sign astrology

[Guest guest]

, " brianrhiggins2003 "

<brianrhiggins@e...> wrote:

> The tropical zodiac is semiology, a genuine " sign " system.

 

So is the Sidereal Zodiac.

 

 

 

> Physicists

> beg the question when they point out the signs of the zodiac don't

> line up with the real constellations.

 

The so-called " sidereal zodiac " was never intended to " line up " with

the *real* constellations, but only to approximate them.

 

 

 

> Try explaining by analogy with

> a game. Any game is voluntary unlike the scientific search for laws

> of nature. There are two sides to most games. Astrology's relation

to

> the real universe is analogous to the relation of the game of chess

> to geopolitics. On the other side, tropical sign astrology is out of

> bounds when it claims to be more than a semiology. (BH)

 

You are making no sense whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

> " The ecliptic is a circle, and the thing about a circle is that it

> doesn't have a beginning or an end. if you want to be able to

measure

> something along a circle, you have to establish some sort of a

> reference point. The Zodiac as we know it today was first used by

the

> Ancient Greeks over 2,000 years ago. Their year began with the

Spring

> Equinox, and so it made sense to pick that point;­ that is, the

> point in the sky where the Sun appeared to be at the time of the

> Spring Equinox, as the reference point, and divide the ecliptic into

> 12 equal segments from there. At the time, the Spring Equinox

> occurred when the Sun was in the band of the ecliptic that also

> included part of the Constellation of Aries. The first 30 degree

> division of the ecliptic was named " Aries " , and the remaining 11

> segments were likewise named after the well-known and

> easily-recognized constellations that roughly corresponded in

> sequence. The Greeks never used the actual constellations to measure

> the positions of the planets, however, because the constellations

did

> not divide the ecliptic into equal segments. "

 

Nor did any " sidereal zodiac. "

 

See Fred Gettings' definition of the " Constellational Zodiac. "

 

- EK

 

 

 

 

> http://www.astro-horoscopes.com/HTML/AskKevin/980116.html

>

> *