividing time. We don't have any historical record of houses prior to the first century AD in western astrology. Hindu astrologers have a long history of whole sign houses.

5. It is always possible that astrology is bogus, but it isn't because astrologers are unfamiliar with the problem of precession. Astrology and astronomy were essentially the same discipline until early modern (Renaissance) times.