Astrology Calendar Signs
Astrology Calendar Signs
 |
 Your Personalized Forecast for 2012 Vedic Astrology  US $7.99
|
 Llewellyn 2011 Daily Planetary Guide Wiccan Pagan US $12.99
|
 100 Year Patra Panchang by Swami Ram Charran vol 1 US $100.00
|
 2011 Your Astrology Guide by Rick Levine Jeff Jawer US $12.99
|
 2011 Astrological Wall Calendar US $13.99
|
 ASTROLOGY READING LOVE MONEY HEALTH RomanceFamilyAdvice US $300.00
|
 Personalised Astrology Chart Wicca Witch New Age US $13.71
|
 Your Astrology Guide 2011 Levine Jawer Pagan Wicca US $12.95
|
 Ogham Pendant Fearn 18 Mar 14 Apr Star Sign Aries US $24.87
|
 Llewellyns 2009 Magical Almanac US $2.99
|
 2011 Astrological Wall Calendar by Llewellyn US $12.99
|
| Powered by phpBay Pro |
Will Astrology match the stars again?
The astrology calendar says I'm a Scorpio, however, I was born when Libra was at it's highest. This is nothing new, but will astrologers ever update their calendar and at least attempt to give me an "accurate" reading?
If you follow your sign, do you know what stars you were really born under?
Thank You.
Without getting into the sidereal vs tropical issues (i.e., which one is "better"), how is it that people still believe that the constellations once "lined" up with the tropical zodiac when a small amount of knowledge indicates otherwise? The tropical signs are each a nice even 30 degrees apiece. The constellations are nowhere near so uniform in size. Therefore a sidereal zodiac never "lined up" with a tropical one. What did "line up (about 2000 years ago)" was the so called "Aries point," i.e. the point where the ecliptic meets the equator in the east was once the same as the generally agreed upon beginning of Aries. At about the time of Ptolemy, astrologers wondered how they would continue their astrology when the Aries point Left Aries and entered the end of Pisces. Ptolemy answered the question thus: ignore it. We can argue whether or not he was right if we wish.
I don't know any sidereal astrology or how that zodiac is set up, but if consists of 12 30 degree "signs," it doesn't line up with the stars either. I am not arguing that one zodiac is better than the other. I'm only pointing out what appears to be to be a misunderstanding. If I'm wrong, so be it, and someone can point out my error. But I am not wrong about the varying sizes of the constellations of the zodiac.
Speaking of Aquarius, the constellation isn't even on the ecliptic. It's above it.
