Sidereal vs tropical

CapAquaPis

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 I have not studied astronomy, and to common belief astrology as astronomy in old days is out of date and somewhat like a junk food to eat in spare time.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

soorejmg

Member
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...
 

soorejmg

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 I have not studied astronomy, and to common belief astrology as astronomy in old days is out of date and somewhat like a junk food to eat in spare time.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

MSO

Well-known member
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.
 

soorejmg

Member
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...
 

Inconjunct

Well-known member
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.

Yes - excellent. The other assumption is that the signs were named after the constellations rather than vice versa.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Yes - excellent. The other assumption is that the signs were named after the constellations rather than vice versa.

I think the signs were named after the constellations. The more I've been reading, the more it seems to me the ancients were very much concerned with things like ascensional times and signs of equal light. But in order to build a house (or a horoscope) you have to make rooms, hence dividing the sky/circle in 30* segments. So my working theory is the constellations came first, then the signs. I find it really hard to believe that it was a colossal coincidence that they have the same names.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
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 Images or 'constellations' may well be regarded by some as simply 'imaginary constructs' - nevertheless the stars themselves on which those 'Images' are based are as real as our sun and therefore clearly do have effect to astrology :smile:

Furthermore, a Tropical zodiac natal chart is composed of only 360[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] degrees but there are 365.25363 days in the solar year.

Therefore Tropical astrology cannot accurately state the position of the sun on any given day
.

Obviously, since a Sidereal zodiac natal chart is also composed of only 360[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] degrees but there are 365.25363 days in the solar year - then Sidereal astrological natal charts cannot accurately state the position of the sun on any given day either:smile:
 

sandstone

Banned
does anyone know the approx time period they put the constellations in 30 degree wedges? as i understand it the constellations were used as a reference to follow the lunar cycles closely.. in other words, the babylonians were practicing a type of lunar astrology - focused on eclipse data and they needed some type of reference in order to keep track of the location of the moon... if anyone has an idea on the time frame the constellations were put into 30 degree wedges, i would be curious... thanks....
 

sandstone

Banned
Babylonian astronomers at some stage during the early 1st millennium BC divided the ecliptic into twelve equal zones of celestial longitude to create the first known celestial coordinate system: a coordinate system that boasts some advantages over modern systems (such as equatorial coordinate system). The Babylonian calendar as it stood in the 7th century BC assigned each month to a sign, beginning with the position of the Sun at vernal equinox, which, at the time, was depicted as the Aries constellation ("Age of Aries"), for which reason the first constellation is still called "Aries" even after the vernal equinox has moved away from the Aries constellation due to the slow precession of the Earth's axis of rotation.[4]


from :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac

next question becomes, what type of astrology were the bab's doing?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
FWIW - The Babylonian Astrology Forum on ACT astrology site has posts on Babylonian Astrology. There are few modern day practitioners of the art of Babylonian Astrology Rumen Kolev is one such practitioner and he is also the Moderator of the forum http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=139 and Rumen Kolev also has an excellent website on which he has various articles relating to Babylonian astrological material at this link http://www.babylonianastrology.com/ :smile:
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
The Images or 'constellations' may well be regarded by some as simply 'imaginary constructs' - nevertheless the stars themselves on which those 'Images' are based are as real as our sun and therefore clearly do have effect to astrology :smile:

Furthermore, a Tropical zodiac natal chart is composed of only 360[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] degrees but there are 365.25363 days in the solar year.

Therefore Tropical astrology cannot accurately state the position of the sun on any given day
.

Obviously, since a Sidereal zodiac natal chart is also composed of only 360[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] degrees but there are 365.25363 days in the solar year - then Sidereal astrological natal charts cannot accurately state the position of the sun on any given day either:smile:

I can't speak about sidereal, but tropical astrology does accurately state the position of the sun. It has to, or else after enough years, we'd have Aries starting in February instead of March. If you follow the position of the Sun in an ephemeris, it's not like it starts out the year at 10 degrees and 20 minutes of Capricorn, and then every day at the same time it's exactly one degree further. Every day, the Sun is one degree and a minute or two ahead of where it was 24 hours previously. I imagine over the year, this adds up to make up the extra 5 degrees or so.

I'm thinking sidereal works the same since it's the same Sun, but I don't study it so i don't want to say for sure.

EDIT: Actually, now that i'm scrolling through more pages of an ephemeris, it fluctuates. Some days it's a degree and a minute further, some days it's a degree and seconds further, some days it's at the next degree, but a minute behind what it was at the previous day, etc. Either way, my point still stands. Those degrees *have* to be made up at some point during the year.
 
Last edited:

tsmall

Premium Member
I can't speak about sidereal, but tropical astrology does accurately state the position of the sun. It has to, or else after enough years, we'd have Aries starting in February instead of March. If you follow the position of the Sun in an ephemeris, it's not like it starts out the year at 10 degrees and 20 minutes of Capricorn, and then every day at the same time it's exactly one degree further. Every day, the Sun is one degree and a minute or two ahead of where it was 24 hours previously. I imagine over the year, this adds up to make up the extra 5 degrees or so.

I'm thinking sidereal works the same since it's the same Sun, but I don't study it so i don't want to say for sure.

I'm not 100% sure, kennedyrose, but I think what you are describing is precession, which is why we all debate the zodiacs in the first place. The point is that the tropical zodiac pins the starting point of Aries at the Spring equinox (since tropical is based on equinoxes and solsitces) and we can visually observe that the equinox is "slipping" backwards...from Aries to Pisces (current sidereal calculations I belive...what do I know...have the Vernal Point at about 4* Pisces) and into Aquarius...bringing on the Age of Aquarius. But, everyone has to try each, I think, instead of just saying yea or nay to either, and then decide for themselves what works. Astrology has been explained to me as an art, and an interpretive language. Which means that different artists will work with different mediums (oil vs water colors, vs clay) and in the end...it's the predictions and interpretations that matter.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I can't speak about sidereal, but tropical astrology does accurately state the position of the sun. It has to, or else after enough years, we'd have Aries starting in February instead of March. If you follow the position of the Sun in an ephemeris, it's not like it starts out the year at 10 degrees and 20 minutes of Capricorn, and then every day at the same time it's exactly one degree further. Every day, the Sun is one degree and a minute or two ahead of where it was 24 hours previously. I imagine over the year, this adds up to make up the extra 5 degrees or so.

I'm thinking sidereal works the same since it's the same Sun, but I don't study it so i don't want to say for sure.

EDIT: Actually, now that i'm scrolling through more pages of an ephemeris, it fluctuates. Some days it's a degree and a minute further, some days it's a degree and seconds further, some days it's at the next degree, but a minute behind what it was at the previous day, etc. Either way, my point still stands. Those degrees *have* to be made up at some point during the year.
Not if a solar year has 365.25363 days. If for example a calculation is made for a symbolic progression of a day for a year it only 'works' because no one lives for 365.25363 years. For mundane 'day for a year' progression, then after 360 years, five.25363 years 'vanish' - because there are only 360[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º [/FONT]in a circle

The natal chart calculated according to the western calendar/Ephemeris follows the sun according to the degree at which it stands daily.

Every four years an extra day is added to make up for the lost time (.25363 days per year) ...

However, adding an extra day every four years is insufficient and another day has to be added every x-hundred years in order to balance the scenario :smile:
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
Isn't precession the reason why the two zodiacs are off? What i was trying to do was argue with JUPITERASC's comment that the tropical zodiac can't accurately state the position of the Sun because there are more days in a year than there are degrees. But in order for that to be true, i think the Sun would have to move exactly one degree per day, and it doesn't.

Plus it just doesn't really make sense to me... If an ephemeris says the Sun is at 24 degrees and 38 seconds Libra, then that's exactly where it is. How could it be anywhere else?
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
Not if a solar year has 365.25363 days. If for example a calculation is made for a symbolic progression of a day for a year it only 'works' because no one lives for 365.25363 years. For mundane 'day for a year' progression, then after 360 years, five.25363 years 'vanish' - because there are only 360[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º [/FONT]in a circle

The natal chart calculated according to the western calendar/Ephemeris follows the sun according to the degree at which it stands daily.

Every four years an extra day is added to make up for the lost time (.25363 days per year) ...

However, adding an extra day every four years is insufficient and another day has to be added every x-hundred years in order to balance the scenario :smile:

Numbers are soooo not my strong suit, just warning you. But i just generated a random chart with a birth month and year of August 1800, and then progressed it to the year 2160, 360 years later. The Sun is 5 degrees behind where it was in 1800. In August 2165, it's about 15 minutes behind. In November 2165 (approximately a quarter of a year later), it's one minute ahead. So 365 years later, it's almost at where it was in 1800. If anything, 5 degrees vanished, not 5 years, and those degrees turned back up once I added 5 years on.

Do i have this right, or did i do something wrong?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Isn't precession the reason why the two zodiacs are off? What i was trying to do was argue with JUPITERASC's comment that the tropical zodiac can't accurately state the position of the Sun because there are more days in a year than there are degrees. But in order for that to be true, i think the Sun would have to move exactly one degree per day, and it doesn't.
Nevertheless, the Earth orbits the Sun every 365.25363 days and there are only 360[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] in any circle so day for a year progressions are not based on the actual time Earth orbits the Sun:smile:

Plus it just doesn't really make sense to me... If an ephemeris says the Sun is at 24 degrees and 38 seconds Libra, then that's exactly where it is. How could it be anywhere else?
How? Although the Sun is apparently at 24 degrees and 38 seconds Libra Tropically - that's not based on reality. The Tropical Zodiac is a mathematical abstraction and simply symbolic because Sidereally in fact the Sun would be somewhere between 28 degrees Virgo and only a few minutes into Libra, depending on which ayanamsa one uses:smile:
Numbers are soooo not my strong suit, just warning you. But i just generated a random chart with a birth month and year of August 1800, and then progressed it to the year 2160, 360 years later. The Sun is 5 degrees behind where it was in 1800. In August 2165, it's about 15 minutes behind. In November 2165 (approximately a quarter of a year later), it's one minute ahead. So 365 years later, it's almost at where it was in 1800. If anything, 5 degrees vanished, not 5 years, and those degrees turned back up once I added 5 years on.

Do i have this right, or did i do something wrong?
I would not classify myself as an expert kennedyrosewhith!

I can say however, that for the symbolic direction of "a degree for a year" then five degrees would equal five years

- however what I wrote was "symbolic directions of a day for a year"
:smile:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Numbers are soooo not my strong suit, just warning you. But i just generated a random chart with a birth month and year of August 1800, and then progressed it to the year 2160, 360 years later. The Sun is 5 degrees behind where it was in 1800. In August 2165, it's about 15 minutes behind. In November 2165 (approximately a quarter of a year later), it's one minute ahead. So 365 years later, it's almost at where it was in 1800. If anything, 5 degrees vanished, not 5 years, and those degrees turned back up once I added 5 years on.

Do i have this right, or did i do something wrong?

I'm no expert either, though I suspect there are those here who are, lol. All I can say with certainty is that this year, I visually witnessed Saturn moving from Virgo into Libra by looking at my night sky...on or around Nov. 14, 2011.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=329846&postcount=157

The best I can suggest to you is to google precession, look at the arguements for and against, and decide for yourself.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I'm no expert either, though I suspect there are those here who are, lol. All I can say with certainty is that this year, I visually witnessed Saturn moving from Virgo into Libra by looking at my night sky...on or around Nov. 14, 2011.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=329846&postcount=157

The best I can suggest to you is to google precession, look at the arguements for and against, and decide for yourself.
If you would prefer a visual explanation of precession, I found this useful video on youtube just now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOPznRRiWOg :smile:
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
What exactly is the difference between a degree for a year, and a day for a year, and how can they yield different results?

EDIT: Is this even on topic?

No, the Sun is still at 24 degrees Libra, but only according to the tropical zodiac. That's wrong according to another system, but only because you're comparing to another system that does things differently. You won't find the Sun at 24 degrees Libra if you're using sidereal, because that's not where it is in sidereal.
 
Last edited:
Top