Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Natal Astrology

Natal Astrology A place to discuss yours and others' birth charts (after you post your own birth chart interpretation). Includes psychological and relocation astrology, houses, aspects, and planetary dignity and debility.


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 05-04-2007, 05:50 AM
Yoi Yoi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 285
Sidereal vs tropical

I usually use tropical. However today I was looking at the extra options on astro.com and chose Sidereal. My chart is *very* different from the tropical one. In the tropical version I am very strongly mutable and heavy air and earth. In the sidereal chart I am strongly fixed. For example in tropical I am a Sag Sun with Gem Moon and Asc and Aquarius MC. In the sidereal chart I am Scorpio Sun with Taurus Moon and Asc and Capricorn MC. Obviously very different charts! So the question is which option (tropical or sidereal) do people think is better to use and why? Tropical seems to be the most popular but I do see the logic in the reasoning that the location of the stars relative to the earth change with time. I must admit though I do feel the tropical chart is a much better fit to me than the sidereal one.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 05-04-2007, 06:08 AM
astro.teacher astro.teacher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 648
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Sidereal and Tropical charts are interpreted COMPLETELY different. Its very difficult for someone from the West to get a full understanding of the use of Sidereal Astrology. Each chart covers your life from a different perspective. Tropical covers from the perspective of a Western life where as Sidereal from a more Eastern view of tradition. These are 2 different cultures and therefore 2 different styles depending on where you live. For example, you dont really have the need for knowledge of if your mother will choose and appropriate suiter for you to marry because in the west there are no arranged marriages (at least not like in the East).
__________________
Aaron Brody
www.antiquus-astrology.com
Antiquus Astrology
Astrology Books, Treatise, Readings & more!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 05-04-2007, 06:10 AM
Yoi Yoi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 285
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Huh? I'm not sure what you are talking about. There are Western sidereal astrologers too. It's not just Indian astrology. As far as I understand Western sidereal astrology is just like tropical Western astrology except you take into account the precession of the earth. All the interpretations are the same otherwise.

Heh, maybe we should do a Kepler and say "It's all in the aspects! The constellations mean nothing!"

Last edited by Yoi; 05-04-2007 at 06:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 05-04-2007, 08:18 AM
astro.teacher astro.teacher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 648
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

I think Kelper may be right! Make it easy for all of us There are too many systems of Astrology, too many House systems (and with Modern Astrology too many bodies and too many aspects!). I feel however that when using a Sidereal chart it would be more appropriate to use the interpretations and system of the Astrologers who have built their system around it. Even the Signs in Sidereal predominant Astrology have completely different meanings. I have received a professional Sidereal-Jyotish interpretation and found it very accurate. It touches on aspects that Tropical does not. As like you, I find using Western interpretations far from accurate on my own chart when I cast a Sidereal version (and others I analyze). Does that make more sense? I hope so

I apologize also for jumping the gun in making the assumption that by Sidereal you were also refering to the systems of Astrology that use Sidereal. Thats probably where the confusion came from!
__________________
Aaron Brody
www.antiquus-astrology.com
Antiquus Astrology
Astrology Books, Treatise, Readings & more!

Last edited by astro.teacher; 05-04-2007 at 08:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 05-04-2007, 10:22 AM
unukalhai's Avatar
unukalhai unukalhai is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Lonestar State
Posts: 440
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoi
Heh, maybe we should do a Kepler and say "It's all in the aspects! The constellations mean nothing!"
Aspects and midpoints all the way! For the most part, I side with Kepler and prefer the geometric side of astrology more than the symbolic side.

I wouldn't say the constellations mean nothing, but they are certainly little more than coloring of the light, at least in my view.

But I use both tropical and sidereal. Since the tropical system is based upon the Sun/Earth cycle, it seems to best reflect us as a part of the solar logos. The signs in the tropical zodiac have nothing to do with the backdrop of the stars scattered throughout the universe. The fact that they even partially line up (current ayanamsha is <30 degrees) is coincidental. Incarnate 10,000 years from now and they will be in opposition! I view the tropical signs as "solar houses"; the first solar house starts at the spring equinox and forms the Aries point, and the tropical signs are simply 30 degree delineations of the Sun/Earth cycle. The four cardinal points of the tropical zodiac line up with the 4 turning points of the Sun/Earth cycle. In fact, I often mentally refer to the tropical signs by their numeric principle, much like the houses. It is misleading to one's own mind to use constellation names for the "tropical signs", however we do it. One should realize that the tropical system is a gift of the oncoming age, a progression of the cosmic art, and not some attempt to undo the beauty of sidereal astrology, which is it's own art, although the signs do maintain the same meanings.

It could also be said the tropical zodiac lines up with the seasons, or that the seasons line up with the tropical zodiac, but either way, the Sun/Earth cycle, the seasons, and the tropical zodiac all follow the same pattern.

Aspects do not change in the sidereal system. There is only a difference (ayanamsha) between the zodiacal degrees of the objects. Currently, that's 24 degrees and 50 minutes using the Fagan/Bradley system, 23 degrees and 57 minutes if using the Lahiri system, and other numbers for a wide range of other systems, although I believe those are the two most common these days. Some ancient systems simply locked the zodiac to the position of fixed stars, such as in Babylonian times...They locked Aldebaran to 15 degrees Taurus, a key point on the fixed cross.

Since aspects don't change, nor do houses, I generally don't observe either when working in the sidereal system. I observe these in a normal astrology program. When working in sidereal, I generally use something like The Sky or Starry Nights and look at the real sky. It's quite interesting to look at the real sky when you were born. You also will see all 13 constellations the ecliptic passes through (the traditional 12 omit Ophiuchus, aka Serpentarius, the Serpent Holder) and you will visually see declinations, stellar conjunctions, etc etc.

One must also remember in the real sky, the constellations are not 30 degrees each, they vary. My thought is one should look at the real sky for what it is, or look at the tropical zodiac which so beautifully articulates the Sun/Earth relationship. For example, the real ecliptic only briefly passes through the narrow, upper part of Scorpius (~6 degrees), yet is passes through a sizable swath (~19 degrees) of Ophiuchus before moving into Sagittarius. Virgo is some ~43 degrees wide, and Aquarius ~23 degrees. To use sidereal positioning without accounting for Ophiuchus nor the varying widths of each actual constellation seems incomplete, a sort of mish-mash of equal length signs (tropical reasoning) with stellar positioning (sidereal logic).

In all really, the tropical-vs-sidereal debate will rage on atleast for a few more thousand years, when the two are 90 degrees apart, and it will be far more obvious which is correct. Even then, however, I think we will find that there is a part of both placements in each of us, that one represents our solar logos where the other shows our connection to the greater whole of the universe and our experience beyond this tiny yet beautiful little solar system.
__________________
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 02-23-2010, 05:11 PM
MantisReligiosa's Avatar
MantisReligiosa MantisReligiosa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Romania
Posts: 185
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by unukalhai View Post
Aspects and midpoints all the way! For the most part, I side with Kepler and prefer the geometric side of astrology more than the symbolic side.

I wouldn't say the constellations mean nothing, but they are certainly little more than coloring of the light, at least in my view.

But I use both tropical and sidereal. Since the tropical system is based upon the Sun/Earth cycle, it seems to best reflect us as a part of the solar logos. The signs in the tropical zodiac have nothing to do with the backdrop of the stars scattered throughout the universe. The fact that they even partially line up (current ayanamsha is <30 degrees) is coincidental. Incarnate 10,000 years from now and they will be in opposition! I view the tropical signs as "solar houses"; the first solar house starts at the spring equinox and forms the Aries point, and the tropical signs are simply 30 degree delineations of the Sun/Earth cycle. The four cardinal points of the tropical zodiac line up with the 4 turning points of the Sun/Earth cycle. In fact, I often mentally refer to the tropical signs by their numeric principle, much like the houses. It is misleading to one's own mind to use constellation names for the "tropical signs", however we do it. One should realize that the tropical system is a gift of the oncoming age, a progression of the cosmic art, and not some attempt to undo the beauty of sidereal astrology, which is it's own art, although the signs do maintain the same meanings.

It could also be said the tropical zodiac lines up with the seasons, or that the seasons line up with the tropical zodiac, but either way, the Sun/Earth cycle, the seasons, and the tropical zodiac all follow the same pattern.

Aspects do not change in the sidereal system. There is only a difference (ayanamsha) between the zodiacal degrees of the objects. Currently, that's 24 degrees and 50 minutes using the Fagan/Bradley system, 23 degrees and 57 minutes if using the Lahiri system, and other numbers for a wide range of other systems, although I believe those are the two most common these days. Some ancient systems simply locked the zodiac to the position of fixed stars, such as in Babylonian times...They locked Aldebaran to 15 degrees Taurus, a key point on the fixed cross.

Since aspects don't change, nor do houses, I generally don't observe either when working in the sidereal system. I observe these in a normal astrology program. When working in sidereal, I generally use something like The Sky or Starry Nights and look at the real sky. It's quite interesting to look at the real sky when you were born. You also will see all 13 constellations the ecliptic passes through (the traditional 12 omit Ophiuchus, aka Serpentarius, the Serpent Holder) and you will visually see declinations, stellar conjunctions, etc etc.

One must also remember in the real sky, the constellations are not 30 degrees each, they vary. My thought is one should look at the real sky for what it is, or look at the tropical zodiac which so beautifully articulates the Sun/Earth relationship. For example, the real ecliptic only briefly passes through the narrow, upper part of Scorpius (~6 degrees), yet is passes through a sizable swath (~19 degrees) of Ophiuchus before moving into Sagittarius. Virgo is some ~43 degrees wide, and Aquarius ~23 degrees. To use sidereal positioning without accounting for Ophiuchus nor the varying widths of each actual constellation seems incomplete, a sort of mish-mash of equal length signs (tropical reasoning) with stellar positioning (sidereal logic).

In all really, the tropical-vs-sidereal debate will rage on atleast for a few more thousand years, when the two are 90 degrees apart, and it will be far more obvious which is correct. Even then, however, I think we will find that there is a part of both placements in each of us, that one represents our solar logos where the other shows our connection to the greater whole of the universe and our experience beyond this tiny yet beautiful little solar system.
the signs being 90 appart will make it even more difficult, since there are no more different signs than any two consecutive on the "wheel".
I also have that major switch from Mutable to Fixed in my Tropical/Sidereal charts, and I actually find that my Sidereal signs are a lot more accurate.
And contrary to what most tropical "clingers" say, the general sign descriptions are basically identical for both Sidereal and Tropical.

Though if you just switch from Tropical to Sidereal, while keeping Placidus, the "transformation" is incomplete, since Sidereal just has to go with Whole Sign house system.

I find that mine is like 70% more accurate in Sidereal. And I'm not talking about Vedic. I mean the descriptions for planets in signs and planets in houses..
remember that this split between Sidereal and Tropical happened after a few thousand years of astrological studies, so the principles for interpretation are very much the same. Leave Shiva out of this.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 02-23-2010, 08:22 PM
dhundhun's Avatar
dhundhun dhundhun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,457
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoi View Post
I usually use tropical. However today I was looking at the extra options on astro.com and chose Sidereal. My chart is *very* different from the tropical one. In the tropical version I am very strongly mutable and heavy air and earth. In the sidereal chart I am strongly fixed. For example in tropical I am a Sag Sun with Gem Moon and Asc and Aquarius MC. In the sidereal chart I am Scorpio Sun with Taurus Moon and Asc and Capricorn MC. Obviously very different charts! So the question is which option (tropical or sidereal) do people think is better to use and why? Tropical seems to be the most popular but I do see the logic in the reasoning that the location of the stars relative to the earth change with time. I must admit though I do feel the tropical chart is a much better fit to me than the sidereal one.
In tropical astrology, it is believed that Zodiac take its properties based on earth ecliptic around sun.

In sidereal astrology, it is believed that Zodiac take its properties based on stars in sky.

The earth's ecliptic shifts about 51 seconds backward every year and it has cycle of 25,800 years. This shift is related to 2012 doomsday predictions also, when Earth, Sun and Dark Rift of Galaxy comes in a line. Due to size of Sun and Earth, this alignment remains in effect for approx. 30 years and it has already started 10-15 years ago.

Indian astrology uses Sidereal, but there are great disagreements between Indian Systems when both system align (the difference ranges approximately up to three degrees or up to 500 years).

Western Astrology mainly uses tropical. But there are many systems. Some prefer sidereal. One of the sidereal enhancement was 13 sign Zodiac.

Since right now they differ by 24 (+- few) degrees, most of the planets will change sign, exaltation, debilities, etc.

Last edited by dhundhun; 02-23-2010 at 08:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 03-01-2011, 10:22 PM
QuantumMystic's Avatar
QuantumMystic QuantumMystic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 13
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Early on I had come to some personal terms with the topic of the relationship between the Tropical and Sidereal wheels. In my experience I found that when I knew which system the chart was cast in, my mind automatically, intuitively, shifted to a different, seemingly more appropriate framework. This being purely my own intuitive process, I can only explain my personal experience and thoughts. When reading a Sidereal chart I felt a sense of cosmic intentions embodied in the immediate incarnation of the native and was also drawn to a sense of previous incarnations. The Sidereal chart made me feel steeped in the cosmic, as if it were revealing the ancient mysteries of Capricorn, expressed dynamically and with current purpose through the individual, Aries. When reading a Tropical chart I felt the native as based more on an Earthly integrated, social and interactive purpose, more like a child of Earth, part of the mass of sentient life born from Cancer and expressed through society's terms, Libra. Although either type of reading could be considered in either chart, there seemed to me to be more of a definite inclination which was more appropriate for each system. In order to be in tune with this, if I opened my mind using a bit of an ability learned from meditation, my gears sorta shifted and the emphasis within the sign meanings adjusted. Contrary to my attempt to be intuitively open, I think that most people can be somewhat literal and single focused. The resulting linear black and white type thinking can make verifying both wheels as being equally valid, more difficult. I think it can help if one considers at least for a short time, an idea which is more and more prevailing in astrologers' minds today, that the signs might not be the constellations.


It is my experience that much can be gained regarding understand the difference between the wheels by simply comparing the wheels as relative to each other and then seeking why and how can they both exist and both work. In the end, what one thinks about the Sidereal and Tropical wheels, depends entirely on perspective, and their ability to read accurately from either or both, which comes directly from their personal attunement. Personally, I suggest that the association of signs to constellations was a birth moment, albeit a major one, but nonetheless, a type of birth chart. From what I've been able to ascertain from history, this occurred when the precession of the equinox, something I think we would interpret more accurately if we understand it as a retrograde progression, was mathematically confirmed by Hipparchus (more on this later). Please do not think that I am minimizing the Sidereal Wheel. I find the Sidereal Wheel amazingly momentous, since it tracks us through where we come from and offers us knowledge of the basis for our place and purpose in incarnation within the grand scheme. It is the heavenly backdrop for the Tropical wheel and many people are attuned to reading it. It tracks the Sun's Nodes both North and South, in relationship to the cosmos. This being explained, my willingness to see the Sidereal wheel as a birth chart is totally consistent with my consideration as to where/what the signs are. Many astrologers consider the Tropical wheel as merely a projection of the Sidereal wheel through some kind of transcendental association, which requires no explanation on their part. Nevertheless, neither wheel is rooted in something you can point at as tangible beyond intuitive acceptance. All attempts at pinning down an astrological wheel as somehow justified in classical know physics evaporates under careful scrutiny of the motions involved. One can only surmise, never prove. The ancient phrase which many of you might be familiar with "Grand Illusion" takes perspective and relativity into account. My entire perspective rests on deciding what and where the signs are, by way of proving at least to my own thinking, what and where they are not. Unfortunately this article would be tangentially way off subject if I venture into setting up scenarios which others propose and then attempt to show where they fail. So my work on that will have to be in a different article. I would however like to make this one point, no matter what the scenario, it always ends up resting on an intangible intuition regarding transcendental processes. This being the case, I've abandoned all tangible processes other than trying to example how nothing tangible creates a sign or the beginning of a wheel, but instead what is tangible and prominent in a system, reveals the prominence of a specific wheel/path amongst what might be understood as infinite wheels, ever-present, everywhere.


The way I see it, there was a discovery, a momentous birth at the time, which drew us to the stars in general as a backdrop, based on their relatively fixed nature. The birth of the Sidereal wheel might have taken place during the work of Hipparchus (http://www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/periodictable/html/Hs.html) around 150 BCE, who was the first astronomer of old, documented as doing momentous work with trigonometry. It is said that he was the first astronomer to completely mark the sky with the constellation names, and that he did this in order to mark his trigonometric theories (it's important to remember that discoveries are not always made by intention, but are extremely often, bi-products). Please note that I am not intending to make an absolute statement as to when Sidereal zero Aries started. The birth of the signs in their final place did not have to be based on the signs their selves or by their making an appearance, but could just as easily have been affixed by certain stars bringing about the birth as some astrologers do theorize. I would expect that both stars and planets and signs, all played a part, as they do with any birth. Whether we can ascertain that birth chart is entirely another consideration. As you know, there are numerous ideas as to when the Sidereal zero Aries started, but considering that Hipparchus's work resulted in the established proof and complete confirmation of the precession of the equinox, it would seem that marking this moment with the fixed birth of the Sidereal wheel, would be a reasonable consideration. After all, as astrologers we are used to the ideas of the difference between inceptions and births.


Maybe at first, the Sidereal birth chart was more related to the establishing of trigonometry, which by its nature opened the doors to both heavenly and earthly positional relationships, invention and exploration, more than to astrological meanings. When one understands the nature and value of trigonometry, they may see that the Sidereal chart just might herald a birth of our potential to better chart and better understand our relationship with our past and futures and they may see that as the great foundational addition of the completed Sidereal wheel. Meanings always start being intuited by the few and then over time these intuitions spread out. Maybe this birth had no overwhelming, immediate publicly claimed astrological interpretations, especially since astrology was more of an initiate subject in those days. But look at where we are 2000 years later, possibly actually on the cusp of the Aquarian Age, as many do think.
With as momentous as the birth of the Sidereal zero Aries is in the course of time, I think allowing latitude of hundreds of years of evolution towards this point, is not unreasonable. As astrologers, we are used to how the flood of intuition commences and the personal effect of cosmic influences seems to accelerate after an acceptable completion of birthing is established as easily exampled when Uranus, then Neptune, and then Pluto, were revealed from behind their veils. With the constant discoveries today, it may be harder to get a consensus on direct effects, but those previous three were quite universally obvious.


Regarding the constellations as signs, at least to me, they do not look like their drawn symbols. To me, the symbols seem to be purely impressions for use as general character interpretations. After removing the tether of the astrological symbols from the constellations, it is easier to envision also removing the signs from the constellations. However, in order to rationally break the signs entirely away from the constellations, we need to find some other footing for their ability to literally appear in space. Note that the theory of breaking the signs away from the constellation, does not imply that the bodies which make up the constellations, cease to have their individual influence.
So where are all these signs if not marked by the constellations? Insight can be had when we stop to think that there are more than one wheel to begin with, the Tropical and the Sidereal. Later I'll talk about a momentous 3rd wheel, the galactic. It seems today that most astrologers tend to take the Tropical signs for granted. Some give credence to the idea that the Sun itself mimics the constellations as a microcosm of the macrocosm, however an in depth thought of how and where it might reside tends to begin and end in an unqualified transcendent reality. Actually, I think it is these astrologers who accept a transcendental explanation, who are closest to getting it right. To preface this, I would first say that signs are only absolute in their own system. A system is the path marked by one body around another. Within that path all phases of a time loop exist, relative to the beginning and end of the cycle. This is the manifest counterpart, to the unmanifest laws of inherent potential. I say inherent because you can see in the physical universe, that patterns are everywhere repeated. This means these patterns are not only intrinsic in evolution, but also intrinsic to the 4 dimensional universe we experience, before it is manifested into the differentiations we experience. The only difference between these two states is the manifestation of time. Considering that to an astrologer, the wheel we use is also known as the wheel of time, and we also know that the signs are intrinsic to all substance, giving form and shape to energy, it should be obvious that astrology is not only signs we contemplate objectively, but is the substance of time itself. Simply put, time is known by change in substance, in essence change (energy vibration and impact) is both time and how time is marked. There is no time without change and no substance without time. From a basic perspective, after removing tangented stumbling blocks, all there is, is time in different forms. The astrological wheel embodies this universal law.


My conception is that what we call the signs work like a "Worm Hole", linking the unmanifest (potential before time), to the manifest, in and through time itself. The signs, also known as the "Wheel of Time", manifests the implicit to the explicit. Before time as we know it, the wheel is not a wheel, it is singular and holistic. When time manifests, the wheels of time appear intrinsically systemic, seemingly expressed as circles/wheels around us (the circle being the form which expresses the infinity of time and ultimately shapes all matter), continually being marked by moments of prominence related to predominant cosmic bodies, ie. our Sun. These points of prominence mark everything from valued points to birth charts, major and minor. Each prominence sets up a time based scenario and symbolically embodies its own relative wheel of time, within its own relative scenario. Thinking in terms of consciousness and considering that space is an entity, not emptiness, it makes it easier to perceive that divisions in space into apparent relative astrological wheels of time, is quite within reason. The significator or the prominent or apex point of a wheel is relevant based on its effect on all other positions and bodies related intrinsically to that Apex point's place in the scheme. The significator, itself having been birthed through the wormhole like function, has synthesis and identity with all and it is this real time manifest force which describes and embodies its transcendental wheel and relates it to all signs and bodies in varying degrees of synthesis. Since all astrological wheels share the same basic laws, inter-relation and overlap is major, in fact, absolute. The complexity is therefore relatively infinite. In considering whether you think the above is valid, consider nodes, which their selves in general merely point at an otherwise unoccupied position in space. Think about how and where your natal chart is fixed/recorded in time and space. Lastly consider that at the base of the signs, there is an otherwise indivisible continuum we know as Cardinal, Fixed, and Mutable. By saying they are an indivisible continuum I am referring to the fact that absolute movement, absolute stability, nor absolute pliability, can exist independently. All things we experience exhibit all 3 attributes, in varying degrees, simultaneously. Much more can be said on these issues, but of course thread theme and space dictate limits.


Moving on and thinking thusly, it is my thought that the "Sidereal Wheel" is not only relative to the Tropical Wheel, but is a majorly significant birth chart also marked by the galactic black hole which on its own describes a galactic wheel, overseeing the Sidereal and the Tropical wheels, both Sun based. This is the wheel we need to recognize in order to better understand that we are being dragged backwards by the precession through the Sidereal signs and to start opening our minds to our forward motion through the tropical signs.


Consider this, how would you have viewed the last 2000 years of history differently if in addition to knowing that we have been dragged backwards through the Age of Pisces, that we were also moving forward through The Galactic Age of Sagittarius (there are numerous literal indications, organized religions driving the world is just one, the major advances in philosophy another). This is literally the case when realizing the GBH is moving forward through Tropical Sagittarius simultaneously with the Sun's N Node going backwards through Pisces, while the Sun's S Node is going backwards through Virgo. Relating to this, have you ever considered the effect the wheel has on you daily, as the planets rise and set visually backwards, while the planets inch forwards? Here in effect, we see a microcosm of the macrocosm. We can see how hard it is for us to externalize our will in the most universally ideal ways possible, while we are continually suffering retrograde motions. Visibly we see ourselves retrograding and astrologers who ascribe to the theory of ages, blankly accept this retrograde, without realizing they are not only suffering it, but also most are idealizing it as a forward societal progression. Just as with all discoveries which suggest they are universal to humankind's development, the realization that the cosmos is actually going forward in the Tropical system, should generate expanded thought and just might be considered to be one of the benefits of the 2012 ideas that we have greater opportunity and an expanded spiritual awakening, immanent for those attuned to this time period. Please take nothing for granted regarding my possible ideas regarding 2012, I have no fixed ideas, but as the idea is so prominent in society, there has to be some astrological phenomena behind it. The Sun arriving at it lowest point in the Tropic of Capricorn in what is at least within a very close alignment with the GBH, can have great significance now, especially when other conditions are supportive.


It makes sense Esoterically, that the black hole itself, describes its own wheel (a third astrological wheel now revealed to us*) based on zero Capricorn. We use zero Capricorn because the mid heaven in the radical astrology chart is zero Capricorn. The mysteries of creation and the governing laws of the cosmos, even father time himself, are deeply connected to Capricorn. We look up to the heavens and are mystified and wonder at the night sky revealed (even though technically that is a 4th house view which still does not escape an Esoteric interpretation for the polarity). We come from the cosmos and manifest through Cancer into the flesh. With the grand galactic cross astronomically fixed at the GBH, Capricorn would impart a perspective to the Tropical wheel relative to where the GBH's point is marked on the Tropical wheel. As most people know, the GBH is now about the 27th degree of Sagittarius. This means that galactic zero Capricorn is now working through 27-28 Sagittarius.


As an aside, note that a rising sign is generally accepted to change degree by relative latitude, something I've never heard considered when regarding the beginning point of the Sidereal wheel. Contrary to this, the mid heaven is stable at all latitudes. An overall look points to the Sidereal wheel being fixed by the rising sign, with the GBH being fixed by the mid heaven, and all movements are measured by the Sun's Nodes relative to the Earth. The Tropical is considered to move backwards through the Sidereal and the Galactic moves forward through the Tropical. To me this all sounds more complete now. I would recommend that from now on, when considering Ages, we note both the Sidereal and the Galactic, understanding each, based on the respective roles they play. Always remember that you are dealing with a grand illusion of perspective, both physical, as well as awareness-wise. In actuality we can say that the Sidereal moves forward through the Tropical, but this awareness has been veiled from us because of our beliefs and perspective. So instead the Sidereal has taken precedence, for now, and we've charted our Sun's nodes backwards motion as predominant. Esoterically this might be explained by the fact that on the whole, our society is still too self-oriented and involved in material pursuits for self aggrandizement. Hopefully now this veil can begin to lift at a more accelerated pace. At this same time we can review the precession, understanding what its retrograde has meant to us, while we view the GBH carrying zero Capricorn forward. Note that I know many astrologers will not identify with the values I imply about Capricorn, but Esoterically considered, it holds great keys to our needed understanding and it literally is the mid heaven cusp, the goal of Sagittarius.


It is taught, esoterically, that we understand the signs not by what they are, but by how we respond to them and that this is based on our point in evolution (the scheme above would reference the whole of humankind and not shift for the individual). Following this we see the Sun marking its journey around the wheel while it also journeys north and south in declination through the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. Capricorn is latitudinally south, and radically, longitudinally at the top of your wheel, the cosmos incarnating on Earth through Cancer, is in the north, yet at the bottom of your wheel. Esoterically, this would be considered a paradox which would value one to contemplate. Each are abstract ideas tied to phenomena. This paradox is highlighted in our consciousness with the 2012 phenomena. It might be what is driving literalists to believe the poles will swap. Although much more can be said about all the contents of this article, there is not the room here. I can only say this gives me a perspective. The human mind's capacity to intuit is amazing.


It does not seem to matter how truth is triggered when reading a chart or how few or how many simple or complex systems one uses. Look at the basics. Why are the signs in the order of time and did they just fall there in that sequence? If you do not see them all as pieces of time, a little research and contemplation will probably clarify why that is said. Starting from the beginning, we have cardinal fire, the spark of life, the impulse to be. I don't think the stars just landed in such a way, I think the laws which are the signs, are everywhere equal and intrinsic and we merely mark our scenarios by our own punctuations within any cycle. These are the births, each relative to the others. We manifest the differentiations.


*I think maybe the GBH and the Galactic wheel is being brought into our focus by way of 12/21/2012 being at least a closely approximated marking point of an aligned Earth, Sun, and GBH, at the southernmost point of the Earth's Tropic of Capricorn. Is there any wonder that the Mayan calendar indicates a cyclic end where we can pause before the next northern journey? Is it any wonder that society would have so many people prone to fear of such an astrological indicator? Djwhal Khul spoke of how that soon we would, on the whole, tip our involving into matter, to instead more consciously aware evolving. Surely there has to be some element of related truth here.

*Not directly considered in this article, nor part of the consideration in coming to suggested conclusions in this article, if the ideas regarding Hpparchus are correct, it would follow that we just have or immediately will, enter into the Sidereal Aquarian Age.

I will be blogging in depth on most points mentioned in this article, as well as many others, with the result being a few planned books. If you are interested in more information in these areas, feel free to be in contact with me.

Last edited by QuantumMystic; 11-18-2011 at 08:41 PM. Reason: The original post was poorly and inadequately explained.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to QuantumMystic For This Useful Post:
HoldOrFold (11-02-2015)
  #9  
Unread 03-01-2011, 11:58 PM
byjove's Avatar
byjove byjove is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,009
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Hi Quantum,

I'm very interested in your ideas, but I am as yet still a little unclear. Are you saying that there is 'truth' in both systems? I still can't discern what you follow...

except that by saying that by believing Capricorn has a 'rightful' place at the top of the chart may mean you favour the MC and 10th starting together? That affects certain house systems of course.

Can you tell us what astrology you follow; sidereal/western, house sytems, etc. From that I can tell much more. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 03-02-2011, 04:03 PM
QuantumMystic's Avatar
QuantumMystic QuantumMystic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 13
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by byjove View Post
Hi Quantum,

I'm very interested in your ideas, but I am as yet still a little unclear. Are you saying that there is 'truth' in both systems? I still can't discern what you follow...

except that by saying that by believing Capricorn has a 'rightful' place at the top of the chart may mean you favor the MC and 10th starting together? That affects certain house systems of course.

Can you tell us what astrology you follow; sidereal/western, house systems, etc. From that I can tell much more. Thanks!
Yes, I see "absolute" validity in both systems. Personally, I use Tropical with Placidus houses. Regarding Capricorn at the top, I was merely referring to the traditional rulers of the houses and pointing out a basic association often left unexplored and therefore although known, may not be so fully realized in its indications as to the heavens/sky overall. Capricorn is one of the most misunderstood signs. This is because it encapsulates all of spirit/energy/form, in manifestation. This associates it with Einstein's field, as well as economy, and ecology. It regulates integration and distribution and is associated with time itself throughout manifestation. This type of thing is foundational and probably only of real interest/use by spiritual or esoteric astrologers, being it is an abstract archetypal relationship.

I would have to say that I view everything as functions and everything as mediums for subjective transference. I hope that is not too obscure to at least shed some light on my involvement and interest in astrology. My most compelling influence has been from finding an intense affinity with AAB's materials.

For simplicity, let's say that the BH (black hole in the center of our galaxy) describes the wheel of time, of course colored by itself, at a certain point. Let's also say that the Sun describes the wheel of time, colored by itself, at a different point. In a universe of transcendental laws why should both not be true from each of their own perspectives? The wheel of time is read based on emphasis on points on the arc and their interactions with other points. Once you equate the zodiac with being on the infinite circle which time cycles around, it is easier to not stubbornly try to hold it fixed in your mind. We seem to get fixed on static points, which leads to static concepts. For example, as pertinent as zero Aries is to the Sun and Earth each year in their cycle, its position is as fluidic as all other degrees/points. It is only relatively fixed and never actually static.

Last edited by QuantumMystic; 11-22-2011 at 02:46 PM. Reason: Needed editing
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 03-05-2011, 11:11 AM
astrologer50's Avatar
astrologer50 astrologer50 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 13,695
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

my opinion, best to stick to tropical, there are a few threads on here recently, just use our search feature..

Sidereal v tropical astrology
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/astrology_plain_english/68808
http://www.lightonvedicastrology.com/articles-sidereal_tropical.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology
http://w3.cultdeadcow.com/cms/2006/1...olution-o.html
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 01-16-2012, 06:33 AM
soorejmg soorejmg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by unukalhai View Post
Aspects and midpoints all the way! For the most part, I side with Kepler and prefer the geometric side of astrology more than the symbolic side.

I wouldn't say the constellations mean nothing, but they are certainly little more than coloring of the light, at least in my view.

But I use both tropical and sidereal. Since the tropical system is based upon the Sun/Earth cycle, it seems to best reflect us as a part of the solar logos. The signs in the tropical zodiac have nothing to do with the backdrop of the stars scattered throughout the universe. The fact that they even partially line up (current ayanamsha is <30 degrees) is coincidental. Incarnate 10,000 years from now and they will be in opposition! I view the tropical signs as "solar houses"; the first solar house starts at the spring equinox and forms the Aries point, and the tropical signs are simply 30 degree delineations of the Sun/Earth cycle. The four cardinal points of the tropical zodiac line up with the 4 turning points of the Sun/Earth cycle. In fact, I often mentally refer to the tropical signs by their numeric principle, much like the houses. It is misleading to one's own mind to use constellation names for the "tropical signs", however we do it. One should realize that the tropical system is a gift of the oncoming age, a progression of the cosmic art, and not some attempt to undo the beauty of sidereal astrology, which is it's own art, although the signs do maintain the same meanings.

It could also be said the tropical zodiac lines up with the seasons, or that the seasons line up with the tropical zodiac, but either way, the Sun/Earth cycle, the seasons, and the tropical zodiac all follow the same pattern.

Aspects do not change in the sidereal system. There is only a difference (ayanamsha) between the zodiacal degrees of the objects. Currently, that's 24 degrees and 50 minutes using the Fagan/Bradley system, 23 degrees and 57 minutes if using the Lahiri system, and other numbers for a wide range of other systems, although I believe those are the two most common these days. Some ancient systems simply locked the zodiac to the position of fixed stars, such as in Babylonian times...They locked Aldebaran to 15 degrees Taurus, a key point on the fixed cross.

Since aspects don't change, nor do houses, I generally don't observe either when working in the sidereal system. I observe these in a normal astrology program. When working in sidereal, I generally use something like The Sky or Starry Nights and look at the real sky. It's quite interesting to look at the real sky when you were born. You also will see all 13 constellations the ecliptic passes through (the traditional 12 omit Ophiuchus, aka Serpentarius, the Serpent Holder) and you will visually see declinations, stellar conjunctions, etc etc.

One must also remember in the real sky, the constellations are not 30 degrees each, they vary. My thought is one should look at the real sky for what it is, or look at the tropical zodiac which so beautifully articulates the Sun/Earth relationship. For example, the real ecliptic only briefly passes through the narrow, upper part of Scorpius (~6 degrees), yet is passes through a sizable swath (~19 degrees) of Ophiuchus before moving into Sagittarius. Virgo is some ~43 degrees wide, and Aquarius ~23 degrees. To use sidereal positioning without accounting for Ophiuchus nor the varying widths of each actual constellation seems incomplete, a sort of mish-mash of equal length signs (tropical reasoning) with stellar positioning (sidereal logic).

In all really, the tropical-vs-sidereal debate will rage on atleast for a few more thousand years, when the two are 90 degrees apart, and it will be far more obvious which is correct. Even then, however, I think we will find that there is a part of both placements in each of us, that one represents our solar logos where the other shows our connection to the greater whole of the universe and our experience beyond this tiny yet beautiful little solar system.

Wow... really nice looks a really good analytical person.

I am in just starting point in astrology. But found some interesting points. i was studying the Sun Sign characteristics when I found that that the date range for each sign as per English and Indian was different. My birth date is on April 17, 1984 and it comes under Aries in both English and Indian. and my characteristics were what was as told in Linda Good man sunsign characteristics. So I started testing it with many of friends and found that for those who for some they were not matching as told in Linda Good man. So I calculated the sunsign as per Indian Astrology and asked them to read the characteristics of that sign which almost every one accepted. The comedy is that, some of them were syaing ," My characterisitcs are same, but I am not ready to change my sign again.. " .. Later i just wanted to make sure in which constellation Sun is in for example at this moment. So i used an iphone application called Punivers which with the help of location servicess will show the exact position of sun and other planets and constellation. Recently(2 days back on 14 january 2012) i observed the position of sun and sun had travelled past the sagittarrius constellaton and was somewhere near to capricorn but not entered ( as per the application constellation diagram. i dont know the exact radius of each zodiac). This is very similar to the indian date calculated. As per English, sun would have entered capricorn by december 22. I beleive that , when you draw a line connecting the point where you are born , sun and the constellation, tha t is what it matters and the characterisstics i observed in some of my friends also gives that a justification.....Any way, these are thoughts from a beginner. Just sharing..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 01-18-2012, 06:28 AM
TestAstro TestAstro is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 29
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Well, to share my idea here, the difference between the sidereal and tropical is just the value of ayanamsa. When value is 0, then it is tropical; when not 0 and a specific value to a certain date, then it is so called sidereal.

In western astrology there are many house division system, and in vedic astrology many ayanamsa value as well. So many choice, there must be one which is right, and I don't think there are anything advanced to other reading method if the reading result is not fit for the life event, because whether in native astrology or other kind of astrology branch, the right prediction only be one, the one that fit the life event.

And I think the so called vedic astrology today is not it used to be when it was in old days. And I think the so called western astrology is also not what it used to be.

So after some check with life events from system to system and from method to method, I think the only thing modern vedic astrology can be used is its house division system, that is whole house system. And I think the only thing that modern western astrology can be checked as appliable is its 0 degree ayanamsa value, that is the so called tropical system.

And I think both astrology branch, no matter western or vedic in modern time, are out of their original path and walk too far towards so called expensive intelligent software and commercial reading bussiness. I don't say these trials so wrong, I just think astrology is a personal skill that neither can be replaced by computer caculation nor monetary leading ambition. Astrology can not be mastered in a short or middle period, and can not be mastered by a person who claim that he is psychic or gifted in some mysterious things. Astrology to me is just a lence to look though and check in life cyclopedia and it is only a second way to live a personal life in the meaning of case study and systematic research.

Also I think every kind of birth reading, if you understand its correct way to read, add up the picture you wants to get by its own contribute of jigsaw, no matter you use only one method of reading to get whole picture or methods from different source, and I advice you that when the picture you get is so wrong or different compared to the life events, then the reality check of your read is concluded as false and just throw the so called accurate astrology reading method to the bin and seek the real one. This may be very timewasting as the outcome of any life event cost lots of time by the running process, but I think this is the only appliable method to master the skill of astrological reading correctly. And that's why I say astrology can not be learnt by anyone in a short or middle term no matter how intelligent or gifted he really is or he claimed to be, it need a long long term, or even a life long term. What is bothering is that even after that term, anyone are not promised to be a astrologer in the meaning of really accurate reading, so it is obvious not everyone can become an astrologer, if the false type not counted.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 01-18-2012, 06:46 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

TestAstro:
Just to note that I agree with much of what you have posted, above.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 01-18-2012, 06:48 AM
TestAstro TestAstro is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 29
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

In short, astrology to astrologer is like art to artist, and the bridge between the former word to the later should include talent, work and life.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 01-18-2012, 06:58 AM
TestAstro TestAstro is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 29
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

And talent here can be regard as or replaced with personal interest.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 01-18-2012, 07:11 AM
CapAquaPis's Avatar
CapAquaPis CapAquaPis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: ...in the sidereal astrological system.
Posts: 2,149
Question Re: Sidereal vs tropical

The tropical and sidereal chart comparisons are conflicting and confusing, but we choose the one best to describe our personalities. The sidereal is supposed to be astronomical, while the tropical is based on the tropical or latitude. Currently, I see in the night sky above me the planets Mars and I think Saturn in Virgo while it's supposedly in Libra, the planets Jupiter and Venus in Pisces except I read Jupiter is in Taurus and Venus is in Aries.
__________________
or , I have the same ruling planets: Uranus and Saturn. I see the Cancer rising. Aries in the MC and Venus was her name!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 01-18-2012, 08:47 AM
TestAstro TestAstro is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 29
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Intresting observation, CAP. I have not studied astronomy, and to common belief astrology as astronomy in old days is out of date and somewhat like a junk food to eat in spare time.

But I wonder how you get the actual positions like which planet in which sign etc? Did you get it by naked eye watching or get it by astronomy software? I think it is a good way to shorten the astrological check term, after all, ancestors had no way to check software or calender and just watch the sky to get position of stars.

To me, I just use free software that can be found everywhere and add some chips of program written by myself to shorten the reading process and save caculation time.

I also confused that, since there is no degree curved in the dome like sky and the planets move from east to west with sun and moon, then how you know the exact house which planet in because according to astrology theory one house with 30 degrees have each fence of it, which means 0 aries and 29 pisces typically different things.

And I think astronomy is different thing compared to astrology in modern time, astronomy as science is not related to chart reading or personality if there is not a rock in sky fly toward our planet earth and destroy human.

I think personality, which is able to be read from native chart, is not a good accordence to check astrology.

Firstly, personality change as years pass, it is not something completely fixed as I see, and everyone have some little change over it during some period. Personality is somewhat a concept related to psychology, and as I mentioned, astrology to me is like life's another version, so I think there is something in common between astrology and other science, but also lots not in common. (And it is said that mordern psychologist like jung got inspiration from astrology.)

Secondly, even if personlity is something ourself exactly know and hardly change when we check birth chart, it doesn't mean we can check astrology by this because a chart reading is a whole picture to get, not some chips to look at seperately like sun sign, moon sign, which asc or a mixture of these things. But the result of life events is clear and easy to tell, so I use this to check chart reading personally.

Thirdly, though there are many description about personality in astrology, I think most of them is just for playful read and not so working to determine a person's nature. Personality is usually something highly in harmony and these reading chips are obviously confilct in nature and easy to cofuse readers.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 01-18-2012, 08:16 PM
Ion's Avatar
Ion Ion is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Maui-Hawaii
Posts: 91
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

(opinion) . . . the tropical zodiac is based upon a 'fiction' and NOT the actual planetary (including Sun and Moon) placements . The tropical calendar was designed to match the seasons with the months and to eliminate 'calendar drift' .

The word 'horoscope' means the placement of the celestial bodies at the hour of one's birth. . . . as such, the sidereal system is the most accurate because it employs the actual planetary positions.

The tropical zodiac is determined by The Roman Catholic Church's Gregorian Calendar. I find it difficult to believe that The Roman Catholic Church (considering its long-standing war against astrology) would design a calendar that would enable the creation of accurate birth charts. It is a 'fiction' to believe that in the year 2012 that the Sun actually enters Aries at the Vernal equinox (approx. March 20th) . . . it is this 'fiction' that actually 'sets' the entire zodiac in The Gregorian calendar.

If it were not for the geometric 'aspects' of Western astrology it is my belief that the Western astrological model would collapse. The difference now (2012) between the tropical and sidereal zodiac is approximately 27 degrees ! The difference is caused by The Precession of The Equinox which is the apparent 'backwards' drift of the outer solar system of 1 degree every 72 years, which The Gregorian Calendar ignores, in fact , Precession was denied to exist during the time that the Gregorian Calendar was devised!

It seems archetypically correct that in the Age of Pisces , ruled by foggy-Neptune , that approximately 95% of Western astrology charts (Sun signs) are inaccurate (?) , because of The Gregorian Calendar.

My opinion, additionally, is to rely upon the aspects and actually 'see' what house is affected by transits etc in order to determine more precisely whether the tropical or sidereal placements are more accurate .

confusing .

best regards,
Ion
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 01-19-2012, 01:43 AM
TestAstro TestAstro is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 29
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Yes. today's sun position according to 0 ayanamsa is 28 cap, lahiri ayanamsa 4 cap, raman 6 cap, sassanian 8 cap, fagan 3 cap, and such sick things going on. Tropical is 24 degrees advanced to lahiri.

And something much more bothering is that even the difference less than 1 degree can mean different thing and can get opposite result, if you wonder the case mars in 29 libra or mars in 0 scorpio.

It seems to me that so many option, just the different chart longitude of planet caculated by every ayanamsa, make one crazy.

And that difference tended to crack thurther as time goes by. If 1000 years later, today's sun is still 28 cap in tropical 0 ayanamsa according to gregorian calender, and other ayanamsa value, like lahiri 20 sag, raman 21 sag, sassanian 24 sag, fagan 19 sag and so on. Tropical is 38 degrees advanced to lahiri, a value more than 30 degrees of a whole sign.

None of us may live to 1000 years later and exam that kind of thing, so let's check somethng dated back in the history. If 1000 years before, today's sun is 4 aqua, lahiri 24 cap, raman 26 cap, sassanian 28 cap, fagan 23 cap and so on. Tropical is 10 degrees advanced to lahiri. The differenc tends to go much more milder compared to 38 degrees 1000 years later. And I think this is because the date which other non-0 ayanamsa caculated as beginning date different from 0 ayanamsa is somtime near 1000 years before.

But sick things going on. If we check 5000 years before, today's sun in 6 cap if 0 ayanamsa, lahiri 21 aqua, raman 23 aqua, sassanian 25 aqua, fagan 20 auqa and so on. Tropical is 45 degrees minor to lahiri, also a value more than 30 degrees of a whole sign.

So what? You can see that every kind of non-0 ayanamsa, though there is a little difference in value, obviously has one thng in common, and that is the diviation date from 0-ayanamsa so near and so similar, and which is after 1AC and before 1000AC. And the diviation tend to go further, when you caculated time goes much after or before that diviation date.

And let's go back to what astrology mean in its original days. Astrology as I mentioned is astronomy in its days and astronomy in such days means accurate or nearly accurate calender to check and depend on, which says season start date and end date, and that means a lot in agriculture, because most plants' seed grown in spring and harvest in fall.

As we know, sun moves around 1 degree further everyday, which can be somewhat faster or slower in different seasons. So if consider this factor into the caculation of sun longitude, then you get different conclusion in season's start date and end date. But as we know, whether in the past or today or future, ths season and agriculture acts are so similar and little changed, that means too dramatic diviation in caculation must be false. We can check ancient books and get the documented rough date which things like season or agriculture records, and did you read that in such time, obviously human existed and planted they live a different season which is about two months before than today? And I don't think in the future people will live their seasons two months later than today. 0 ayanamsa also deviates, but as we know, it is 6 cap 5000 years before today and 1000 years later it is 28 cap like today's longitude according to the gregorian calender caculation. That means 5000 years before compared to 1000 years after now is just 22 dgrees deviated in sun longitude and so in season the deviation is less than a month later in 6000 years time. And I think it is more accurate than non-0 ayanamsa, like lahiri 21 aqua 5000 years before today, and 20 sag after today 1000 years, which means the deviation is 61 degrees in the range of 6000 years, more than two months difference.

According to former comparsion, I prefer tropical system as appliable chart reading system.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 01-19-2012, 03:04 AM
CapAquaPis's Avatar
CapAquaPis CapAquaPis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: ...in the sidereal astrological system.
Posts: 2,149
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by TestAstro View Post
Intresting observation, CAP. I have not studied astronomy, and to common belief astrology as astronomy in old days is out of date and somewhat like a junk food to eat in spare time.

But I wonder how you get the actual positions like which planet in which sign etc? Did you get it by naked eye watching or get it by astronomy software? I think it is a good way to shorten the astrological check term, after all, ancestors had no way to check software or calender and just watch the sky to get position of stars.

To me, I just use free software that can be found everywhere and add some chips of program written by myself to shorten the reading process and save caculation time. in astrology, I think most of them is just for playful read and not so working to determine a person's nature.
I done both, test; to assure the scientific nature of astrology by doing some fields of research. Anyone can go by the selection of one of many differential branches of astrology, to decide which fits them best.
__________________
or , I have the same ruling planets: Uranus and Saturn. I see the Cancer rising. Aries in the MC and Venus was her name!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 01-20-2012, 06:43 PM
soorejmg soorejmg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by CapAquaPis View Post
I done both, test; to assure the scientific nature of astrology by doing some fields of research. Anyone can go by the selection of one of many differential branches of astrology, to decide which fits them best.
Hi cap... the observation you found is correct!!i you see the plamets using a software or if u verify it with nakes eyes at night, we can see that accordingto eastern astrology manythings are matching...the dates according tothe western astrology doesnot.... Iam sayimg this withte sun sign example told before..i verfied sun position with software and jupitor position at night durectly and through software.. What i believ is it is best if the astrologer knows something about the actual position of planets at that location...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 01-20-2012, 06:55 PM
soorejmg soorejmg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by TestAstro View Post
Intresting observation, CAP. I have not studied astronomy, and to common belief astrology as astronomy in old days is out of date and somewhat like a junk food to eat in spare time.

But I wonder how you get the actual positions like which planet in which sign etc? Did you get it by naked eye watching or get it by astronomy software? I think it is a good way to shorten the astrological check term, after all, ancestors had no way to check software or calender and just watch the sky to get position of

.
Astro, if you see directly above the sky, you can see the planets and the cobstellation in which they are...if you observe every day you undrrsatnd many things..previosuly i coudlnt even undrstand between stars and planets; funny...but now i know some conatellations, venus and jupitor,sirrius,etccc..it us really interestingtotowatc te sky
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 01-21-2012, 05:01 AM
MSO's Avatar
MSO MSO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Currently retrograde.
Posts: 696
Send a message via AIM to MSO Send a message via Yahoo to MSO
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Sidereal astrology, to me, has one essential flaw; it uses the constellations.

The question isn't "does it work better?" The question is "is it the constellations that make a sign?"

Take, for example, the ancients using the actual constellations. Did they use the constellations because it was the stars that made the signs, or did they use the constellations because they lacked the processing power of a computer system to determine the signs' boundaries for them?

If the constellations overlap, where does one end and the other begin? If there's a gap between the constellations, where does one end and the other begin? Why are some signs bigger than others? And if you're using 30 degree signs, you're ignoring the actual star placements anyways.

There are too many questions, on a fundamental level, that sidereal presents.

Did the ancients, when figuring out astrology, just use the constellations as place markers? Or perhaps it was a coincidence that the signs and constellations happened to (roughly) match up. It is very much a fact that some constellations didn't even exist (Libra, which was originally the claw of the scorpion) at certain points. The previous sentence really drives home the point that the constellations are in fact just imaginary lines drawn between lights in the sky, adding evidence to them being of no effect to astrology.
__________________
Astrologer In Training
Whole Signs! Use it, love it, live it.
Always search for the truth and accept nothing less. Sometimes you're wrong, it happens. Just remember, your ego can be brushed aside easily, give it a try.
Sequestra says "he's quite nuts"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 01-24-2012, 05:13 PM
soorejmg soorejmg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 11
Re: Sidereal vs tropical

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO View Post
Sidereal astrology, to me, has one essential flaw; it uses the constellations.

The question isn't "does it work better?" The question is "is it the constellations that make a sign?"

Take, for example, the ancients using the actual constellations. Did they use the constellations because it was the stars that made the signs, or did they use the constellations because they lacked the processing power of a computer system to determine the signs' boundaries for them?

If the constellations overlap, where does one end and the other begin? If there's a gap between the constellations, where does one end and the other begin? Why are some signs bigger than others? And if you're using 30 degree signs, you're ignoring the actual star placements anyways.

There are too many questions, on a fundamental level, that sidereal presents.

Did the ancients, when figuring out astrology, just use the constellations as place markers? Or perhaps it was a coincidence that the signs and constellations happened to (roughly) match up. It is very much a fact that some constellations didn't even exist (Libra, which was originally the claw of the scorpion) at certain points. The previous sentence really drives home the point that the constellations are in fact just imaginary lines drawn between lights in the sky, adding evidence to them being of no effect to astrology.
The best option is to make a study on many people with their characteristics and checking the position of sun at the time of their birth. No other way is useful...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
sidereal, tropical

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
*UPDATED: COMET TRANSITS NEAR VENUS EARLY MARCH Theo Mundane Astrology 12 04-17-2010 12:55 AM
The Sidereal Zodiac Arian Maverick Other Astrology 16 04-14-2010 09:20 AM
Tropical versus Sidereal solar returns Fullmoondawn Solar returns 1 04-16-2007 10:27 PM
Sidereal vs Tropical sam Other Astrology 0 03-15-2006 03:39 AM



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.