Sidereal Astrology is More Accurate

tsmall

tsmall

Premium Member
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/astrology

Etymology
Surface form astro- + -logy. From Latin astrologia (“astronomy”), from Ancient Greek ἀστρολογία (astrologia, “telling of the stars”) from ἄστρον (astron, “star, planet, or constellation”) + -λογία (-logia, “treating of”), combination form of -λόγος (-logos, “one who speaks (in a certain manner)”).
Click to expand...

So if we don't any longer actually look at the constellations, maybe we should rename the art "planetology."

Stars? We don't need no steenkin' stars...
 
SniperBomber328

SniperBomber328

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
Because tsmall, once upon a time – before the Church got jealous of the power of these ancient beliefs and began executing people for 'heresy' - people believed that the universe was a living being :smile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wXWmG6rg8o


QUOTE FROM PROGRAM DETAILS
“Thought-provoking interview by Professor Gregory Sams whose book “Sun of gOd” explores the wonderful, extraordinary idea that our Sun, the source of all life on earth may be alive and conscious itself. Perhaps the Egyptians, the Celts, the Maya, the Persians and other pre-Christian cultures were right to venerate our local star as a god?


Re-examining the oldest idea on the planet in the light of the latest cosmological discoveries, Sams finds that stellar consciousness makes better sense than dumb balls of gas. He's bringing our Sun out of the closet after 17 centuries, and it changes everything. Highly recommended”
Click to expand...

If the Sun is indeed alive, does that mean every star that we look at in the night sky is alive to? Also if it is, then it suc ks to be the sun, sitting there every single day (though the sun makes the day) with nothing too do but make warth for everything else....
 
M

Munch

Well-known member
I had someone very kindly do my vedic chart for me and I found it to be severely wanting.

It gave me a ton of Scorpio placements and I'm about as Scorpionic as Rainbow Freakin' Bright.

Just my experience.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
tsmall said:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/astrology
So if we don't any longer actually look at the constellations, maybe we should rename the art "planetology." Stars? We don't need no steenkin' stars...
Click to expand...
People thought that the planets were stars as well, just that (unlike the 'fixed stars') they 'wandered' slightly, so the planets were known as 'the wandering stars'. Hence the idea: "I Was Born Under A Wandering Star" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE9vc2cO170&feature=related

And here's a quote from an article on the Geocentric Theory plus a link to it http://science.jrank.org/pages/2999/Geocentric-Theory.html :smile:


"The planets got their name from the Greek word planetes, meaning wanderer/subject of error and behaved in ways that were difficult to explain. Sometimes, these wanderers showed retrograde motion—they seemed to stop and move in a reverse direction when viewed against the background of the distant constellations, or fixed stars, which did not move relative to one another. Complicated models prompted Alfonso X (1221-1284), King of Castile, to remark that had God asked his advice while engaging in Creation, he would have recommended a simpler design for the universe. The scientific refutation of Geocentrism is associated with the work of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)"
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
SniperBomber328 said:
If the Sun is indeed alive, does that mean every star that we look at in the night sky is alive to? Also if it is, then it suc ks to be the sun, sitting there every single day (though the sun makes the day) with nothing too do but make warth for everything else....
Click to expand...
SniperBomber328, Professor Gregory Sams discusses your question at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wXWmG6rg8o and Duane Elgin is another interesting author who is exploring the idea that the Universe is alive in a book called "The Living Universe" which he discusses at this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYl96iEya9E&feature=related :smile:
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
And good ole Einstein brought us back to the center again: RELATIVELY, (using the Einstein model) the Earth is the (relative) center of the universe (note: any point in the universe can be considered as the relative center of the universe), and, for us, in addition to being the relative center of the universe, it is, obviously, the RELEVANT center as well.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
dr. farr said:
And good ole Einstein brought us back to the center again: RELATIVELY, (using the Einstein model) the Earth is the (relative) center of the universe (note: any point in the universe can be considered as the relative center of the universe), and, for us, in addition to being the relative center of the universe, it is, obviously, the RELEVANT center as well.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And so far as Sirius is concerned then, Sirius is also RELATIVELY SPEAKING the center of the universe :smile:
 
retinoid

retinoid

Well-known member
Munch said:
I had someone very kindly do my vedic chart for me and I found it to be severely wanting.

It gave me a ton of Scorpio placements and I'm about as Scorpionic as Rainbow Freakin' Bright.

Just my experience.
Click to expand...

Yes sidereal screws up charts imo. I am very Scorpio and in sidereal I have no Scorpio in my chart, all I have is Libran and Sagittarius energy with a planet inn gemini. It is very off (for me and others). But Vedic astrology can be highly accurate as long as they stay away from their fatalistic interpretations. Vedic has complicated rules for predicting things (I'd learn about how they predict things and throw out the stuff about their take on psychology because it is lacking)...
 
Y

Yuusha

Well-known member
What is very interesting about astrology is how even with a geocentric tropical chart, it predicts cycles and gives a blueprint of human psychology more effectively than mainstream psychology (I don't know, I'm just comparing my experiences with astrology in contrast to my experiences with psychotherapists...). At least I know that Mars retrograde could explain my sudden dip in energy and why I'm trying to rethink my impulses and what motivates me these days.

But if astrology were sidereal and heliocentric, maybe conventional scientists wouldn't be so eager to dismiss it?
 
J

jamescondor

Well-known member
Sidereal Astrology is no doubt a more objective and realistic astrology than tropical (as a side note though I must say that all astrology has its problems). As far as I am concerned tropical is just a spin off of "bad" pop culture sun sign horoscopes that people learned when they were young or new to the subject and held on to as being accurate just because they got used to identifying themselves with that particular sign or chart (along the same lines as Raquel on page one). I used to use a tropical chart too until I learned better. When people think they're sidereal chart is, "not as accurate as their tropical", they are in general missing out on the big picture and interpreting in a subjective manner. I have been saying this all along and I'm glad I am not alone in thinking this.
When faced with two or more alternatives, in this case tropical and sidereal, I am obligated on behalf of myself, the general population, and the future population to accept the most probable and accurate method; otherwise I would be acting deliberately ignorant. Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Related concepts are wishful thinking and the fallacy of invincible ignorance. Examples of deliberate ignorance would include anyone who thinks tropical is a better method than sidereal. Because tropicalists are refusing to accept the logic and evidence of a real occurrence, namely the precession of the equinox they are being deliberately ignorant.
Rebel U makes some good points about sidereal and the Great year which Culpeper is exactly opposite in his interpretation of the Great Year.
Cloe makes some good points about heliocentric. Heliocentric has the Sun as the center of a chart, well because the Sun is at the center from birds eye view in real space and time.
 
Last edited:
K

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
You know what I think is funny? We don't even know how all this stuff works and yet we're still sitting here demanding that it make perfect sense. I think someday we'll understand and someday it'll make sense, but I dont think that day is today. In the meantime, I'm going to keep looking.
 
Raquel

Raquel

Well-known member
MSO said:
Actually, the planets were "stars" too. They moved rapidly, but they were stars all the same. And it's from those stars that astrology gets it's name. Not from the constellations.
Click to expand...

Stars are fixed in the celestial sphere, planets not, in my point of view it's not possible, planets being stars in the past. But I would like to read about it. Do you have links or so?

Are Constellations fixed groups of stars?? or what?
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Raquel said:
Stars are fixed in the celestial sphere, planets not, in my point of view it's not possible, planets being stars in the past. But I would like to read about it. Do you have links or so?
Click to expand...
Raquel, the following is written in my own words and is based on many books and articles I have read on the subject, too numerous to mention!

Thousands of years ago when the ancients looked up to the skies they noticed tiny points of light that seemed not to move and they called these stars. The ancients noticed other bright objects in the night sky that they assumed were stars but they were puzzled because - in comparison - these other bright objects 'wandered around the sky': so they called the bright points of light that seemed not to move 'the fixed stars' and they called the bright objects that - in comparison - 'wandered about' the 'wandering stars'. An ancient Greek word for wanderer is 'planetes' so the Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn became known as 'the wandering stars' or 'planetes' aka 'planets' :smile:
Raquel said:
Are Constellations fixed groups of stars?? or what?
Click to expand...
'constellations' are indeed groups of 'fixed stars'

QUOTE FROM A FREE ONLINE DICTIONARY

CONSTELLATION

1. A group of stars seen as forming a figure or design in the sky, especially one of 88 officially recognized groups, many of which are based on mythological traditions from ancient Greek and Middle Eastern civilizations.
2. An area of the sky occupied by one of the 88 recognized constellations. These irregularly defined areas completely fill the celestial sphere and divide it into nonoverlapping sections used in describing the location of celestial objects.
Various cultures throughout history have chosen different groups of stars in the night sky to form different constellations. While it was once thought that the Greeks were responsible for determining many of the constellations known today, it is now believed that the mythological origins of the 48 ancient constellations predate the Greeks and originate instead from ancient Middle Eastern civilizations.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries another 40 constellations were invented by Europeans for navigational purposes.

The boundaries of the 88 constellations currently recognized were defined in the 1920s by the International Astronomical Union.

There is no scientific reason why there are exactly 88; the modern constellations are only a convenient way to break up the sky to locate the position of celestial objects or track satellites.

Although the stars in any given constellation may look like they're neighbors, they can actually be many light-years apart, and if seen from another part of the galaxy they would form different groups and shapes altogether.

Constellation names are usually given in Latin, such as Ursa Major (Great Bear) or Centaurus (Centaur), and individual stars in constellations are named in order of brightness, using the Greek alphabet, with the genitive case of the constellation following. Therefore, Alpha Centauri is the brightest star in the constellation Centaurus, Beta Centauri is the second brightest star, and so on. The stars within our galaxy are rushing through space in various directions, and as the millennia pass, the arrangements of the star groups as seen from Earth will change, inevitably altering the constellations as we know them.
 
Raquel

Raquel

Well-known member
You, yes... you're clear, a good teacher by the way:smile:.
But many people "shot" things and let them in the air without any explanation :tongue:

Thanks :kissing:
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Raquel said:
You, yes... you're clear, a good teacher by the way:smile:.
But many people "shot" things and let them in the air without any explanation :tongue: Thanks :kissing:
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind words Raquel! I personally would not classify myself as a teacher so I regard this as a great compliment and I am grateful to you for it! I have a tremendous interest in the subject so I love to read the many different ideas relating to it and I am happy to have discussion with anyone in order to clarify the many intriguing puzzles of astrology not only for myself, but also for all parties to the discussion:smile:
 
Rebel Uranian

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Yuusha said:
What is very interesting about astrology is how even with a geocentric tropical chart, it predicts cycles and gives a blueprint of human psychology more effectively than mainstream psychology (I don't know, I'm just comparing my experiences with astrology in contrast to my experiences with psychotherapists...). At least I know that Mars retrograde could explain my sudden dip in energy and why I'm trying to rethink my impulses and what motivates me these days.

But if astrology were sidereal and heliocentric, maybe conventional scientists wouldn't be so eager to dismiss it?
Click to expand...


Astrology isn't truly geocentric, it's eventcentric. The primary problem with it is that its origins are not scientific or logical, which is another fallacy entirely on their part. If I say things like "no scientism 'cuz I'm a postmodernist" or "what is the rational basis for rationality? oh wait there is none!" I'll just get accused of being a "crank." Those statements are true (I'm not a postmodernist unless everyone is, but scientism doesn't work regardless of whether you're postmodernist or totally not) but society is in denial.

@JUPITERASC - Aren't you Jupiterian? Well, I thought Jupiter was the Great Teacher. (Not to be confused with the karmic teacher Saturn, but I think I've heard them both given the title.) Jupiter is the only planet that rules teachers (regardless of Saturn.)
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Rebel Uranian said:
Astrology isn't truly geocentric, it's eventcentric. The primary problem with it is that its origins are not scientific or logical, which is another fallacy entirely on their part. If I say things like "no scientism 'cuz I'm a postmodernist" or "what is the rational basis for rationality? oh wait there is none!" I'll just get accused of being a "crank." Those statements are true (I'm not a postmodernist unless everyone is, but scientism doesn't work regardless of whether you're postmodernist or totally not) but society is in denial.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence as to whether the origins of astrology are scientific or logical - that's because most of the rich treasury of astrological origins has been lost due to their destruction by numerous conquering armies who obliterated cultural artefacts, writings and knowledge of those they conquered - eg the Spanish destroyed priceless Mayan texts, the great library of Alexandria was destroyed by the Romans http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9

Churches of varying denominations were typically fond of creating massive bonfires of books considered heretical. A modern day example is the continuing obliteration (by bombing) of many priceless Sumerian clay tablets and other ancient writings held in Iraq. Link to list of archives of various nations destroyed over the centuries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries,_archives_and_museums


Rebel Uranian said:
@JUPITERASC - Aren't you Jupiterian? Well, I thought Jupiter was the Great Teacher. (Not to be confused with the karmic teacher Saturn, but I think I've heard them both given the title.) Jupiter is the only planet that rules teachers (regardless of Saturn.)
Click to expand...
IMO we're all teachers Rebel Uranian because we all learn from each other.

I agree though that in Vedic astrology Jupiter is known as 'Teacher' although personally, I prefer being a student rather than being a teacher :smile:
 
Last edited:
Rebel Uranian

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Cool list.

Then Jupiter is your teacher and you just say and do what it taught you. Due to transits and a few other things, right now Saturn is my teacher. Yum black bile. I could use some more Jupiter.
 
retinoid

retinoid

Well-known member
jamescondor said:
Sidereal Astrology is no doubt a more objective and realistic astrology than tropical (as a side note though I must say that all astrology has its problems). As far as I am concerned tropical is just a spin off of "bad" pop culture sun sign horoscopes that people learned when they were young or new to the subject and held on to as being accurate just because they got used to identifying themselves with that particular sign or chart (along the same lines as Raquel on page one)..
Click to expand...

Tropical is a spin off of pop culture? :lol: People can use either one. I have looked at sidereal vs. tropical charts for many people I know and I just don't think sidereal explains them at all. My friend who is an Aries asc., Aries sun and Pisces moon is changed into a triple Pisces which definitely does not describe her. But since YOU concluded the end all then we should all switch to sidereal since tropical was created by MTV :tongue:
 
Top