Clarifying Question #2: No unified zodiac

[Guest guest]

, zqhelisabeth

<zqh_elisabeth> wrote:

 

I wanted to ask about. What I wanted to

> know is whether those who know more about

> astrology (and astronomy) than I do see any holes

> in my reasoning and conclusion:

>

> My *reason* seems to tell me that the standard

> Tropical " zodiac " cannot exist for any planet

> other than the Sun...

>

 

Makes sense to me... Like Clinton said.. " It all depends on what is

is " ...

 

> 1. Tropical is the astrology of *time* and is

> based on the *sun's* cycle (or, rather, the

> earth's cycle around the sun); in this astrology,

> the sun is not really " in " any sign. Tropical

> " Aries " is just a convenient name for a specific

> *time* -- the beginning of spring, and has

> nothing to do with the *constellation* of Aries.

>

 

time slime... its all the same....

 

The earth tilts and moves back and forth in this tilt in relationship

to the Sun... the cyclical pattern to this has a fiducial(starting

point) which is the spring equinox... of course in the southern

hemisphere its the autumn equinox(Make sense?)

We have a cyclical pattern divided into 12 signs equally with 30

degrees each. These Signs just happen to be named the same as the

constellations which rim the earth at the ecliptic.

 

 

 

 

> 2. This being the case, tropical astrology

> therefore has nothing to do with the

> constellations. It is not an astrology of *space*

> like sidereal.

>

 

You can differ between space and time but I figure why...

 

 

> 3. It then seems to follow that in tropical

> astrology, just as the Sun " in " a particular sign

> is *not* really " in " it, but only refers to the

> stage in the sun's own cycle, then the other

> planets (e.g. the Moon, mercury, venus, etc) also

> cannot really be " in " any sign.

>

 

I've got a sign that sez... " Dip " It helps direct folks to the chips n

dip when I have a party.

 

 

> 4. So it seems to me that when Tropical

> astrologers, whose " zodiac " is centered on the

> Sun's path and the seasons, say the " Moon is in

> Aries " , they can only be saying something

> meaningless -- unless they call a specific stage

> in the Moon's cylce " Aries " . They might also do

> the same with the other planets. But what we

> would end up with by doing this is a separate

> " zodiac " for each planet, since they each follow

> a different cycle/path.

>

 

I love your grasp of the confusion.. Quick go for more signs!

and another thing...

We just might find that the astrology section of the newspaper is

best for wraping fish.

 

> 5. So, unlike sidereal astrology which uses the

> fixed stars and constellations, tropical

> astrology cannot have just *one* zodiac that

> works for all the planets. The result is that, in

> tropical astrology, the Moon in Aries would be a

> *different* Aries than, say, the Sun or Mercury

> in Aries.

>

Yes more of the confusion of signs to which I say(as I said before)

That is an argument best expressed by a tropicalist. I tend to let it

go with one zodiac misalinged but if your perception creates

questions for you, I will not be the one to disavow its merits.

 

What world do you wish to operate from .. The heliocentric or the

geocentric? Do the planets and sun revolve around the earth or do the

planets and earth revolve around the sun. For the purpose of person

look to the geocentric.

 

 

> 6. All of this seems to me to be a major point

> against the validity of the tropical zodiac. It

> seems to me that even if tropical astrology works

> in its own way, it should reinvent its rules

> since the ones it still uses would, as far as I

> can see, only work for an astrology that uses

> *one* common zodiac for all planets, i.e.,

> sidereal astrology.

>

 

No worries... Thats why we have politicians.

 

 

 

> Does anyone see what I mean? I hope I haven't

> made this too confusing. What I want to know is

> if anyone sees any flaws with my argument, or

> whether I'm missing any relevant facts

> (astromical or whatever) that would change the

> whole picture. But since my *knowledge* of the

> technical side of astrology and of astronomy is

> so limited, I thought that there is a chance that

> I've come to this conclusion only because there

> is some *facts* that I'm ignorant about. After

> all, such great astrologers like Robert Hand, who

> is much more informed than I am and who seems to

> have analyzed both the tropical and sidereal

> zodiac still seem to think that the tropical one

> could work.

>

> Elisabeth

 

 

What do you bring away from this current Jupiter Uranus opposition we

are currently experiencing? Is Dr. Phil putting his name on an

osophy and breaking away from the " norm " ? Lets get all of

the " truths " on the table and examine them.... Scary!!!!! Mars is

just around the corner.... Careful Mr. Bush!

 

As for Robert Hand... I bet he's a " closet " siderealist.

____________________

 

> Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca