Born in April, But I'm Really A Pisces.

[AmericanMe]

Anyone an Ophiuchus (http://www.griffithobs.org/SkyOphiuchus.html)?

Other articles:
http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSRealConst.html
http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSrealrealconstellations.html
http://www.jas.org.jo/zodiac.html

[Fluffmeister]

Yes, astronomers don't like astrologers. Unfortunately, they usually trudge out the same invalid arguments to try to "disprove" astrology.

Zodiac signs, and the constellations (some of which bear the same name) are two entirely different things. It's a bit embarrassing that astronomers who run observatories don't understand that!

[AmericanMe]

Yes, astronomers don't like astrologers. Unfortunately, they usually trudge out the same invalid arguments to try to "disprove" astrology.

Zodiac signs, and the constellations (some of which bear the same name) are two entirely different things. It's a bit embarrassing that astronomers who run observatories don't understand that!

I think it's fair to point out that things have changed astronomically since the stars were used to determine human events. Sould not astrologers be concerned about telling people they were born in one sign if indeed they were born in another?

In the efforts of fairness, there are astrologers that base their sun signs according to the actual positions of the constellations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology

[Æon Flux]

So according to that I'm actually a Gemini? *confused* Being born on the 4th of July and all... aaah, way to confusing. Although I do feel like a mix between Gemini and a moon maiden...

[moon-in-libra]

Yea, sideral astrology, that factors in percussion of the zodiac. But the qualities of the sign adjust, too, so a Taurus born on May 3000 years ago is still a Taurus although technically an Aries under sideral.

Look at the span for winter signs, such as Sagittarius, huge because you're taking short days/long nights into acount.

[The Lady]

This is fascinating! Thanks!

[KEishin]

So according to that I'm actually a Gemini? *confused* Being born on the 4th of July and all... aaah, way to confusing. Although I do feel like a mix between Gemini and a moon maiden... No, you're still a Cancer by western astrology. You can continue to read that part of your horoscope :D By other forms astrology (and there are many) it would be different, because some track the actual locations of the stars and some track segments of the sky.

You may find this thread (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=67479&highlight=sidereal)helpful.

[Fluffmeister]

I think it's fair to point out that things have changed astronomically since the stars were used to determine human events. Sould not astrologers be concerned about telling people they were born in one sign if indeed they were born in another?


No, because signs and constellations are two different things. Even NASA refer to the Vernal Equinox point as "The Aries Point", even though it's almost in the constellation of Aquarius - and they can land probes on other planets. Curiously, the same astronomers that like to tell astrologers we're "wrong" for not using constellations don't tell NASA they're "wrong" for calling the Vernal Equinox point "the Aries point". NASA and astrologers speak the same language; astrologers even use NASA's ephemeris to calculate where the planets are!



In the efforts of fairness, there are astrologers that base their sun signs according to the actual positions of the constellations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology)



Western astrologers base our zodiac on the relationship between the Sun and Earth. The constellations are pretty irrelevant to Western astrology.

Vedic astrology (which is actually far wider used world-wide since it's the only system in use in India, a country with a population of over a billion people and with a *lot* of astrologers) uses the sidereal zodiac. This has the advantage that signs and constellations are mapped a little more closely - but even so, it's not exact. Signs - regardless of whether you use Western or Vedic astrology - are *exactly* thirty degrees. Constellations are sprawly things, that don't occupy exactly thirty degrees. Vedic signs roughly correspond to the constellations that can be seen behind them, but not exactly. Tropical (Western) signs don't correspond at all to the constellations that can be seen behind them.

It would have made life much, much easier if we gave the twelve signs of the zodiac different names to the constellations that lie on the ecliptic. It's been a source of confusion to non-astronomers and non-astrologers for a long time. It's an understandable confusion among the population in general; it's very disingenuous on the part of *astronomers* who like to throw this particular non-issue at astrologers; they really ought to know better.

[RedRose]

O Bibidi Bobbidi Boo to you, AmericanMe! I think you are displaying a distinct lack of fun and imagination; while claiming that you are AmericanMe? Have you nothing better to do than roam the web bullying wicked idealists with the weapon of "hard" science? In front of an international audience? How wise and mature and superior is that? How old are you?

I promise I won't cast your horoscope and force you to pay me a fortune to interpret it for you.You're a Capricorn right? With Scorpio Rising and Pluto on your Midheaven; Venus disconjunct Moon conjunct Saturn - right? Pretty psychic hmmmmmm.

RedRose

[instinct]

O Bibidi Bobbidi Boo to you, AmericanMe! I think you are displaying a distinct lack of fun and imagination; while claiming that you are AmericanMe? Have you nothing better to do than roam the web bullying wicked idealists with the weapon of "hard" science? In front of an international audience? How wise and mature and superior is that? How old are you?

I promise I won't cast your horoscope and force you to pay me a fortune to interpret it for you.You're a Capricorn right? With Scorpio Rising and Pluto on your Midheaven; Venus disconjunct Moon conjunct Saturn - right? Pretty psychic hmmmmmm.

RedRose
:eyebrow:

AmericanMe is totally an Aries. he may aswell have a flashing neon sign about his head that says "ARIES" :lol:

I'm a Taurus.. that article says i'm an Aries.
i'd probably be happy enough with either :hahugh:

[RedRose]

Aries! Wow! That is soooo amazing! You are so accurate. Aries! Yeah. Obvious, why didn't I get that?

RedRose

[RedRose]

Frankly, astrology does break down logically in all sorts of ways; like the House Systems are wacky, and the fact is. the Sun does not go around the Earth. And what about all these new planets and asteroids, not to mention the Arabic Parts which are really very very strange.

I have no idea why astrology works. No one is more surprised that I am how accurate it is. Beyond that it is good fun and an ancient art.

RedRose

[Fluffmeister]

Aries! Wow! That is soooo amazing! You are so accurate. Aries! Yeah. Obvious, why didn't I get that?

RedRose

Because you forgot to click on his name and look at his profile where it gives his birthday, RedRose 8O

[Fluffmeister]

Frankly, astrology does break down logically in all sorts of ways; like the House Systems are wacky, and the fact is. the Sun does not go around the Earth. And what about all these new planets and asteroids, not to mention the Arabic Parts which are really very very strange.
RedRose

It's all consistent from *our* perspective, though. The Sun doesn't go round the earth - but it still makes sense to use a geocentric perspective when doing astrology, because we're interested in where the planets are in relation to us. And we live on planet Earth.

The confusion arises because the stars just happened to be a useful backdrop to help locate signs 3,000 years ago in Babylonia. The signs are the relationship between the Earth and the Sun; they're segments of sky. 3,000 years ago you could locate the segment of sky called "Taurus" by looking for the set of stars that looked a bit like a bull, and that roughly corresponded to the sign (segment of sky) we call Taurus.

A useful comparison might be this. Imagine you and I live in a featureless desert, and you live a couple of miles away from me. I have a compass, and a map, and I can see from the map that your house is due north from mine. Now, "magnetic north" drifts year by year by a few minutes, so magnetic north and true north aren't quite the same. If I try to get to your house by following my compass, I'll miss it. If I try it next year, I'll miss it by even more. It doesn't stop your house being due north of mine, and the drift of magnetic north is no more significant than the precession of the equinoxes. It simply means the handy little backdrop star guide that worked 3,000 years ago doesn't work today. Claiming that the stars are what defines signs rather than the relationship between the Sun and earth is akin to me saying that magnetic north is the "real" one, and therefore your house must be physically moving year on year - even though you claim the foundations are solid!

I always thought Arabic parts were strange, too, but I can see what they're about now. Take something like the Part of Spirit. You take the two luminaries - Sun and Moon - and notice the distance between them. Then you simply project that onto the Ascendant. So what does this *mean*? Well, we're looking at the relationship between the God and Goddess, and by projecting it onto the Ascendant we're bringing the flavour of that relationship into our own lives. Projecting onto the Ascendant makes it personal to us - and most Arabic parts work like this. We're taking the "god-nature" of two planets or points and making them personal. It's not only modern astrologers who consider astrology a spiritual tool! :)

[RedRose]

Great stuff, Fluffmeister, thanks.

RedRose

[AmericanMe]

O Bibidi Bobbidi Boo to you, AmericanMe! I think you are displaying a distinct lack of fun and imagination; while claiming that you are AmericanMe? Have you nothing better to do than roam the web bullying wicked idealists with the weapon of "hard" science? In front of an international audience? How wise and mature and superior is that? How old are you?

I promise I won't cast your horoscope and force you to pay me a fortune to interpret it for you.You're a Capricorn right? With Scorpio Rising and Pluto on your Midheaven; Venus disconjunct Moon conjunct Saturn - right? Pretty psychic hmmmmmm.

RedRose

Typical, the message challenges one's ideas and rather than deal with the message, one attacks the messenger.

BTW thanks for addressing the message Fluffmeister, I concede that I do not know enough about astrology or astronomy to argue either view, I simply ran into the articles on the net and thought I'd post it to get the opposing viewpoint.

And yes, I'm a ram (with twin fish), the rest I don't remember.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Well, it makes sense (to me) to consider the signs as sections of the sky rather than the constellations themselves, because constellations are cultural constructs anyway.

The stars in them are not all on the same plane, and they don't have much more of a relationship to them than the fact that "if I squint my eyes, it kinda looks like a bull" here on Earth. ^_^

Heck, the Incas tracked "constellations" as the dark spaces in the Milky Way--the shapes that the *absense* of stars made, rather than the stars themselves.

But maybe that's just me. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Malcolm]

I'm in the same boat as AmericanMe...born in April but that thing says I'm a pisces.

Does that make me a fish with the horns of a ram...I don't know why but I think thats kinda cool.

Just what kind of Chimera am I then. I also have a Scorpio moon apparently...

So what, we have a fish with the horns of a ram and the tail of a scorpion...

Thats just freakin wierd.

[KEishin]

Does that make me a fish with the horns of a ram...I don't know why but I think thats kinda cool.

Just what kind of Chimera am I then. I also have a Scorpio moon apparently...

So what, we have a fish with the horns of a ram and the tail of a scorpion...

Thats just freakin wierd.
There's an image, certainly . . . :lol:

[Dawa Lhamo]

There's an image, certainly . . . :lol:You mean like this? <see attached> This is my chimaera. I've got too much time on my hands, yes. teehee.

[KEishin]

:lol:
All behold the Mighty Photoshop!

I'd karma you, but the silly system won't let me.

[Malcolm]

Like that exactly, but with horns and a tail instead of legs.

[Zhr Morgana]

I think it's fair to point out that things have changed astronomically since the stars were used to determine human events. Sould not astrologers be concerned about telling people they were born in one sign if indeed they were born in another?

In the efforts of fairness, there are astrologers that base their sun signs according to the actual positions of the constellations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology
Hmmm...according to this I am really a Leo. Interesting.

[Fluffmeister]

I'm in the same boat as AmericanMe...born in April but that thing says I'm a pisces.

Does that make me a fish with the horns of a ram...I don't know why but I think thats kinda cool.

Just what kind of Chimera am I then. I also have a Scorpio moon apparently...

So what, we have a fish with the horns of a ram and the tail of a scorpion...

Thats just freakin wierd.

If you *really* want to mix tropical and sidereal zodiacs (and I wouldn't recommend it - stick to one system or the other), it's not just your Sun that's going to be different. Unless your Moon is vary late Scorpio, you probably have a Libra Moon sidereally. Libra is the sign of the scales, so this will give you a kilo of fish-flavoured lamb with insects in it. And that's without taking your two Ascendants into account :)

On the other hand you can stick to being an Aries with a Scorpio Moon, both ruled by Mars, and go round being a warrior! :viking: