Astrology

shhhhh asked:


i have been researching this topic for 3 years now, not obsessivly just outta boredom a few times a month. but heres the big thing i have found

1. the original zodiac was ment to be sidereal, judging by which constellation ur sun and moon were in (by the ancient greeks). later on, houses and rising signs etc where added, and the dates were perfected, yet we know now today that even back then, from a sidereal standpoint they were off by 15 degrees or so.

2. the best argument ive heard about why sidereal is still incorrect is this, it goes by the seasons, and by how the sun relates to the earth, and how it lines up with the tropics of capricorn and cancer. my response is that ppl like this explanation who support the tropical becuase it confuses most people lol. what this meens is that ur sun sign isnt based off where the sun is in the constellations, but how it hits highest point hits the earth. as summer begins, the suns horizon point is hitting the tropic of cancer. BUT, this is a common misconception in my opinion, becuase it is a well known fact that the tropic of cancer and capricron were given their names because when the sun hit them, it was in the constellations. these werent random names, there were realites of space. were supposed to be respecting tradition with the tropical zodiac, yet we ignore the origin of the zodiac itself. look up the word astrology, it is literally a psuedoscience of astronomy. astrology came from astronomy, yet we r ignoring it all together. not to mention, thats a good explanation i guess for the sun sign not changing, but what about all the other things, like houses and moon sign and what not. we ignore that they are still all off by at least one sign, whats the explanation for them?

3. my last problem is this. the zodiac should be something for fun, as in its fun to know which constellation was in the sky at ur birth, not where the suns horizon hit the earth, why would that have any affect on u? it makes the zodiac seem even more unproven then it already is. and if the original zodiac was sidereal, if our ancestors had the technology we have, wouldnt the signs be different??

4. it may seem like i am very pro sidereal, but my final conclusion is this. how can zodiac signs be real if you can believe in either zodiac form, or even both of them? how can a gem be a taurus, a leo a cancer? and trust me for some ppl it fits and others it doesnt. some leos still act like leos, others act like cancer, others act like pisces. tropical supports say u have to check the whole chart, but hello, theres an entire sidereal chart too?? and how can u say respect tradition with the tropical chart when it ignores all of its mistakes, and the tradition was initially sidereal? and finally, i find myself struggling with this. God is the ultimate creator, and he has no affect on our free will. the zodiac supposedly chooses our traits for us. are u honestly saying the zodiac is more powerful??
both answers right now are great. i find it interesting that both of u talk about personality traits and how psychology is better at pin pointing who u r. i guess i never thot of astrology that way. i liked astrology cuz i love space and its cool to know where the stars are when u r born. i can see now why the majority of the public likes it, it tells them who they r. interesting.. i definitly learned something today…
chain lightning, um *** r u talking about lol.

i think ur saying astrology has no evidence to back it up??

small-games-precracked