Guest guest Posted December 13, 2006 Report Share Posted December 13, 2006 Let's assume for a minute that astrology actually works. No questions, it just does. Now, when the astrological signs were drawn up originally, it was done around 600BC. Each sign (e.g.: Scorpio) are exactly 30° wide - they are measured eastward along the ecliptic from the vernal equinox, which is the intersection of the elliptic and the celestial equator and is the zero point. When the system was originally set up, the zero point was in Aries and was called the "first point of Aries". Aries encompassed the first 30° of the ecliptic, next came Taurus (30° to 60°), Gemini (60° to 90°) and so on... This scheme ignored the actual stars themselves, but uniformity was more important than fussing about star positions. Since then, precession has caused the celestial equator to wobble so as to cause the intersection point between it and the ecliptic to move westward along the ecliptic by 36° or a tenth of the way around. Your birth sign ignores the effect of precession. What a horoscope calls "Aries" is the 30° segment along the ecliptic that is east of the current location of the vernal equinox - but today, most of it is in Pisces. The next 30° segment (called Taurus in the horoscope) is mostly in Aries. The astrological signs are directions in space that no longer correspond to the constellations that bear their names. Precession causes the position of the sun on the vernal equinox to move as the earth wobbles on its axis - then again, the position of the sun varies on every date (analemma). This means that it is not only the names of the zodiac signs that are now wrong, the names of the tropics are also inaccurate! This all dates to when the sun is within the constellation of your birth sign. According to astrology (corrected for precession - although these dates will vary slightly from year to year), you may find that you're actually a different birth sign. If you were born between November 30th and December 17th, you're actually an Ophiuchus. What happens in astrology is that the sun travels through the traditional 12 signs of the zodiac over the course of the year. Whatever sign the sun is in when you're born is the sign you "are". However, over the past 2,600 years (since the charts were drawn up), the precession of the earth has shifted the ecliptic westwards and now the sun visits the constellation of Ophiuchus during November/December. I very much doubt you'll find a horoscope that takes this into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 Paulos, This is a jyotish forum and we do take precession into account! Always did as far as I know!! Please elaborate how you came up with 600 BC as the point in time when the concept of the zodiacal circle entered the consciousness of human beings (if I understand you correctly). Surely the historian that gave you that date might have some comments on what existed before 600 BC, for I am sure the stars and patterns were all up there and since people were probably sleeping under the sky and gazing upwards as they drifted to sleep each night, at least in some places in this world as it was then -- they could not have missed the point or shall we see the "patterns" staring at them, unlike modern individuals who hardly ever sleep under the naked sky! RR vedic astrology, "paulo mendes" <woodwater1000 wrote: > > Let's assume for a minute that astrology actually works. No questions, it just does. Now, when the astrological signs were drawn up originally, it was done around 600BC. Each sign (e.g.: Scorpio) are exactly 30° wide - they are measured eastward along the ecliptic from the vernal equinox, which is the intersection of the elliptic and the celestial equator and is the zero point. > When the system was originally set up, the zero point was in Aries and was called the "first point of Aries". > Aries encompassed the first 30° of the ecliptic, next came Taurus (30° to 60°), Gemini (60° to 90°) and so on... > > This scheme ignored the actual stars themselves, but uniformity was more important than fussing about star positions. > > Since then, precession has caused the celestial equator to wobble so as to cause the intersection point between it and the ecliptic to move westward along the ecliptic by 36° or a tenth of the way around. > > Your birth sign ignores the effect of precession. What a horoscope calls "Aries" is the 30° segment along the ecliptic that is east of the current location of the vernal equinox - but today, most of it is in Pisces. The next 30° segment (called Taurus in the horoscope) is mostly in Aries. The astrological signs are directions in space that no longer correspond to the constellations that bear their names. > > Precession causes the position of the sun on the vernal equinox to move as the earth wobbles on its axis - then again, the position of the sun varies on every date (analemma). This means that it is not only the names of the zodiac signs that are now wrong, the names of the tropics are also inaccurate! > > This all dates to when the sun is within the constellation of your birth sign. According to astrology (corrected for precession - although these dates will vary slightly from year to year), you may find that you're actually a different birth sign. > > If you were born between November 30th and December 17th, you're actually an Ophiuchus. > > What happens in astrology is that the sun travels through the traditional 12 signs of the zodiac over the course of the year. Whatever sign the sun is in when you're born is the sign you "are". However, over the past 2,600 years (since the charts were drawn up), the precession of the earth has shifted the ecliptic westwards and now the sun visits the constellation of Ophiuchus during November/December. I very much doubt you'll find a horoscope that takes this into account. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2006 Report Share Posted December 14, 2006 what i mean is that thee are 13 constellations p - Rohiniranjan vedic astrology Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:04 AM [vedic astrology] Re: im a ophiochus Paulos, This is a jyotish forum and we do take precession into account! Always did as far as I know!! Please elaborate how you came up with 600 BC as the point in time when the concept of the zodiacal circle entered the consciousness of human beings (if I understand you correctly). Surely the historian that gave you that date might have some comments on what existed before 600 BC, for I am sure the stars and patterns were all up there and since people were probably sleeping under the sky and gazing upwards as they drifted to sleep each night, at least in some places in this world as it was then -- they could not have missed the point or shall we see the "patterns" staring at them, unlike modern individuals who hardly ever sleep under the naked sky! RR vedic astrology, "paulo mendes" <woodwater1000 wrote: > > Let's assume for a minute that astrology actually works. No questions, it just does. Now, when the astrological signs were drawn up originally, it was done around 600BC. Each sign (e.g.: Scorpio) are exactly 30° wide - they are measured eastward along the ecliptic from the vernal equinox, which is the intersection of the elliptic and the celestial equator and is the zero point. > When the system was originally set up, the zero point was in Aries and was called the "first point of Aries". > Aries encompassed the first 30° of the ecliptic, next came Taurus (30° to 60°), Gemini (60° to 90°) and so on... > > This scheme ignored the actual stars themselves, but uniformity was more important than fussing about star positions. > > Since then, precession has caused the celestial equator to wobble so as to cause the intersection point between it and the ecliptic to move westward along the ecliptic by 36° or a tenth of the way around. > > Your birth sign ignores the effect of precession. What a horoscope calls "Aries" is the 30° segment along the ecliptic that is east of the current location of the vernal equinox - but today, most of it is in Pisces. The next 30° segment (called Taurus in the horoscope) is mostly in Aries. The astrological signs are directions in space that no longer correspond to the constellations that bear their names. > > Precession causes the position of the sun on the vernal equinox to move as the earth wobbles on its axis - then again, the position of the sun varies on every date (analemma). This means that it is not only the names of the zodiac signs that are now wrong, the names of the tropics are also inaccurate! > > This all dates to when the sun is within the constellation of your birth sign. According to astrology (corrected for precession - although these dates will vary slightly from year to year), you may find that you're actually a different birth sign. > > If you were born between November 30th and December 17th, you're actually an Ophiuchus. > > What happens in astrology is that the sun travels through the traditional 12 signs of the zodiac over the course of the year. Whatever sign the sun is in when you're born is the sign you "are". However, over the past 2,600 years (since the charts were drawn up), the precession of the earth has shifted the ecliptic westwards and now the sun visits the constellation of Ophiuchus during November/December. I very much doubt you'll find a horoscope that takes this into account. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 I know that recent view. Someone had mentioned that ophiochus was a bit on the outer realm of the +/- 28degree belt generally accepted to be the ecliptic. In nakshatras too some use 28, some 27 and so on. thank god no one tried turning the circle/elipse into a square. Now that would be a radical departure! RR vedic astrology, "paulo mendes" <woodwater1000 wrote: > > what i mean is that thee are 13 constellations > > p > - > Rohiniranjan > vedic astrology > Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:04 AM > [vedic astrology] Re: im a ophiochus > > > Paulos, > > This is a jyotish forum and we do take precession into account! > Always did as far as I know!! > > Please elaborate how you came up with 600 BC as the point in time > when the concept of the zodiacal circle entered the consciousness of > human beings (if I understand you correctly). > > Surely the historian that gave you that date might have some comments > on what existed before 600 BC, for I am sure the stars and patterns > were all up there and since people were probably sleeping under the > sky and gazing upwards as they drifted to sleep each night, at least > in some places in this world as it was then -- they could not have > missed the point or shall we see the "patterns" staring at them, > unlike modern individuals who hardly ever sleep under the naked sky! > > RR > > vedic astrology, "paulo mendes" > <woodwater1000@> wrote: > > > > Let's assume for a minute that astrology actually works. No > questions, it just does. Now, when the astrological signs were drawn > up originally, it was done around 600BC. Each sign (e.g.: Scorpio) > are exactly 30° wide - they are measured eastward along the ecliptic > from the vernal equinox, which is the intersection of the elliptic > and the celestial equator and is the zero point. > > When the system was originally set up, the zero point was in Aries > and was called the "first point of Aries". > > Aries encompassed the first 30° of the ecliptic, next came Taurus > (30° to 60°), Gemini (60° to 90°) and so on... > > > > This scheme ignored the actual stars themselves, but uniformity was > more important than fussing about star positions. > > > > Since then, precession has caused the celestial equator to wobble > so as to cause the intersection point between it and the ecliptic to > move westward along the ecliptic by 36° or a tenth of the way around. > > > > Your birth sign ignores the effect of precession. What a horoscope > calls "Aries" is the 30° segment along the ecliptic that is east of > the current location of the vernal equinox - but today, most of it is > in Pisces. The next 30° segment (called Taurus in the horoscope) is > mostly in Aries. The astrological signs are directions in space that > no longer correspond to the constellations that bear their names. > > > > Precession causes the position of the sun on the vernal equinox to > move as the earth wobbles on its axis - then again, the position of > the sun varies on every date (analemma). This means that it is not > only the names of the zodiac signs that are now wrong, the names of > the tropics are also inaccurate! > > > > This all dates to when the sun is within the constellation of your > birth sign. According to astrology (corrected for precession - > although these dates will vary slightly from year to year), you may > find that you're actually a different birth sign. > > > > If you were born between November 30th and December 17th, you're > actually an Ophiuchus. > > > > What happens in astrology is that the sun travels through the > traditional 12 signs of the zodiac over the course of the year. > Whatever sign the sun is in when you're born is the sign you "are". > However, over the past 2,600 years (since the charts were drawn up), > the precession of the earth has shifted the ecliptic westwards and > now the sun visits the constellation of Ophiuchus during > November/December. I very much doubt you'll find a horoscope that > takes this into account. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2006 Report Share Posted December 18, 2006 Dear Friend Paulo and other lovers of Astrology, Vishnu Purana was narrated by Sage Parasara when V.E.point was in the 1st part (pada) of Krittika Nakshatra (Astrological)-in between 26 deg. to 30deg. of Sidereal zodiac(o deg is 180 deg opposite to StarCitra-Spica.) This Purana explains both Tropical and Sidereal zodiac in detail . this means , this concept was Invented before 2000 B.C. THE BASIS OF ASTRONOMICAL CONSTELLATIONS AND ASTROLOGICAL NAKSHTRAS IS NOT SAME. G.K.GOEL paulo mendes <woodwater1000 (AT) clix (DOT) pt> vedic astrology Thursday, 14 December, 2006 8:43:12 PM Re: [vedic astrology] Re: im a ophiochus what i mean is that thee are 13 constellations p - Rohiniranjan vedic astrology Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:04 AM [vedic astrology] Re: im a ophiochus Paulos, This is a jyotish forum and we do take precession into account! Always did as far as I know!! Please elaborate how you came up with 600 BC as the point in time when the concept of the zodiacal circle entered the consciousness of human beings (if I understand you correctly). Surely the historian that gave you that date might have some comments on what existed before 600 BC, for I am sure the stars and patterns were all up there and since people were probably sleeping under the sky and gazing upwards as they drifted to sleep each night, at least in some places in this world as it was then -- they could not have missed the point or shall we see the "patterns" staring at them, unlike modern individuals who hardly ever sleep under the naked sky! RR vedic astrology, "paulo mendes" <woodwater1000@ ...> wrote: > > Let's assume for a minute that astrology actually works. No questions, it just does. Now, when the astrological signs were drawn up originally, it was done around 600BC. Each sign (e.g.: Scorpio) are exactly 30° wide - they are measured eastward along the ecliptic from the vernal equinox, which is the intersection of the elliptic and the celestial equator and is the zero point. > When the system was originally set up, the zero point was in Aries and was called the "first point of Aries". > Aries encompassed the first 30° of the ecliptic, next came Taurus (30° to 60°), Gemini (60° to 90°) and so on... > > This scheme ignored the actual stars themselves, but uniformity was more important than fussing about star positions. > > Since then, precession has caused the celestial equator to wobble so as to cause the intersection point between it and the ecliptic to move westward along the ecliptic by 36° or a tenth of the way around. > > Your birth sign ignores the effect of precession. What a horoscope calls "Aries" is the 30° segment along the ecliptic that is east of the current location of the vernal equinox - but today, most of it is in Pisces. The next 30° segment (called Taurus in the horoscope) is mostly in Aries. The astrological signs are directions in space that no longer correspond to the constellations that bear their names. > > Precession causes the position of the sun on the vernal equinox to move as the earth wobbles on its axis - then again, the position of the sun varies on every date (analemma). This means that it is not only the names of the zodiac signs that are now wrong, the names of the tropics are also inaccurate! > > This all dates to when the sun is within the constellation of your birth sign. According to astrology (corrected for precession - although these dates will vary slightly from year to year), you may find that you're actually a different birth sign. > > If you were born between November 30th and December 17th, you're actually an Ophiuchus. > > What happens in astrology is that the sun travels through the traditional 12 signs of the zodiac over the course of the year. Whatever sign the sun is in when you're born is the sign you "are". However, over the past 2,600 years (since the charts were drawn up), the precession of the earth has shifted the ecliptic westwards and now the sun visits the constellation of Ophiuchus during November/December. I very much doubt you'll find a horoscope that takes this into account. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.