What sign was "actually" breaking the horizon at the time of my birth?

Mark said:

JUPITERASC: Basically, you seem to be saying that tropical solar returns should be measured by exact house position at birth time and that sidereal returns should be measured according to position against the stars. If this is what you're saying, I am in full agreement.

As to the differences between tropical and sidereal returns, the differences you describe are basically the same as those between a synodic lunar month and a sidereal lunar month. Information can be derived from the synodic measurement (i.e. phases of the Moon) and from the sidereal measurement (e.g. lunar mansions). Both are valid in their own context. Which measurement you should use depends on what information you're trying to derive.

tsmall: The precession of the Earth is made to seem irregular by a number of wobbles, including the one you mentioned. Modern methods can measure these wobbles with impressive precision, but still nowhere near what we would need to accurately predict the nuances of the Earth's spinning thousands of years in advance. We're still unable to prove a solid mean or average for the spin because of these gaps in our knowledge. It's also true that the top (and the Earth) will wobble more as it slows (exaggerating the effect over time). We also know that large seismic/volcanic events can change the shape of the Earth enough to effect its rotation, creating what might be called "noise in the system."

We think precession is largely due to these wobbles causing the Earth to move more to cover the same amount of space. This doesn't cause as much deceleration as one might think. It just makes each year take a little longer and it means that every year is slightly different in length. The ancient literature, according to my forgotten source, says that the proper ayanamsa will continue decreasing for thousands of years. If that represents a reversed precession, then the sky would start drifting forward instead of backward. Even if the Earth were a perfect system, the sky still shouldn't drift forward. The only way that makes sense is if the spin of the Earth is actively accelerated somehow and the effect should only last as long as the acceleration does. I have no idea how such a thing would happen, but I won't rule it completely impossible.

Click to expand...

Some recent evidence confirming what you have said regarding seismic events is available at this link
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...thquake-shifted-earth-axis-shorter-day-nasa/1

QUOTE: The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that ravaged Japan also shortened Earth's day by just over one-millionth of a second (1.8 microseconds to be exact), according to NASA. It also shifted the Earth's axis by about 6.5 inches.

Ancient as well as modern astrologers viewed/may view the wandering stars, sun and moon in the foreground of constellations that are visible for those who wish to go outdoors, and confirm for themselves, directly in person, whether Libra or Virgo is actually rising on the Eastern horizon just before sunrise or not. In contrast, for modern astrologers, although the Tropical zodiac looks fine on the computer screen. it is in fact totally out of synch with the reality of what is seen in the skies by anyone wishing to go outdoors and check. This is merely an observation on my part and not particularly intended as a criticism, in fact may I say that this is a most interesting discussion

Click to expand...

But.. the constellations in the skies are only arbitrary arrangements of the stars that we seem to have inherited from Greek mythology. The Chinese and many other cultures arrange these very same stars into quite different constellations.

Which brings me back to Tropical (Earth) astrology, where the energy field of the earth is divided into 12, 30 degree signs which start when the Sun is at 0 declination on the equator. The movement of the Earth around the Sun is real and the resultant division of the Earth's field into sections that can be measured by zodiac and declination degrees is quite reasonable.

My current thinking is that the constellations are named after the tropical signs, not the other way around. The constellations have even been organized in astrology charts to be of equal lengths of 30 degrees, the same as the tropical zodiac, which in reality they have never been.

It doesn't matter how 'real' constellations look in the skies, we have been taught by our culture to interpret a certain arrangement of stars in this fashion. Asian people looking at the same stars would see completely different patterns and different constellations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice McDermott
The tropical zodiac is the zodiac of the Earth and I think it is probably the way we measure the energy field of the Earth. From the view point of the Earth, it is measured from the time the Sun is at 0 declination on the Equator, this is 0 Aries. As the Sun moves into the Northern Hemisphere it activates Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo and Virgo, then, when it reaches 0 Libra, it moves into the Southern Hemisphere and activates Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces. I have explained this more thoroughly, with a graphic, here: http://aliceportman.com/?p=703

What this means when we personally view the background of stars in the sky for ourselves, is that 0 Aries Tropical (ie the Vernal point) is no longer located in Aries at all, but has. by the year 2000, drifted to 5° 15' 48" in sidereal Pisces.

Click to expand...

To clarify a little; 0 Aries, the point where the Sun is also at 0 declination on the Equator, is as real as it can get. It is the beginning of the tropical sign of Aries.

This 0 Aries point is also pointing to an arbitrary point along the ecliptic called 5 degrees sidereal Pisces, which is a constellation that in reality is not 30 degrees at all and is an arrangement of stars that seems to be derived from Greek mythology rather than anything solidly astronomical.

Alice

Alice McDermott said:

But.. the constellations in the skies are only arbitrary arrangements of the stars that we seem to have inherited from Greek mythology. The Chinese and many other cultures arrange these very same stars into quite different constellations.

Which brings me back to Tropical (Earth) astrology, where the energy field of the earth is divided into 12, 30 degree signs which start when the Sun is at 0 declination on the equator. The movement of the Earth around the Sun is real and the resultant division of the Earth's field into sections that can be measured by zodiac and declination degrees is quite reasonable.

My current thinking is that the constellations are named after the tropical signs, not the other way around. The constellations have even been organized in astrology charts to be of equal lengths of 30 degrees, the same as the tropical zodiac, which in reality they have never been.

It doesn't matter how 'real' constellations look in the skies, we have been taught by our culture to interpret a certain arrangement of stars in this fashion. Asian people looking at the same stars would see completely different patterns and different constellations.



To clarify a little; 0 Aries, the point where the Sun is also at 0 declination on the Equator, is as real as it can get. It is the beginning of the tropical sign of Aries.

This 0 Aries point is also pointing to an arbitrary point along the ecliptic called 5 degrees sidereal Pisces, which is a constellation that in reality is not 30 degrees at all and is an arrangement of stars that seems to be derived from Greek mythology rather than anything solidly astronomical.

Alice

Click to expand...

Alice, does this mean that it is the signs (30* segments) that describe the constellations they were associated with? So for example Cancer described the segment that started 90* from the equator, and the crab as a symbol was traced in the stars afterwards? Further, would this mean that the stars themselves are not what have influence, but rather the signs irrespective of which stars occupy them at a given time?

Tamara,thank you for reply.I am still looking into ectopic pregnancy,the reason for this is because a number of Librans charts I have seen that have had EP,have all had Venus in Scorpio,in certain degrees and some other things I noticed they had in common.You have none of these.
For some reason it was the Sun op Saturn in the Sid' return chart that triggered something about pregnancy.I see SU/SA is Houses 1/7,Cap 5th,Leo 12th.I only had short time late last night to look at your return,hopefully I will have some more time available at the weekend.
I hope to come back to you later about SU/SA,health,partnerships and possible accidents etc.

Jerry.

Alice McDermott said:

But.. the constellations in the skies are only arbitrary arrangements of the stars that we seem to have inherited from Greek mythology. The Chinese and many other cultures arrange these very same stars into quite different constellations..........My current thinking is that the constellations are named after the tropical signs, not the other way around. The constellations have even been organized in astrology charts to be of equal lengths of 30 degrees, the same as the tropical zodiac, which in reality they have never been.

Click to expand...

Your contention that the constellations were named after the Tropical Signs is misleading simply because it implies that the Tropical Signs predate the constellations – but they do not. On the contrary, it is the Sidereal zodiac and constellations that are well documented to have existed long before the Tropical zodiac because, until the early few centuries of the first millennia, planetary measurement was always sidereal (i.e. referenced to the fixed stars)

Alice McDermott said:

To clarify a little; 0 Aries, the point where the Sun is also at 0 declination on the Equator, is as real as it can get. It is the beginning of the tropical sign of Aries.

Click to expand...

The astrology of the ancients (Babylonian, Egyptian) was sidereal and referenced to the fixed stars. Thus, for many thousands of years astronomy and astrology were one and the same - until the Greco-Roman Church-State astronomers began to record planetary ephemerides referenced to the moving Vernal point in preference to the fixed stars – whilst (a) ignoring that the Vernal point moves precessionally and (b) simultaneously maintaining that all other heavenly bodies rotate around the Earth... a statement affirming Egoic consciousness. This was due in particular to a certain Claudius Ptolemaeus (c. 90 - c. 168 AD) who was employed by the Greco-Roman controlling faction. Ptolemaeus was a mathematician, not a true astronomer.

At the time of Ptolemaeus, to profess anything other than a Geocentric view was equivalent to heresy, so only those willing to sell out to the manipulative ploys of the Religious/Political status quo and thus perpetuate the imposed "The Sun orbits the Earth" dogma of Old Testament/Biblical texts - were kept on the payroll. Thus “Hellenistic/Ptolemaic/Tropical” astrology which began in an age of suppression - based on the confused mentalities common to the early first millennia - remains popular today.

Alice McDermott said:

This 0 Aries point is also pointing to an arbitrary point along the ecliptic called 5 degrees sidereal Pisces, which is a constellation that in reality is not 30 degrees at all and is an arrangement of stars that seems to be derived from Greek mythology rather than anything solidly astronomical. Alice

Click to expand...

The wisdom of the original astrology of the ancients, along with esoteric Gnostic wisdom, was transferred/taken from Babylon, Chaldea, and Egypt before it was gradually and randomly fused into an incoherent medley.

The random incoherent fusing in question was perpetuated with the dominating influence of Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia (336 to 323 B.C.), who was a catalyst for an amalgamation of Egyptian, Babylonian, Greco-Roman thought into a new cultural expression in the 4th century B.C. which was continued later by Ptolemy. Indeed Alexander's dominating influence in coastal Egypt and further conquest of Babylon along with much of Asia Minor laid the foundations for the various religious factions of the Greco-Roman world.

Beginning with the death of Alexander in 323 B.C. and continuing around 31 B.C., the Hellenistic Period gave birth to a diversity of esoteric philosophies and occult practices, all derived from the Egyptian and Babylonian mysteries. The cultural peak of this period, from 280 B.C. to 160 B.C., produced Euclid, Hipparchus, Eratosthenes, Dionysus and many other creative thinkers, who all expounded upon the cultural influence of Ancient Egypt. However, although this period carried forth some of the ancient esoteric teachings in a new intellectual language, it also produced a highly intellectualized amalgamate of confused ideas which reduced Ancient Egypt's esoteric wisdom into a non-sensible confusion of "men worshiping a pantheon of gods and stars."

tsmall said:

Alice, does this mean that it is the signs (30* segments) that describe the constellations they were associated with? So for example Cancer described the segment that started 90* from the equator, and the crab as a symbol was traced in the stars afterwards? Further, would this mean that the stars themselves are not what have influence, but rather the signs irrespective of which stars occupy them at a given time?

Click to expand...

The Signs of Tropical astrology take their names from the Constellations of the Sidereal Zodiac which is based on the fixed stars. The Signs of Tropical Astrology however are dependent for their location upon the Vernal Point which is
(a) either of two points on the celestial sphere at which the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator.
and/or
(b) either of the two times during a year when the sun crosses the celestial equator and when the length of day and night are approximately equal; the vernal equinox or the autumnal equinox.

During the time of Claudius Ptolemaeus, Hipparchus, Valens et al when the sun crossed the celestial equator at the vernal equinox it did so at approximately 0 Sidereal Aries - thus the Vernal Point was in synch with sidereal Aries. However, the Vernal Point is now out of synch with sidereal Aries because the Vernal Point by its very nature reflects precession/regression so that, by the 21st Century - due to precession/regression - because, in the 21st Century when the Sun crosses the equator as usual at the Spring Equinox, the Vernal Point is currently at approximately 5 degrees sidereal Pisces and continuing to drift backwards towards Aquarius (hence the dawning of the Age of Aquarius)

Therefore the Vernal Point is simply symbolically 0 Aries. Aries is a Sidereal constellation. When the Sun crosses the Equator at The Vernal Point at the Spring Equinox, it is no longer in Aries but is in Pisces. Times change.

The Vernal Point of Tropical astrology totally ignores the surrounding fixed stars/constellations and instead focuses on and is based on one of the two times during a year when the sun crosses the celestial equator - thus the Vernal Point solely from a Geocentric viewpoint reflects the relationship between the Earth and the Sun... nothing else
.

tsmall said:

Alice, does this mean that it is the signs (30* segments) that describe the constellations they were associated with? So for example Cancer described the segment that started 90* from the equator, and the crab as a symbol was traced in the stars afterwards? Further, would this mean that the stars themselves are not what have influence, but rather the signs irrespective of which stars occupy them at a given time?

Click to expand...

I think the stars have considerable influence. This has been clearly documented for many centuries.

However, I question the constellations! Why, in astrology, are they given even 30 degree segments, when they clearly aren't that? Why are these constellations only used in Western cultures and other cultures use different arrangements of stars to make up different constellations?

To me, this arrangement seems somewhat strange to say the least.

Alice

Alice McDermott said:

I think the stars have considerable influence. This has been clearly documented for many centuries. However, I question the constellations! Why, in astrology, are they given even 30 degree segments, when they clearly aren't that? Why are these constellations only used in Western cultures and other cultures use different arrangements of stars to make up different constellations? To me, this arrangement seems somewhat strange to say the least. Alice

Click to expand...

Clearly you are content with a symbolic Tropical zodiac derived from Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.); "...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." (Dr. Robert Powell 2007).

Western Astrology inherited the names of the constellations from Babylonian and Egyptian astrologers and the sidereal constellations of Virgo and Libra are easily identifiable by astronomers and anyone else who would like to learn how to do so. What many astrologers find simply strange is that while the Tropical zodiac natal chart viewed by tsmall on a computer says that Libra is the ascending Sign of her natal chart, anyone who was interested enough to have been located outdoors in a place with a clear view of the Eastern horizon unobscured by buildings of any kind, observing for themselves the ascending sign at the time of tsmall's birth would have realised that what is seen on the Eastern horizon is not the constellation of Libra but instead the constellation of Virgo.

This particular 'out-of-synch with the constellations' element of the Tropical zodiac passes unnoticed by the majority of current astrologers because the use of the computer means astrologers in general are out of touch with the reality of visual contact with actual skies. Therefore, when viewing a Tropical zodiac chart cast for a certain time, most people assume unquestionably that the ascending Sign of that chart cast for that certain time is identical to or with the ascending Sign visible in the skies at that certain time... but strangely, it is not!

JerryRR said:

Tamara,thank you for reply.I am still looking into ectopic pregnancy,the reason for this is because a number of Librans charts I have seen that have had EP,have all had Venus in Scorpio,in certain degrees and some other things I noticed they had in common.You have none of these.
For some reason it was the Sun op Saturn in the Sid' return chart that triggered something about pregnancy.I see SU/SA is Houses 1/7,Cap 5th,Leo 12th.I only had short time late last night to look at your return,hopefully I will have some more time available at the weekend.
I hope to come back to you later about SU/SA,health,partnerships and possible accidents etc.

Jerry.

Click to expand...

Jerry, I thank you for any attempt at interpretation, as it has been stated and agreed to on this thread that the best way to determine which zodiac is more accurate is by the ability to predict. Also, as I am still learning, any insight into how to predict is most appreciated! It seems that no one else is interested in looking at the charts, but I am more than willing to share information based on them. As I mentioned, there was no EP that year (or any other)...but...

Tamara

Alice McDermott said:

I think the stars have considerable influence. This has been clearly documented for many centuries.

However, I question the constellations! Why, in astrology, are they given even 30 degree segments, when they clearly aren't that? Why are these constellations only used in Western cultures and other cultures use different arrangements of stars to make up different constellations?

To me, this arrangement seems somewhat strange to say the least.

Alice

Click to expand...

Obviously I am unable to answer that question. But, could it perhaps have to do with the need to impose order on the skies for purposes of divination? And, isn't there something about the number 3, and it's multiples that is supposed to be significant? Does anyone else have any ideas about this?

JUPITERASC said:

Clearly you are content with a symbolic Tropical zodiac that originated fairly recently at the time of Claudius Ptolomaeus, Hipparchus et al.

Western Astrology inherited the names of the constellations from Babylonian and Egyptian astrologers and the sidereal constellations of Virgo and Libra are easily identifiable by astronomers and anyone else who would like to learn how to do so. What many astrologers find simply strange is that while the Tropical zodiac natal chart viewed by tsmall on a computer says that Libra is the ascending Sign of her natal chart, anyone who was interested enough to have been located outdoors in a place with a clear view of the Eastern horizon unobscured by buildings of any kind, observing for themselves the ascending sign at the time of tsmall's birth would have realised that what is seen on the Eastern horizon is not the constellation of Libra but instead the constellation of Virgo.

This particular 'out-of-synch with the constellations' element of the Tropical zodiac passes unnoticed by the majority of current astrologers because the use of the computer means astrologers in general are out of touch with the reality of visual contact with actual skies. Therefore, when viewing a Tropical zodiac chart cast for a certain time, most people assume unquestionably that the ascending Sign of that chart cast for that certain time is identical to or with the ascending Sign visible in the skies at that certain time... but strangely, it is not!

Click to expand...

Well, around we go again!

The consellations aren't 'real' - they are a construct of stars to form a specific pattern. These constellations aren't evenly spread across the ecliptic, yet sidereal astrologers map them in 12 even 30 degree segments, why? Other cultures have different constructs. For example, if you are looking at the constellation of Libra rising a Chinese person would be looking at the same stars in the constellations of The Carriage and The Horn.

The movement of the Earth around the Sun is real. During this orbit the Sun activates the energy field of the Earth. This field has been divided into 12, equal 30 degree segments called Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc., the same names as the constellations - but which came first? History only shows that ancient peoples felt that the constructed constellations were the important ones. I think this is because few had any idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun or that the Earth is a living being with its own energy field.

I agree with you in one thing. I think much of the ancient knowledge of our earliest recorded civilisation, the Sumerians, has been lost partly because of the burning and destruction of the great ancient libraries. From what I have been able to deduce, these people said they had been taught astrology by the Star Gods.

I think that if we ever are able to recover that knowledge it is highly likely we will find out why there are twelve zodiac signs, why the stars were arranged in different constellations for East and West and what correlation they have with the zodiac signs of the Earth.

Alice

Alice McDermott said:

Well, around we go again! The consellations aren't 'real' - they are a construct of stars to form a specific pattern. These constellations aren't evenly spread across the ecliptic, yet sidereal astrologers map them in 12 even 30 degree segments, why? Other cultures have different constructs. For example, if you are looking at the constellation of Libra rising a Chinese person would be looking at the same stars in the constellations of The Carriage and The Horn. The movement of the Earth around the Sun is real. During this orbit the Sun activates the energy field of the Earth. This field has been divided into 12, equal 30 degree segments called Aries, Taurus, Gemini etc., the same names as the constellations - but which came first? History only shows that ancient peoples felt that the constructed constellations were the important ones. I think this is because few had any idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun or that the Earth is a living being with its own energy field. I agree with you in one thing. I think much of the ancient knowledge of our earliest recorded civilisation, the Sumerians, has been lost partly because of the burning and destruction of the great ancient libraries. From what I have been able to deduce, these people said they had been taught astrology by the Star Gods. I think that if we ever are able to recover that knowledge it is highly likely we will find out why there are twelve zodiac signs, why the stars were arranged in different constellations for East and West and what correlation they have with the zodiac signs of the Earth. Alice

Click to expand...

To clarify then
You have said for the reasons you posted that 'constellations are not real'.
So let us read A definition of the word 'constellation' from an online dictionary
“A constellation is an arbitrary formation of stars perceived as a figure or design, especially one of 88 recognized groups named after characters from classical mythology and various common animals and objects.”

We are indeed told that constellations are formations of/groups of stars that ancient cultures perceived as a figure or design which they therefore named after mythological characters and various common animals and objects (for example 'Libra, The scales/The Balance').
It is for this reason that you contend that constellations are not real - because there is no easily identifiable 'real Ram'/'Bull'/'Set of Twins'/'Crab' et al visible in the skies and that these various groups of stars that are specifically on the ecliptic do not distinctly resemble the various common animals, objects and mythological characters the ancients named them after. Furthermore you say that different cultures viewed these constellations as representing alternative common animals/objects/mythological characters. Your statements although stating the obvious are diverting from the focus of this thread. The focus of this thread is that tsmall, a newcomer to astrology, has noticed the differences between Tropical and Sidereal reckoning and is now therefore clearly asking 'What sign was "actually" breaking the horizon at the time of my birth?'

Formations of stars/groups of stars/constellations, because they are composed of 'real' individual stars are real and are easily seen and easily identified by their pattern or shape when on individual views the skies at a time when the Sun is below the horizon at any particular location. In particular, this discussion concerns constellations or groups of stars visible on the Eastern horizon between one hour before the Sun was visible above the horizon as well as precisely sixteen minutes before the Sun was visible above the horizon on the specific day, location and time that tsmall was born.

So then, if anyone on the day time and location of tsmall's birth, had cared to go outdoors to a place where the constellations or groups of stars are easily visible before sunrise, that person would have seen a particular shape (formation of/group/constellation) of stars rising on the Eastern horizon.

Particular formations of/groups of stars/constellations have for many thousands of years been conventionally referred to by the use of particular names conventionally used in order to distinguish between formations of/groups of stars/constellations and in view of the many different languages and cultures on planet Earth it seems rather unsurprising that names of particular formations of/groups of stars/constellations may well differ in China.

However tsmall was not born in China but instead was born in the West, so the particular name chosen to identify the particular formation of/group of stars/constellation rising on the Eastern Horizon at the time and place of tsmall's birth that was visible to any observer at that location in Western terms i.e. Virgo and (in Western terms, specifically) not Libra - as any Tropical computer generated chart avers.

Further clarification
I utilise the conventionally agreed descriptions of 'Virgo' and 'Libra' as identification because Western astronomers commonly name those groups of stars as 'Virgo' and 'Libra'. The location, time and place of tsmall's birth took place in the West and not in China, therefore speculations as to why the names of Chinese constellations differ from the names of Western constellations – although interesting – are irrelevant to this thread. However, as you are clearly interested in discussing the reasons why Chinese names of constellations differ from Western names then it would be more appropriate for you to commence a different thread on the subject so that the central debate initiated by tsmall may continue unabated.

What clearly interests tsmall, a newcomer to astrology, is that the conventionally accepted name assigned to any group of stars visible at the Eastern horizon at any location on planet Earth when the Sun is below the horizon and about to rise on that Eastern horizon within approximately the following sixteen minutes – differs markedly between Tropical and Sidereal astrology - to the extent that when the skies specifically at the time as well as the location of tsmall's birth are studied, although a computer calculated Tropical Astrology states that tsmall has Libra rising, visual observation confirms and agrees with Sideral Astrology that tsmall has Virgo rising.

Hi T,
Considering age factor.
In 1996 I would have asked you are over any past relationships,if you are in a relationship,is he the right one and do you want to have children with this man.Uranus/Neptune is not easy in 5th House.

Jerry.

JerryRR said:

Hi T,
Considering age factor.
In 1996 I would have asked you are over any past relationships,if you are in a relationship,is he the right one and do you want to have children with this man.Uranus/Neptune is not easy in 5th House.

Jerry.

Click to expand...

Hi Jerry,
You are asking the same questions I was asking in 1996! Yes, I was "in a relationship" that had been going on (and going nowhere) for two years. I thought he was the right one, but we wanted different things in life. Children..I wanted, he didn't. I was also still trying to get over my divorce three years prior.

Just curious, are you looking at the sidereal or tropical SR?

JUPITERASC said:

The focus of this thread is that tsmall, a newcomer to astrology, has noticed the differences between Tropical and Sidereal reckoning and is now therefore clearly asking 'What sign was "actually" breaking the horizon at the time of my birth?'...

...What clearly interests tsmall, a newcomer to astrology, is that the conventionally accepted name assigned to any group of stars visible at the Eastern horizon at any location on planet Earth when the Sun is below the horizon and about to rise on that Eastern horizon within approximately the following sixteen minutes – differs markedly between Tropical and Sidereal astrology - to the extent that when the skies specifically at the time as well as the location of tsmall's birth are studied, although a computer calculated Tropical Astrology states that tsmall has Libra rising, visual observation confirms and agrees with Sideral Astrology that tsmall has Virgo rising.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what tsmall is asking.

A discussion about the reason for division of the zodiac into twelve equal segments of 30*, and the difference between Western and Eastern constellations would be an interesting thread.

Alice, please forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but I do believe that you are replying to one of the initial questions raised in the OP

tsmall said:

And because I am really trying to understand the reasoning for using either the tropical or sidereal zodiac, I wanted to start a thread to debate the use of one or the other. I am speaking only of the zodiac itself, not of Western vs. Vedic astrology. This question first came up on another thread, in which it was proposed to me that I try looking at my natal chart in sidereal. When I did that, everything fell into place, and all the books I was ready to toss out because they were incorrect (based on my tropical chart) suddenly...worked.

Click to expand...

and that the tropical zodiac, which will always have the Sun in Libra on 25 September, is most accurate? And just to make sure I understand, it is the signs that are important, and not the constellations?

In all honesty I am not trying to be contentious. Quite simply, I began studying astrology with the basic assumption that if my chart (tropical) said that I had Libra rising, Libra would in fact be the constellation rising on the horizon at the moment of my birth. I think it has been clearly shown here that that is in fact not the case?

Tamara,sorry forgot to put Sidereal set for R,NH.In between washing up dishes etc.I have hardly looked at tropical,precessed Tropical and I have not looked at Lunar returns in either.
Back to dishes.

Jerry.

Alice McDermott said:

The tropical zodiac is the zodiac of the Earth and I think it is probably the way we measure the energy field of the Earth.


I have explained this more thoroughly, with a graphic, here: http://aliceportman.com/?p=703

Sidereal astrology also starts its calculation from the time the Sun moves to the equator as it moves into the Northern Hemisphere, but does a further calculation to adjust to the sidereal this is called the ayanamsa. Unfortunately there a number of methods to calculate this ayanamsa and they can vary quite a few degrees, so siderealists vehemently argue as to which is the correct method of calculation as this can throw out all the positions of the planets, angles and houses in the chart. For example, I have one of my planets in either Leo or Cancer, depending upon the aynamasa used. It think true sidereal astrology should start its calculation from the fixed star Spica, but few siderealists do.

After years of study of both Tropical and Vedic astrology I came to the conclusion that for me, Tropical astrology was much more accurate astronomically and in forecasting and interpretation.

In addition, my current thinkiong is that the constellations themselves, which are quite uneven, were arranged in even, 30 degree segments to echo the zodiac of the Earth; not the other way around. I came to this conclusion when I started studying Chinese astrology and realized that they arranged the same stars into quite different constellations - as did many, many other cultures.

Alice

Click to expand...

Alice, I agree with you so much. Thinking about the precession, it's clear that we are not influenced by the constellations. But rather by the segments (though I don't know how exactly of course) of the sky located probably mostly within our solar system. If the outer planets are believed to be generational because they are further away, then I'm sorry constellations are even further. Something doesn't add up. It's not scientific but intuitively i think they are just too far...Besides if distance really wouldn't matter in astrology, then we would have tooooo many influences from all over the universe.

Also, tropical only, for me

Mark said:

tsmall: I was mistaken when I wrote that the tropical image is what you see when you look up. JUPITERASC is correct that sidereal is much closer. I've been a bit sick, so I wasn't as thorough with my thinking nor my writing as I should have been. Anyway, your sidereal chart will tell you which stars were coming over the horizon at the time of your birth. Personally, I use Lahiri because I've been impressed by its precision in adjusting real charts. Under strict scrutiny (such as degree interpretation), most ayanamsas will yield hit-and-miss information. Lahiri will put you exactly on the appropriate degree. This has been my experience, at any rate.

As to the differences in interpretation, a tropical chart may put Venus in Aries on the equinox, but a sidereal chart erected for the same time, date, and place may put Venus in Pisces. Now the question becomes: How can these two systems be interpreted differently so that Venus in Aries makes sense for tropical while Venus in Pisces makes sense for sidereal? The easiest (though only possibly correct) solution is to try to fit the interpretations into different contexts. One might assume, for instance, that tropical information (being based on the Sun) will be more malleable by will and that sidereal information (being based on the stars) might serve more as a backdrop against which the tropical tendencies will be played out. If that assumption holds up to testing, that might mean that the tropical chart should be interpreted as "conscious" qualities, while the sidereal should be seen as "unconscious." I have no information to say that this is true, though it is one avenue of research.

As to the worry about precession effecting predictive charts, I don't see the problem. Every year looks the same on a tropical chart anyway (Aries 0 is always the vernal equinox by definition). If you're erecting a sidereal chart, then you would apply the proper ayanamsa for the year in question. Basically, even in sidereal charts, precession is predictable and therefore not a problem.

Click to expand...

Mark, I have been turning this over and over in my thoughts. I am wondering if you could explain a little further? You seem to be saying that both charts will yield accurate information, depending on what you are looking for. If we are looking at natal chart analysis, which is most likely to give an accurate representation of the native? Because for me, I have to say that Sun, Mercury, ASC and Jupiter in Virgo is much more accurate than the same in Libra...

Jerry, I have been waiting for the laundry/dishes fairy to come. Then I remembered that I'm the laundry/dishes fairy...

Sagmoon, you said tropical only works for you as well. Would you be interested in looking at the SR charts posted earlier? I am truly trying to learn, and would be interested in seeing which chart comes closer to showing what happend that year?

Sagmoon said:

Alice, I agree with you so much. Thinking about the precession, it's clear that we are not influenced by the constellations. But rather by the segments (though I don't know how exactly of course) of the sky located probably mostly within our solar system. If the outer planets are believed to be generational because they are further away, then I'm sorry constellations are even further. Something doesn't add up. It's not scientific but intuitively i think they are just too far...Besides if distance really wouldn't matter in astrology, then we would have tooooo many influences from all over the universe. Also, tropical only, for me

Click to expand...

This is an interesting comment Sagmoon - interesting because I read a thread just yesterday at this link http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41353

Sagmoon said:

Hello I bought some books on transits, predictive astrology; all very pretty, nice easy language, pleasure reading, etc etc. But no thanks. I'm thinking of selling them actually. How shallow I became towards astrology, it used to be holy to me.

Astrology is just not scientific enough to rely upon. That's what I came to realize over the years. And until it's pure, 100% science, i would not recommend it. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, it could be, it's just that we don't know how it works exactly, on a molecular, if not less, level. It's all so general, that you are left with hit or miss situation.

The only prediction I rely upon is the lunar cycle of my period. lol But even that is not very reliable, cause there are ways to shift the cycle, through medication etc. So if the moon's point has shifted and now the period comes every time the moon transits a particular other point in the sky, lets say it used to be moon over my moon, now it's over my house in cancer. So hmm, hmm... the hormonal changes are still the same, I still crave chocolate, and don't feel like climbing out of the bed.

Like you I still believe in natal astrology, i can see people are different, I can even say if they have preponderance in water, fire etc. But I can't guess their rising, or their sun sign. It's just too elusive.And even natal astrology, although i do identify with it a lot, and i want to learn more, it's so general that everyone is kind of left with doing "inclusiveness", and "universalities".

Click to expand...

You have said that 'astrology is not scientific', but instead seems 'hit or miss', 'just too elusive', so you 'would not recommend it until it is pure 100% science', nevertheless you then said you still believe in natal astrology because 'it could be true although we don't know how it works': now you are also saying despite your disenchantment with astrology, that somehow....

Sagmoon said:

Also, tropical only, for me

Click to expand...

I find this interesting and my question to you then is, for you in any event, from your own personal experience, in your opinion is Tropical accurate, scientific and reliable?

T, I notice natal Pluto con Sid' Asc.
I would have enquired in 96/97 who is the Scorpio?Then briefed you about Pluto and asked you if it was relevant in your life.

Jerry.

P.S Forgot to ask. May I ask,are there any heart problems in the family,SU/UR?

JUPITERASC said:

What clearly interests tsmall, a newcomer to astrology, is that the conventionally accepted name assigned to any group of stars visible at the Eastern horizon at any location on planet Earth when the Sun is below the horizon and about to rise on that Eastern horizon within approximately the following sixteen minutes – differs markedly between Tropical and Sidereal astrology - to the extent that when the skies specifically at the time as well as the location of tsmall's birth are studied, although a computer calculated Tropical Astrology states that tsmall has Libra rising, visual observation confirms and agrees with Sideral Astrology that tsmall has Virgo rising.

Click to expand...

Oh well, I have done my best to explain so I will leave it at that.

However, I must clarify that the computer calculations that give the tropical positions of the planets and zodiac signs are based on real, actual, tropical astrology derived from the movement of the Earth around the Sun. Until the 90's all astrologers calculated charts by hand using the same principles that computers do now. I suppose doing these calculations has enabled us to understand the reason behind them, which is not so apparent to those who calculate the charts with the help of the computer.

Visual astrology, based on an arrangement of stars into specific shapes that are not even the shapes that the majority of the population of the world sees when they look at the same stars, to me seems to be the illusion.

Alice