sidereal and tropical astrology

[mccoy]

This is an interesting 3D view of the vector defining the zodiac constellations. The ecliptic is red, the equator is blue-white.
The blue lines seem to be the astronomical coordinates.

[mccoy]

This is another interesting illustration. The ecliptic drawn against the constellation boundaries in modern celestial coordinates.
It is all too evident how the ecliptic has a very short span into the scorpio constellation, whereas the span is longer in the ophiuchus constellation.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

This is another interesting illustration. The ecliptic drawn against the constellation boundaries in modern celestial coordinates.
It is all too evident how the ecliptic has a very short span into the scorpio constellation, whereas the span is longer in the ophiuchus constellation.

i find this illustration very interesting. i still have a reserved opinion about the astrological signs. The influence of the objects in our solar system are much more conclusive and less susceptible to reproach. Although i will admit that the tropical zodiac has seemed much more accurate when describing personal traits.

It is difficult to put together some of the confusing differences in approaches. There is more consistency about the angular relationships between the Planets and other objects of our solar system. Thinking of Aries as being a spring sign and Scorpio an autumn sign just does not fly when you start doing charts for people living in the southern hemisphere.

One of the most confusing things to me is that the characteristics associated with Ophiuchus do apply to some things associated with my Scorpio Moon. But as you know what was once Ophiuchus has now become Scorpio or Libra if we look at it from a sidereal point of view.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

As far as I uinderstand, continuing my research, is that at present (actually, based on observations of 1930, 85 years ago) the exact subdivision of the zodiac according to the classic constellations is in 13 parts of unequal width.
This as described by the vector (arrow) leaving the earth thru the sun and outward bound.

Of course, this is strictly related to Sidereal astrology and has nothign to do, as Steve has explained, with classical tropica astrology whose subdivision is just conventional.

The modern constellation boundaries weren’t defined until 1930 by the International Astronomical Union. With the current boundaries, there are actually thirteen constellations that lie along the sun’s path. The extra one not listed in any horoscope is Ophiucus, the Serpent Bearer, who sits between Sagittarius and Scorpius. Whereas the signs remain fixed relative to the solstices and equinoxes, the solstices and equinoxes drift westward relative to the constellations or backdrop stars.

The question that comes to mind: what constellations?  Whose idea of what constellation  has been viewed. Because stars can be viewed in any number of ways and patterens. Many stars may not be included. Who makes that decision. Isn't it somewhat arbitrary what we see in the sky? I may see a cat where you see a scarecrow.

For me the tropical view is much more descriptive of the people I have met and their 'sections' of the Sun's path as a description of personality traits.

[mccoy]

The question that comes to mind: what constellations?  Whose idea of what constellation  has been viewed. Because stars can be viewed in any number of ways and patterens. Many stars may not be included. Who makes that decision. Isn't it somewhat arbitrary what we see in the sky? I may see a cat where you see a scarecrow.
For me the tropical view is much more descriptive of the people I have met and their 'sections' of the Sun's path as a description of personality traits.

That may be a basic point. That is, the chaldean astronomers/altrologers created rules, determined from their insights, which cannot be exported 'as they are'  to the recent sidereal model.
Ptolemy wrote clearly that the tropical model, as Steve already reported, is but a conventional subdivision of the sky and does not consider the equinoctial precession because that's not a factor of interest in that particular model.
Again, this is not my arena, but it is clear that tropical and sidereal astrologers are often in disagreement.
Probably, a recent sidereal model should be based on the principles of Vedic classic astrology update and expanded.

I've no idea if there is someone who is currently able to do that.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Thought this might be interesting; To see visually the power of the middle of the Milky Way. If indeed there was some obstruction from the source of the middle of the Milky Way it does appear that it may affect the consciousness of the inhabitants in a small solar system on one of the arms of our galaxy. 

[mccoy]

Thought this might be interesting; To see visually the power of the middle of the Milky Way. If indeed there was some obstruction from the source of the middle of the Milky Way it does appear that it may affect the consciousness of the inhabitants in a small solar system on one of the arms of our galaxy. 

That is the Frawley hypothesis, which proposes the existance of a spiritual 'light' emanating from Sagittarius A*, the central black hole in our galaxy. He believes that an obstruction, another celestial object, may prevent this influence  ('light') to reach us at times, causing recurring dark ages.

I think the model is too vague and undefined. Which would be such an obstruction? A single celestial body or many? Which is or are the spatial patterns and configurations causing such an obstruction? Sagittarius A* is a fixed benchmark in this respect, so it shouldn't be too hard to point out possible 'obstructions'.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Thought this might be interesting; To see visually the power of the middle of the Milky Way. If indeed there was some obstruction from the source of the middle of the Milky Way it does appear that it may affect the consciousness of the inhabitants in a small solar system on one of the arms of our galaxy. 

That is the Frawley hypothesis, which proposes the existance of a spiritual 'light' emanating from Sagittarius A*, the central black hole in our galaxy. He believes that an obstruction, another celestial object, may prevent this influence  ('light') to reach us at times, causing recurring dark ages.

I think the model is too vague and undefined. Which would be such an obstruction? A single celestial body or many? Which is or are the spatial patterns and configurations causing such an obstruction? Sagittarius A* is a fixed benchmark in this respect, so it shouldn't be too hard to point out possible 'obstructions'.

It probably will take more interest from the astronomy and scientific communities to come up with a model that makes sense. Many if not most in those communities still accept the wobble theory of our planet to explain the procession of the equinoxes so it may take a while before that happens and an acceptance of a binary system manifests for the retrograde motion of our solar system through the astrological signs. Although they have already found out that there are mutations and anomalies that can't be completely explained by the wobble of our earth. We should also accept the fact that at the time of Sri Yukteswar living in the body there most likely was no understanding or concept of the center of our galaxy. Therefore he used a word like Vishnunabhi to designate it in his own terms. That's my take on it. We did not have the technology to have pictures and an understanding of our universe-though small- as we do today.

[SpiritImage]

I came late to this and dont really understand, (sorry) but are you saying the earth spins perfectly on its axis and there is no wobble or deviation even after 24,000 years?

[Jitendra Hydonus]

I came late to this and dont really understand, (sorry) but are you saying the earth spins perfectly on its axis and there is no wobble or deviation even after 24,000 years?

i do not think that the earth has no wobble. Just that it is not responsible for the processional 24,000  year cycle.

[mccoy]

I came late to this and dont really understand, (sorry) but are you saying the earth spins perfectly on its axis and there is no wobble or deviation even after 24,000 years?

SI, walter Cruttenden, a wealthy SRF member, has been hiring consultants (astronomers) to work on alternative hypotheses on the cause of the equinoctial precession (among which: the sunA-sunB binary star system). Cruttenden was inspired by SY's 'The Holy Science'.
Some hypotheses, based on scientific facts and observations, are outlined in his site:

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/

There are no hard proofs yet. SunB, if it is really existing, goes on being elusive (of course, if spotting sunB would be so easy we would have known its existance for millennia now).

[mccoy]

We should also accept the fact that at the time of Sri Yukteswar living in the body there most likely was no understanding or concept of the center of our galaxy. Therefore he used a word like Vishnunabhi to designate it in his own terms. That's my take on it. We did not have the technology to have pictures and an understanding of our universe-though small- as we do today.

KK, that's a plausible hypothesis. Although, if the entirety of SY's theory should be accepted (that is: revolution of sun A and sunB aroudn a common baricenter) then Vishnunabhi should be by logic much closer to our system than Sagittarius A*, the central black hole, the hub of our galaxy. This because, as we have already discussed, a revolution around a dual would cause a change in distance from Sagittarius A* pretty much negligible, given the distance, even  in the astrological perspective . Whereas a closer Vishnunabhi would imply a variation in distance which is more significant.

Vishnunabhi might even be an astral region with no physical counterpart. Unfortunately SY is no more around with his body and we cannot ask him, although we might be able to get in touch with him by deep meditation.

[SpiritImage]

I came late to this and dont really understand, (sorry) but are you saying the earth spins perfectly on its axis and there is no wobble or deviation even after 24,000 years?

i do not think that the earth has no wobble. Just that it is not responsible for the processional 24,000  year cycle.

I see, thanks. We'll never really know unless someone could stand in the northern hemisphere for 24,000 years to measure it, while having some sort of satellite looking back down in the same spot to measure wobble. And if it did wobble, how would we know that the amount of wobble stays exactly the same for every 24,000 year period?

Things like this have way too many variables so my bet would be a combination of theories and possibly other forces we're not aware of.