Proponents of tropical astrology will concoct any excuse to maintain the astrological fallacy of the "tropical zodiac". Maybe it's because that's what they've learned (so it's an ego thing). Or maybe they just don't understand what precession is (which is what one professional astrologer confessed to me). Before Ptolemy, the zodiac was NOT defined by the spring equinox. Before Ptolemy, no one “fixed” the zodiac to the equinoxes. If Ptolemy knew about precession, then either he ignored it (because he was focusing on his own era, when 0˚ Aries actually did coincide with the vernal point), or he didn't understand it well (after all, he merely compiled his information from earlier sources; i.e., he didn't "discover" anything new). Or, maybe he wanted to be a renegade and say something different, just to be gauche. Who knows? In any case, his book Tetrabiblos is the source of the current confusion/delusion.
Here's the truth:
1) Precession is real. Everything is moving, nothing is stationary. That's why the ancients kept such close track of the stars--they knew that everything moved and needed to be accounted for.
2) The vernal point (upon which tropical astrology bases its "zero-point Aries," which currently is not even in Aries) is a point in space not connected to anything physical or anything at all. It too is constantly shifting.
3) The sidereal zodiac corresponds with the actual constellations (actual physical stars). The stars in those constellations are all relatively close to our Solar System:
- half of them are less than 100 light years away (which is close, relatively speaking);
- most of the other half are less than 380 light years away (also relatively close).
- A couple of the zodiac stars are about 1,000 light years away (which is also relatively close, considering our Milky Way is ca. 100,000 light years across). Interestingly, all of these are located in Capricorn and Aquarius.
The astrological signs that have been assigned to those actual, real zodiac constellations go back millennia--long, long, long before Ptolemy. No one knows what "causes" astrological power, i.e., what validates astrology and astrological signs. My guess: It's the gravity and the energy from those close zodiac stars that cause the effects. But one thing is for sure--people who continue to push the tropical fallacy are just adding to the argument against the validity of astrology, because their argument is literally based on empty space.