posted May 13, 2003 07:26 PM              

I noticed that there isn’t a section on whether astrology actually has any fact to it. Is it just blind faith like all psuedoscience? Or is there something I don’t know? My main questions are:

The signs are 30 degree segments of the sky on the path of the sun. They have the same names as constellations because they used to match up. Unfortunately, the earth wobbles slightly (presission) so that when spring begins, the stars are twenty minutes late in returning precisely to where they were last spring. So, ever since the calendar became fixed, the signs have remained attached to the months but the constellations have shifted back about a month. Most Tauruses are born when the Sun is in the constellation of Aries.

It seems to be a way of avoiding responsibility for mistakes and for life in general. It gives random advice which, for most pepole, is quite satisfactory.

What about the fact that no one can agree on how many signs there actually are? Is it 12, 13, 14 or 23? What about Ophiuchus? That should be one surely since the sun moon and planets pass through that as well.

posted May 13, 2003 07:43 PM              

Most modern astrologers are aware of the precession problem, although im not sure how they work around it, i'm still learning the basics myself.

posted May 13, 2003 08:49 PM            

You have indeed touched upon one of the larger debates within the realm of astrology. Whether or not to use the sidreal zodiac, which is where the constellations actually are now, or the tropical zodiac, the classic one.

There are no solid black or white answers because astrology isn't an exact science. It's a scientific art, as some say.

Personally I use the tropical zodiac because I have found that it works for me. I looked at my chart and found the information therein to be extremely accurate for me and then applied it to my friends and family and found that I've gained invaluable insight into what makes people tick.

Other people use the sidreal zodiac and find truths that work for them as well.
I would challenge anyone to study astrology seriously for a year and then decide for themselves whether or not it works.

posted May 13, 2003 11:32 PM            

What's your Sign?

posted May 13, 2003 11:37 PM              

again about that astrology...

to the question, we discussed that on another Astro Forum so here is in short-
the vernal equinox, (or the 0 degrees Aries) is seen each year from the earth as slightly before its previous year's position against the background of the constellations. This is caused by a wobble in the earth's axis, caused by unequal gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon on the earth's surface. The point referred to as 0 degrees Aries is actually seen from earth now as being in the constellation of Pisces. Here the sceptics say - that proves astrology is nonsense, you say that someone's sun is in Aries when in fact that point in space is now in Pisces, right? Same question you are pondring now.

But it is vital to understand the difference between constellations and the zodiac. Much confusion arises because the constellations have the same names as the signs of the zodiac, but they are not the same thing.

At the time that these constellations were being named and their name becoming known in the public arena, the 30 degrees of ecliptic, starting from the vernal equinox, was called Aries and the constellation that appeared as its background was therefore also called Aries. No precise date can be given for this, but the precession of the equinoxes was not discovered until 134 b.c by Hipparchus.

It is the vernal equinox point (0 degrees Aries to an astrologer) that appears from earth to move further back each year - the constellations remain in the same positions. However, the signs of the zodiac are and always have been counted in 30 degree segments from the vernal equinox point. Aries will always be the first 30 degrees of the ecliptic (with the others signs following on).
So, the fact that the point we call 0 degrees Aries is now seen from earth as being against the background of the constellation of Pisces has nothing whatsoever to do with astrology - it neither proves nor disproves anything. When people assume that it somehow 'disproves' astrology, they have not understood the difference between the astronomical constellations and the astrological zodiac. It might help to understand if you can think of the signs of the zodiac as being a kind of shorthand to describe the various degrees of the ecliptic (remember, this always begins at the vernal equinox, and it's starting point does not change but it appears to against the background of the constellations). Each 30 degree segment of the ecliptic has certain astrological significance, but we don't actually need to call them Aries, Taurus and so on at all. It is just easier to say (for instance) that in a particular chart Mars is at 3 degrees Cancer rather than have to say it is at 93 degrees of the ecliptic.

It is quite a tricky concept for the non-astrologer to grasp, but basically you should always remember that the signs of the zodiac and the astronomical constellations may share names, but are not the same thing!

posted May 14, 2003 09:12 AM              

But, just to clarify: someone said precission is to do with leap years... i dont think so, although im only in the first year of my course. it is a much slower effect than that ie because of it 10,000 years ago the north star was Thuban in Draco, today it is polaris and in 12,000 or so years the north star will be Vega.

Someone asked me my sign and i guess that would be Libra in the traditional 12 sign rule. Ahh you may say, that explains it: all libra's are argumentative, stubborn, arses. A few more questions:

I get the difference between actual readings and the rubbish that gets printed in newspapers. although i've never seen a real reading (cos i wouldnt waste my £) but are they all so vague?

and also, why is your sign determined on when you were born not when you were conceived? surely induced births by doctors, being late or premature affect your sign?

Lastly, the whole gravity thing. gravity is based on mass yeah? the sun moon and earth being the closest have the biggest influence surely? or does distance not matter? and how on earth can you believe that something cant influence you untill you know about it ie the outer planets. thats like saying you cant be run over by a bus as long as you have your eyes closed! strange.

sorry last point: someone said about astronomy and astrophysics coming from astrology and i agree... but they parted company hundreds of years age. people have aquired some more sense since then

posted May 14, 2003 09:27 AM              

astrology meanings have been derived over thousands of years through observation and intuition. Like the clock, our transits can be used to organize our life to take the best advantage of opportunities for growth and evolvement.

Just my 2cents

posted May 14, 2003 09:30 AM              

Eh, we're used to it
If we got tiffed with everyone that called us weird, we'd have no friends.

I get the difference between actual readings and the rubbish that gets printed in newspapers. although i've never seen a real reading (cos i wouldnt waste my £) but are they all so vague?

Again, I'm not an acutual astrologer, so I can just go off of what people have said to me about my chart, but I can say that if you have a really qualified and competent person look at your info, it's not vague at all - it's eerily accurate.

Now, this site: http://www.astro.com
has purely computer generated natal interpretations (so the explanations of the individual aspects are necessarily fragmented - you need a good astrologer to look at them who knows how to merge them, what trumps what, etc.), but the people behind the programming are otherwise very competent and knowledgeable.
When I was first getting into this, I actually carried out an experiment using their site:
I typed in the birth data for me, my brother, and my sister, and then took the free info given (again, which is very fragmented and not comprehensive in any way) and typed it up exluding any identifying data (eg. signs, date/time of birth, etc.), and then asked my mother and then my grandmother to try to say which description went with which child (I figured that if anyone really knew us, they would). My mother got all three right straight away; my grandmother got my sis, but got stuck on my brother & me. She focused in on where it said that he would most likely be very interested in research into family history (he's a Cancer w/ a Cappie Moon), and she knows that I am so (a trait which, actually, is fairly well pointed out by some of my other placements which weren't in included in that particular report); but, she did end-up figuring it out in the end when she looked past that one point.

Lastly, the whole gravity thing. gravity is based on mass yeah? the sun moon and earth being the closest have the biggest influence surely? or does distance not matter? and how on earth can you believe that something cant influence you untill you know about it ie the outer planets. thats like saying you cant be run over by a bus as long as you have your eyes closed! strange.

I don't think that most astrologers claim that gravity is responsible for whatever affects the planets, etc., may have on people upon birth; most argue that it's EM fields or some "other force not yet discovered by science"(cue "dwe dwe dwe dwe" Twilight Zone music). Others, as I gather Randall does, don't argue for any actual effects per se, but instead hold that before incarnation (bear with me)...that before incarnation the soul chooses its chart upon birth, simply based upon the tenet "so above, so below"; that the conditions in the macrocosm reflect the microcosm. Given that, if we could have taken to observing, say, submolecular activity and configurations upon birth thousands of years ago, we could have made that into a comprehensive system for "knowing oneself".

Or something like that.

posted May 14, 2003 11:38 AM              

Astrology is popular to us because for us, at least, it works. And like any other tool its the means to an end, not the end itself. It's out of the realm of absolutes govorned by scientific formula - its a projection of ourselves onto a number of objects. These cycles and objects fit together, essentially, as Lanny said, we've basically constructed an instrument out of celestial objects which can be used to a number of different ends, but as with any instrument be it a sundial or a computer, you put garbage in and get garbage out.

posted May 14, 2003 12:37 PM            

Good job, Bissie!

posted May 14, 2003 03:41 PM              

it raised lots of the questions i've been trying to get across and lots of your answers.

points like: There doesn't seem to be any natural explanation for how the stars
could directly affect a child at the point of birth. The gravitational and
electromagnetic affect of a nearby clock would be greater than the nearest
planet.

and about the fact that some people disregard partners based on their sign- is that not as bad as discrimination based on race, age or height? I'm not suggesting that any of you are bigots and do this, i was just wondering what you thought.

posted May 15, 2003 11:10 PM              

Let me ask you this, I will not reply till you reply.

posted May 16, 2003 06:00 AM              

are you trying to catch me out by suggesting that what i think and what i feel are to different things? i think astrology is wrong but i secretly feel i am being guided by something? no sorry i dont feel that.

it says in your profile ur into conspiricy theorys? are we allowed to talk about that on this forum?

posted May 16, 2003 07:48 AM              

Sort of, what you think is based on what you feel. You cannot think something without feeling. It is simply not possible. That is what I was trying to point out.

"it says in your profile ur into conspiricy theorys? are we allowed to talk about that on this forum?"

I do believe the Free For All Forum is where these topics can be discussed.

any in paricular? im only qualified to argue about the moon hoax one since i just read a book on it