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 Paulo, This doesn't seem like your voice here. If you're going to post the thoughts of others, maybe proper referencing would be a good start. You seem to be going through a " crisis of faith " in astrology these days. Perhaps you're hoping that someone's response to all this stuff your posting will convince you that astrology is really correct. Chris On 12/13/06, 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 chris scorpio has only 10 degrees,virgo has 42. Sideral is no more logical than tropical paulo - Christopher Kevill Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:26 PM Re: im a ophiochus Paulo, This doesn't seem like your voice here. If you're going to post the thoughts of others, maybe proper referencing would be a good start. You seem to be going through a " crisis of faith " in astrology these days. Perhaps you're hoping that someone's response to all this stuff your posting will convince you that astrology is really correct. Chris On 12/13/06, 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 Right. I know that the constellations are an artifact of human imagination rather than some external reality. Since when is astrology logical? On 12/13/06, paulo mendes <woodwater1000 wrote: > > chris > > scorpio has only 10 degrees,virgo has 42. Sideral is no more logical than > tropical > > paulo > > - > Christopher Kevill > <%40> > Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:26 PM > Re: im a ophiochus > > Paulo, > > This doesn't seem like your voice here. If you're going to post the > thoughts of others, maybe proper referencing would be a good start. > > You seem to be going through a " crisis of faith " in astrology these days. > Perhaps you're hoping that someone's response to all this stuff your > posting > will convince you that astrology is really correct. > > Chris > > On 12/13/06, paulo mendes <woodwater1000 <woodwater1000%40clix.pt>> > 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 At 12:03 AM 12/14/06 -0000, Paulo wrote: >chris > >scorpio has only 10 degrees,virgo has 42. Sideral is no more logical than tropical. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paulo, are you going through a crisis of lonliness during this holiday season? Or perhaps imbibing a bit too much? Your posts lack intelligence and thought and seem to be either off the wall or a bid for attention--any kind of attention that some unuspecting astrologer may give you. You are now at least temporarily on moderated status. I notice that if either I or someone else replies to one of your ravings with a sensible answer, you ignore that reply and go on to some other nosensical topic. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: > Paulo, are you going through a crisis of lonliness during this holiday > season? Or perhaps imbibing a bit too much? Your posts lack intelligence > and thought and seem to be either off the wall or a bid for attention--any > kind of attention that some unuspecting astrologer may give you. You are > now at least temporarily on moderated status. > > I notice that if either I or someone else replies to one of your ravings > with a sensible answer, you ignore that reply and go on to some other > nosensical topic. Thank you Therese! Paulo is obviously a troll and cross-posts his messages to at least 3 other astrology boards that I know of, and probably more. His only intent seems to be playing " stump the astrologer " and, as you say, ignores any attempt to reason with him. I am frankly amazed that anyone bothers to reply. He also seems incapable of crafting any kind of a coherent post. Hopefully, if everone ignores him he'll go away. Buz 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.