Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Starkler
I read something somewhere to the effect that a major reference source of the positions and orbits of celestial bodies etc used by astrologers is in fact innacurate and factually incorrect, making any extrapolated claims wrong in any case being based on false data.
Does anyone know anything about this ?
|
It appears there are several, different systems used in astrology.
The actual, celestial zodiac is a band, extending ± 8 degrees above/below the ecliptic, which more or less bounds the planes of the orbits of the 7 planets known to older civilizations’. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are “modern” planets and therefore do not figure in astronomy or astrology prior to their discovery. There are constellations that are physically large in extent e.g. Virgo, and smaller ones, e.g. Aries. One system uses these so maybe Virgo is 40 deg in extent, whereas Aries may be 15 degrees (guessing for illustrative purposes).
Another system simply divides the imaginary celestial sphere into 12 equal segments, of 30 degrees each, and labels these segments as the constellations. Thus, these are an abstraction and not the real McCoy as it were.
And of course as astronomers, we all know that over a (very) long period of time, the patterns of the constellations change, due to the proper motion of stars.
The zodiac “starts” with Aries as I understand it, because several thousand years ago, the Vernal Equinox or First Point of Aries was actually in the physical constellation Aries. Due to the precession of the equinoxes, this is no longer the case. I seem to recall that in my childhood, I was living in the “Age of Aquarius”, so I assume the First Point of Aries is now either in the physical constellation of Aquarius, or in the abstracted 30 deg segment of the celestial sphere labeled as Aquarius by astrologers?
The mathematical calculations used by astrologers provide them with the framework for their interpretations. However, we have the real zodiac and the abstract zodiac and depending on which one is used, a certain planet can “appear” to be in different signs of the zodiac, yet describe some behavioral model of an individual. I have never seen an explanation of how this can be, but then I’ve never been interested enough to pursue it any further.
Ironically, as a young boy, I was mistakenly given a copy of a book called “Teach Yourself Astrology” (I wanted Astronomy), but I put it to good use by reading the chapter on celestial mechanics and learning about the celestial sphere, ecliptic, precession of the equinoxes, etc., which the book described quite well, in common with astronomy text books.
So yes, there are different systems; some natural, some man made and as we know, they are subject to the vagaries of change, discoveries of new planets, etc.
Cheers
Dennis