posted July 18, 2015 01:04 AM            

It says that astrology is basically a bit un precise because the earth has it's own orbit (or what you call it) which the ancient astrologers didn't know back then.... therefor the constellation of "Aries" is not in the same place anymore, and people born in aries might be pisces instead.

This all sounds mathematically logical to me, someway. Though I am not such mathematician to check it myself!

But I do consider that astrology should be based on astronomy, which is again based on mathematics. And if so many people believe in astrology, but are no real astronomers or mathematicians, then this could actually turn out to be true!

posted July 18, 2015 01:14 AM            

I'm pretty sure the astrologers at astro.com know what they are doing.. The planets positions are monitored 24/7 and there is not exact date for when a planet changes signs.

I know the sky changes, and know about the precession of the equinox, and I do think we recently entered the age of Aquarius... But I don't think the difference would be that drastic!

I know I am a Cancer Sun..

posted July 18, 2015 01:51 AM            

Actually, this constellation and Ophiuchus zodiac sign argument is often used by many astrology sceptics to dismiss the science as rubbish. The thing is, the zodiac signs we use are not at all based on the constellations. Astrologers always knew that they would drift apart, that's why they created twelve perfectly equal zodiac signs of which only the names were inspired by the constellations.

posted July 18, 2015 07:56 AM            

The zodiac we use was once roughly based on the constellation, but it has never been an exact reflection of those, as the constellations have different sizes (hence one sign can occupy 38 degrees for example), plus we have another constellation not named in the astrological zodiac.

The zodiac is just a coordinate system, really, a mathematical construct to divide the eccliptic into equal parts (hence we have approximately equal lenghts of signs).

If we are talking about Aries, it is not really the constellation Aries (this was just a helpful tool to approximately get the direction right), but about the portion of the cycle that starts with the spring equinox and spans 30 degrees.

Our Western astrology zodiac is really based onto the seasons, as someone else pointed out.

posted July 18, 2015 08:45 AM            

21) Why don't astrologers consider the fact that when the Sun is in the sign of Aries,

it is not really in the constellation Aries?
---

The astrological signs are not defined by, nor do they have anything

to do with, the constellations you see in the sky. Approximately 2,000

years ago, when the foundations of astrological thinking were formulated,

the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological

signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Astrological signs do

not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then,

due to the phenomena known as the precession of the equinoxes. The equinoxes

move backwards, or precess, with respect to the constellations by about one

degree every 72 years.

However, modern Western astrologers understand that the raw material of their

work does not involve a study of distant stars. Rather, their relevant data have

to do with the interweavings of the planets in our own solar system within a zone

of influence defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun. The key

demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes, the points in time and

space at which the Earth, with its tilted axis, is positioned with respect to the

Sun in such a way that the length of day and night are equal. At the vernal equinox,

which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries.

This zodiac, positioned with respect to the equinoxes, is called the "tropical zodiac."

Most Western astrologers, who use this system, are called tropical astrologers....

Astrologers using the tropical zodiac do not do so out of ignorance of the precession

of the equinoxes. Knowledge of the precession is very ancient, and possibly predates

the creation of the tropical zodiac. Precession was discovered thousands of years ago

in Bharat (also known as India). Sir Norman Lockyer found that many very early temples

in Egypt had been moved at different periods in history so that they lined up with a

particular star as it precessed across the sky....

The article (number 21) continues, here.

~

posted July 18, 2015 09:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirlys:
I've always liked Rob Brezsny's explanation regarding the precession--

[b]
21) Why don't astrologers consider the fact that when the Sun is in the sign of Aries,

it is not really in the constellation Aries?
---

The astrological signs are not defined by, nor do they have anything

to do with, the constellations you see in the sky. Approximately 2,000

years ago, when the foundations of astrological thinking were formulated,

the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological

signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Astrological signs do

not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then,

due to the phenomena known as the precession of the equinoxes. The equinoxes

move backwards, or precess, with respect to the constellations by about one

degree every 72 years.

However, modern Western astrologers understand that the raw material of their

work does not involve a study of distant stars. Rather, their relevant data have

to do with the interweavings of the planets in our own solar system within a zone

of influence defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun. The key

demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes, the points in time and

space at which the Earth, with its tilted axis, is positioned with respect to the

Sun in such a way that the length of day and night are equal. At the vernal equinox,

which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries.

This zodiac, positioned with respect to the equinoxes, is called the "tropical zodiac."

Most Western astrologers, who use this system, are called tropical astrologers....

Astrologers using the tropical zodiac do not do so out of ignorance of the precession

of the equinoxes. Knowledge of the precession is very ancient, and possibly predates

the creation of the tropical zodiac. Precession was discovered thousands of years ago

in Bharat (also known as India). Sir Norman Lockyer found that many very early temples

in Egypt had been moved at different periods in history so that they lined up with a

particular star as it precessed across the sky....

The article (number 21) continues, here.

~

[/B]

---

So you basically say that modern astrology is based on the seasons to be true, because it doesn't follow the old constellations anymore??

I am not a mathematician, but this doesn't sound logically to me actually... I know the seasons can have an impact on your personality, but according to old fashioned astrology it feels more complicated to me, than that. It was more like the planet and the stars who made that impact, rather than the seasons?

posted July 18, 2015 09:25 AM            

If you think about it. The sun and moon literally affect us most by altering the weather and the tides because the sun is so big and strong and the moon so close. There are gravity fields at play between us and those two.
Then the other planets.
Stars and I'm sorry to disappoint but asteroids also I don't believe hold that much weight. Too small or too far away.

One uses the sun and objects nearest to us, and dividing it up equally. The other uses objects so far away that heck, some of them could be dead and the light they once produced hasn't reached its yet, thus they are "visible" but truthfully dead.

posted July 18, 2015 09:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by next to neptune:

So why didn't astrologers not just change the coordination system along with the movements of stars and planets on the sky?

---

Some did.
Some did away with the zodiac and just taking the fixed stars into account for example.

Others didn´t.

the babylonians used the axis of Aldebaran-antares as reference-frame, since unlike most other fixed stars, those two are almost exactly 180° apart, from thre the zodiac slowly came about and developed.

However the zodiac has NEVER been a mere reflection of the constellations.
If you choose to follow the constellations, then the zodiac as we know it has to be dismissed, and the fixed stars have to be emphasized (which are located in various constellations of course).

posted July 18, 2015 09:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by next to neptune:
So you basically say that modern astrology is based on the seasons to be true, because it doesn't follow the old constellations anymore??

I am not a mathematician, but this doesn't sound logically to me actually... I know the seasons can have an impact on your personality, but according to old fashioned astrology it feels more complicated to me, than that. It was more like the planet and the stars who made that impact, rather than the seasons?

So why didn't astrologers not just change the coordination system along with the movements of stars and planets on the sky?

---

I don't really know what you're asking.

The precession of the equinoxes just is... and I'm not a fan of Vedic.

I don't believe I'm a cancer with an Aquarius moon.

If you've got a better explanation (and I linked the article. .. there's

more there), I'm totally open to hearing it.

posted July 18, 2015 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by next to neptune:
So in this article:
http://www.livescience.com/4667-astrological-sign.html

It says that astrology is basically a bit un precise because the earth has it's own orbit (or what you call it) which the ancient astrologers didn't know back then.... therefor the constellation of "Aries" is not in the same place anymore, and people born in aries might be pisces instead.

This all sounds mathematically logical to me, someway. Though I am not such mathematician to check it myself!

But I do consider that astrology should be based on astronomy, which is again based on mathematics. And if so many people believe in astrology, but are no real astronomers or mathematicians, then this could actually turn out to be true!

Aaaand if this is true, then what? How unprecise is my chart then? Is it all totally wrong, or is it just the minor details? I have to know, cause otherwise my purely "logical" brain tells me that it can't believe in this:P

---

Studying(27+yrs) Tropical astrology I have always known what about the SVP(stationary vernal point) The article you present presents facts except that tropical astrologers are not ignorant of the difference. It is a choice.Make your own.
Your tropical chart is not a sidereal chart. If you don't like tropical astrology then don't practice it. This is a argument that has been going on for a very long time. If you want to argue with people you may not learn a thing, except perhaps bitterness. Good Luck

posted July 18, 2015 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirlys:
I've always liked Rob Brezsny's explanation regarding the precession--

[b]
21) Why don't astrologers consider the fact that when the Sun is in the sign of Aries,

it is not really in the constellation Aries?
---

The astrological signs are not defined by, nor do they have anything

to do with, the constellations you see in the sky. Approximately 2,000

years ago, when the foundations of astrological thinking were formulated,

the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological

signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Astrological signs do

not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then,

due to the phenomena known as the precession of the equinoxes. The equinoxes

move backwards, or precess, with respect to the constellations by about one

degree every 72 years.

However, modern Western astrologers understand that the raw material of their

work does not involve a study of distant stars. Rather, their relevant data have

to do with the interweavings of the planets in our own solar system within a zone

of influence defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun. The key

demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes, the points in time and

space at which the Earth, with its tilted axis, is positioned with respect to the

Sun in such a way that the length of day and night are equal. At the vernal equinox,

which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries.

This zodiac, positioned with respect to the equinoxes, is called the "tropical zodiac."

Most Western astrologers, who use this system, are called tropical astrologers....

Astrologers using the tropical zodiac do not do so out of ignorance of the precession

of the equinoxes. Knowledge of the precession is very ancient, and possibly predates

the creation of the tropical zodiac. Precession was discovered thousands of years ago

in Bharat (also known as India). Sir Norman Lockyer found that many very early temples

in Egypt had been moved at different periods in history so that they lined up with a

particular star as it precessed across the sky....

The article (number 21) continues, here.

~

[/B]

---

I always like question 5) Do you really believe in astrology?

To which I answer, No, I believe in creation.Astrology is simply a tool for understanding creation.

posted July 18, 2015 03:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:
It`s the disctinction between the constellation-zodiac (or alternatively the sidereal one) and the tropical one.

The zodiac we use was once roughly based on the constellation, but it has never been an exact reflection of those, as the constellations have different sizes (hence one sign can occupy 38 degrees for example), plus we have another constellation not named in the astrological zodiac.

The zodiac is just a coordinate system, really, a mathematical construct to divide the eccliptic into equal parts (hence we have approximately equal lenghts of signs).

If we are talking about Aries, it is not really the constellation Aries (this was just a helpful tool to approximately get the direction right), but about the portion of the cycle that starts with the spring equinox and spans 30 degrees.

Our Western astrology zodiac is really based onto the seasons, as someone else pointed out.

Of course there are other systems.

---

posted July 18, 2015 04:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seimei:
I always like question 5) Do you really believe in astrology?

To which I answer, No, I believe in creation.Astrology is simply a tool for understanding creation.

---

That sums it up nicely.

posted July 18, 2015 05:55 PM            

The press, especially the science press, loves to trot this old dog out and parade it about again, assuming that astrologers are idiots and don't know about precession of the equinoxes, what you term here "because the earth has it's own orbit." It is just another subtle attempt using so-called facts to attempt to debunk astrology.

There are different zodiacs, that is, different background measures for the movements of the planets. This depends on your culture and perspective.

The real idiots are authors of any such articles that have never even watched the movements of the sky and thus do not realize that everything in it moves or holds a position that is not only east-west (longitude-oriented), but north-south (declination). Talk about coordinates -- make sure you include both.

Eirlys' quoting of Brezsny covers the basics here. However, -- no -- astrology (zodiac) is NOT based on the seasons. It is based on the Sun's movements relative to the ecliptic plane. You will have difficulty grasping this if you only ever read from a sign-based pop astrology perspective. Look at the declinations and see how the Sun's movements and the equinoxes imply the setting up of the tropical zodiac.

Seimei also summed it up well.

next to neptune, you will never understand astrology using a "purely logical brain." It requires a balance of logic and intuition.

posted July 19, 2015 02:18 AM            

The western tropical zodiac is not at all based on the location of the constellations. What the western tropical zodiac is based on is the solar year, and the rotation of the seasons. The spring equinox (in the northern hemisphere, it’s the autumn equinox in the southern hemisphere) kicks off the start of Aries not matter what constellation is in the back ground. And this never changes even over thousands of years. The start of Spring in the northern hemisphere is always the start of Aries, and well versed astrologers know this, and they don’t sweat it over some scientist doing an investigation on constellations (which is the wrong place to look in the first place). The unequal sizes of the constellations have no impact on tropical signs.

The western tropical zodiac is still based on astronomy in the sense that it’s tied to the journey of the Earth around the Sun. The Earths journey around the Sun is spilt into 12 segments, whose cardinal points can be seen in the changing of the seasons due to the Earth’s tilt... These are the equinoxes and solstices. The western tropical zodiac is based on this astronomical cycle.

The sidereal zodiac is the one based on constellations. Instead of starting exactly on the Spring equinox (or the Autumn equinox in the south) like in the tropical zodiac, the sidereal zodiac starts when the Sun appears to be against a certain constellation in the sky. The timing of when this happens gradually changes so that the zodiac signs migrate to different parts of the year over time. It’s tied to the solar year only in the sense that we watch what constellations are behind the Sun at any given time in the year as the Earth rotates. But the sidereal zodiac is not tied to the actual solar year the way the tropical zodiac is. With the tropical zodiac we are looking at the planets in relation to the cycle of the seasons on Earth. If, say, Venus were in tropical Aries, then Venus in the sky appears to be in the same location in orbit around the Sun that Earth would have been in just after the Spring equinox. With the sidereal zodiac we are looking at the constellations the Sun and the planets appear to pass through in the sky. These are two totally different things. With the sidereal zodiac the unequal sizes of the contellations could be an issue, if your measure it by the actual constellation size... But maybe that's not what they're actually measuring.

There is no argument concerning constellations in relation to the western tropical zodiac because it’s irrelevant.

posted July 19, 2015 03:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:
Eirlys' quoting of Brezsny covers the basics here. However, -- no -- astrology (zodiac) is NOT based on the seasons. It is based on the Sun's movements relative to the ecliptic plane. You will have difficulty grasping this if you only ever read from a sign-based pop astrology perspective. Look at the declinations and see how the Sun's movements and the equinoxes imply the setting up of the tropical zodiac.

Seimei also summed it up well.

next to neptune, you will never understand astrology using a "purely logical brain." It requires a balance of logic and intuition.

---

I think the zodiac is tied to the cycle of the seasons in a way though. Let me explain what I mean.

The tropical zodiac is based on the Earths rotation around the Sun, the seasons are a symptom of the Earths rotation round the Sun due to Earths tilt. The tilt of the Earth creates the seasons, and the equinoxes and the solstices. The equinoxes and the solstices measure the progress of the solar year and also define the beginnings of each of the four seasons, as well as the beginnings of each of the four cardinal signs. The changing of the seasons and the tropical zodiac are intimately connected. Not in terms of weather symbolism or anything like that. For instance Cancer is not a 'summer' sign because summer also is winter in the southern hemisphere. It's a timing thing.

posted July 19, 2015 06:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotis White:
I think the zodiac is tied to the cycle of the seasons in a way though. Let me explain what I mean.

The tropical zodiac is based on the Earths rotation around the Sun, the seasons are a symptom of the Earths rotation round the Sun due to Earths tilt. The tilt of the Earth creates the seasons, and the equinoxes and the solstices. The equinoxes and the solstices measure the progress of the solar year and also define the beginnings of each of the four seasons, as well as the beginnings of each of the four cardinal signs. The changing of the seasons and the tropical zodiac are intimately connected. Not in terms of weather symbolism or anything like that. For instance Cancer is not a 'summer' sign because summer also is winter in the southern hemisphere. It's a timing thing.

The spring equinox in northern hemisphere is always the beginning of Aries, the Summer solstice in the northern hemisphere is always the beginning of Cancer, the fall equinox in the northern hemisphere is always the beginning of Libra, and the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere is always the beginning of Capricorn. The timing of the seasons and the passage of the zodiac are very interlinked.

---

posted July 19, 2015 01:53 PM            

This is a map showing the line that hits both equinoxes (tropic of cancer and Tropic of Capricorn) and goes through the equator. This is because of the Earth's tilt. If the earth wasn't at a tilt there would be no seasons.
AND THIS LINE WOULD BE STRAIGHT MEANING NO ZODIAC.