Critics of Sidereal Astrology or False Prophets

[Guest guest]

I am a member of a college community club based on the Internet. It deals with

astrology just as we do. A lot of veterans know where this is going. Of course

they use tropical methods and interpretations. My fellow members ask me lot of

questions since I know a lot about astrology and I am very argumentative (not

without being logical).

I need some advice from some you like Theresa Hamilton that are above me. How

do I explain what I believe is a better zodiac system to people that are laymen

and are still clinging to the more familiar zodiac.

This is an article from the FAQ section of www.astro.com

I would like to ask everyone to give their rebuttal to this.

 

Understanding Astrology > Precession / Sidereal

 

Is Taurus Aries? Or what about the precession of the equinox?

 

The signs of the tropical zodiac, which starts at the Vernal Equinox with 0°

Aries, are not the same as the fixed star constellations which carry the same

names.

The signs are sections of the ecliptic circle, 30 degrees each. They serve as an

abbreviated measurement system for ecliptic longitude relative to the true

equinox of date. Instead of saying 'Saturn is at 123 degrees' we say 'Saturn is

at 3 degrees of the 5th zodiac section'. Because the 5th zodiac section is named

'Leo', we say Saturn is at 3 Leo. We mean ecliptic longitude relative to the

Equinox, so this is NOT the fixed star constellation Leo.

The fixed star constellations are irregular patches of stars on the sky. 2000

years ago those areas coincided roughly with the zodiac sections, and that is

where they got their names from. The fixed star constellations are not used for

measuring coordinates of objects on the sky.

Due to the effect of lunisolar precession, the ecliptic circle has since shifted

versus the fixed star background, and continues to shift by 1° every 72 years.

Astronomers, who often hate astrology, love to confuse people by pretending of

not being aware of the difference between fixed star constellations and the

reference frame of the tropical ecliptic coordinate system. In fact, astronomy

uses the very same ecliptic coordinate system as astrology does. Also

astronomers give the position of objects in the ecliptic by measuring the

longitude from the Equinox. Some astronomers try to make astrologers look

stupid, when in fact all they manage is confusion of the " innocent public " .

For further information, please read Precession and Zodiac or the full

documentation of Swiss Ephemeris.

 

 

Do astrologers use the sidereal zodiac as well?

 

In Indian (Hindu / Vedic) astrology, the sidereal zodiac is used. The precession

of the equinox is not taken into account there. Western astrology only refers to

the sidereal zodiac in connection with the world ages, like the Age of Aquarius

or the Age of Pisces.

 

http://www.astro.com/faq/fq_ua_precession_e.htm?lang=e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello Sher_e,

 

Thanks very much for your comments, but in my experience, it's almost

impossible to convince Tropical zodiac people that there's a better or more

accurate zodiac out there. All the arguments come down to nothing. I've

decided that the best way is to first define what makes each sign THAT

sign, and then demonstrate using actual horoscopes that a particular sign

is indeed THAT sign we're talking about. Tropical astrologers probably

still won't pay attention, but at least our cards will be on the table. I'm

working on a web site to deal with some of these questions. I'll post the

URL here when the site is up and running.

 

It should be possible to demonstrate, for example, that the Mars of race

car drivers is in the appropriate strong sign for Mars. I've done a lot of

this kind of research....just have to get it into published form.

 

The latest writings on ancient astrology (like Robert Hand's booklets) do a

very good job of explaining the history of the zodiac. The sidereal zodiac

was formed into equal 30 degree signs in Mesopotamia, then there was a

period of zodiac mass confusion. From that emerged the sidereal zodiac in

India and the Tropical zodiac in the west. The best argument for the

sidereal zodiac at this time is the way solar and lunar return charts work,

but that gets very technical and hasn't really settled the zodiac question

in the eyes of Tropical astrologers.

 

Sincerely,

Terese

 

At 11:29 AM 12/16/02 -0800, you wrote:

>

>I am a member of a college community club based on the Internet. It

deals with astrology just as we do. A lot of veterans know where this is

going. Of course they use tropical methods and interpretations. My fellow

members ask me lot of questions since I know a lot about astrology and I am

very argumentative (not without being logical).

>I need some advice from some you like Theresa Hamilton that are above me.

How do I explain what I believe is a better zodiac system to people that

are laymen and are still clinging to the more familiar zodiac.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/16/2002 2:31:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,

sher_e_khan writes:

 

> I am a member of a college community club based on the Internet. It deals

> with astrology just as we do. A lot of veterans know where this is going.

> Of course they use tropical methods and interpretations. My fellow members

> ask me lot of questions since I know a lot about astrology and I am very

> argumentative (not without being logical).

> I need some advice from some you like Theresa Hamilton that are above me.

> How do I explain what I believe is a better zodiac system to people that

> are laymen and are still clinging to the more familiar zodiac.

> This is an article from the FAQ section of www.astro.com

> I would like to ask everyone to give their rebuttal to this.

>

> Understanding Astrology >Precession / Sidereal

>

> Is Taurus Aries? Or what about the precession of the equinox?

>

> The signs of the tropical zodiac, which starts at the Vernal Equinox with

> 0° Aries, are not the same as the fixed star constellations which carry the

> same names.

> The signs are sections of the ecliptic circle, 30 degrees each. They serve

> as an abbreviated measurement system for ecliptic longitude relative to the

> true equinox of date. Instead of saying 'Saturn is at 123 degrees' we say

> 'Saturn is at 3 degrees of the 5th zodiac section'. Because the 5th zodiac

> section is named 'Leo', we say Saturn is at 3 Leo. We mean ecliptic

> longitude relative to the Equinox, so this is NOT the fixed star

> constellation Leo.

> The fixed star constellations are irregular patches of stars on the sky.

> 2000 years ago those areas coincided roughly with the zodiac sections, and

> that is where they got their names from. The fixed star constellations are

> not used for measuring coordinates of objects on the sky.

> Due to the effect of lunisolar precession, the ecliptic circle has since

> shifted versus the fixed star background, and continues to shift by 1°

> every 72 years.

> Astronomers, who often hate astrology, love to confuse people by pretending

> of not being aware of the difference between fixed star constellations and

> the reference frame of the tropical ecliptic coordinate system. In fact,

> astronomy uses the very same ecliptic coordinate system as astrology does.

> Also astronomers give the position of objects in the ecliptic by measuring

> the longitude from the Equinox. Some astronomers try to make astrologers

> look stupid, when in fact all they manage is confusion of the " innocent

> public " .

>

 

*******I don't think there is any refutation. It states the facts very well.

The movement of the sun along the ecliptic in the 30 days following the

vernal equinox was named " Aries " about 2000 years ago when that constellation

was there. the tropical zodiac says a person born in the 30 days following

the Vernal Equinox has certain characteristics, and simply still uses the old

name. I'd say the article is also right that the ulterior motive of most

people talking about this is the denial of all astrology, not any recognition

of there being twelve divisions of the year THROUGH WHICH the stars move in a

cycle of 25,000 years.

-Starman

http://www.DrStarman.net