@Athanatos said
"Venus in Capricorn acts differently than Venus in Aries. Sidereal astrology seems to posit that this is because the constellations themselves have an effect that combines with the effect of the planets to produce the effect of "Venus in Capricorn.""
No, it doesn't - if by "the constellations themselves" you mean "those stars visible in the sky that astronomers have labelled Capricorn." However, if you mean "because of Venus' placement in a 30°-wide lune of all space in a precession-free and inertia-free framework," they I'd agree with you.
"Tropical astrology says "the constellations themselves aren't what matters, it's the position of the planets in the sky." "
But that doesn't mean anything. What does "in the sky" mean? How is Venus against the backdrop of (one or another definition of) the "constellation Capricorn" NOT "Venus' position in the sky"?
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" the word "constellations,""
Am I wrong in assuming that Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are constellations? That would be an embarrassing mistake."
Yes, but not in the way an astronomy text would reference this. It isn't the visible Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc. that you see in the sky or an astronomy text - these are human inventions with boundaries created by committee and updated periodically. They have nothing direct to do with astrology.
Sidereal astrologers use the word "constellation" differently. It means a 30°-wide segment of space formed by two great circles on the celestial sphere, intersecting each other at the north and south celestial poles and separated by 30° along the ecliptic.
These DO tend to approximate the visible conventional constellations of the same name, but are not the same. For example, some of the stars of the visible constellation Cancer fall into astrological Leo, and Egyptian stellar diagrams show these as a crescent in Leo. Visual Virgo sprawls across the area twice the size of an astrological sign, but astrological Virgo is exactly 30° wide.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"the phrase "the movement of the constellations,""
The constellations are fixed, but they are in a different position in our sky than they were thousands of years ago when tropical astrology was started."
No, they're in the same parts of the sky. The only difference is that the measuring point used by Tropical astrology (the northern hemisphere's vernal equinoctial point, or VP) is in perpetual retrograde motion.
The Sidereal signs ("constellations") are measured against absolute space, i.e., positional space independent of varying factors. The Tropical signs are hitched to a moving point that is constantly walking backwards at the rate of 1° in about 72 years. This is why the Tropical zodiac is called the Moving Zodiac, and the Sidereal zodiac is called the Fixed Zodiac.
"Thus, sidereal astrology says "hey, Venus isn't really in Capricorn, this is wrong." Tropical astrology says "it doesn't matter if Venus is really in the part of the sky where Capricorn is currently, it's the same part of the sky that we meant by Capricorn 2,000 years ago and that's what counts.""
But that's just it: It isn't. It's not the same part of the sky. It's a different part of the sky. "Where Capricorn was in the sky 2,000 years ago" is now called Aquarius, for the most part.
It's exactly the same as the following: Somebody leaves LA airport in a jet, looks out the window, and says, "That's LA right below me." The mental label is, "The position of Los Angeles is straight down from the airplane." (And this gets confused with the complementary statement: "Straight down from the airplane is Los Angeles.") Five hours later, after a long nap, he looks out the window again and sees a city straight down from him, and says to the person in the next seat, "That's Los Angeles." The confused person in the next seat says, "No, that's New York City." The first person is unmoved by this arguement because, after all, Los Angeles is right under the plane. How dare his seat mate imply that Los Angeles has shifted 3,000 miles to the west!
A Siderealist, in this instance, would say that, to this traveller, "Los Angeles" is simply New York City misnamed - just as most of Tropical Leo is Sidereal Cancer misnamed. Los Angeles has an absolute location on the globe. It is the traveller who is moving, not the city; and, you can't make the new "straight down" into the old "straight down" just by giving it the old name.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
" or (the big obscurity) the phrase "relative to Earth.""
Not sure how I can make this any clearer. When the moon is in certain positions "relative to Earth," the tide is either lower or higher than when it is in other positions relative to Earth."
But that's based on the Moon's aspectual relationship to the Sun and (to a lesser extent) its distance from its own apogee. It isn't "positional"in either the Tropical or Sidereal models.
"While we don't know the mechanism of astrology (we just have observations), it seems more likely to me that the planets would cause some sort of effect on Earth based on their position in our sky rather than having their effect as a result of being lined up with constellations much, much, much further away."
Again, you aren't using "in our sky" in any consistent manner. (I need not even argue that it isn't relevant, just that you aren't using the words the same way from paragraph to paragraph.) For example, if high tide occurs with the Moon just entering in Capricorn this month (any definition of "Capricorn" will do for this example), high tide will NOT occur when the Moon enters Capricorn next month - it will be about three days later. It's not positional.
PS - "much, much farther away" seems to say that you are still counting on the physical stars. That is not (and never has been) the Sidereal theory. I intentionally specified lunes above to make clear that all space in a given direction, regardless of distance, is included. "Capricorn" is as much an inch in front of your nose as it is 100,000 parsecs distant.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
""Movement of the constellations" is a strange phrase since (ignoring very tiny amounts of proper motion that amount to a few minutes of arc of many thousands of years), the constellations aren't moving. (Everything else is moving relative to the constellations.)"
Am I incorrect that the constellations are in different parts of our sky than they were when tropical astrology first came to be, thus the constellation Aries is not in the part of the sky we call Aries?"
Yes, you are incorrect. (See above.) It's the Tropical signs that are in a different part of the sky. Sidereal Pisces didn't move. Instead, Tropical Aries has been retrograding across it. Your last phrase should be written (for more clarity), "The Tropical sign Aries is no longer in the part of the sky we call Aries."
"Again, I'm saying that one (sidereal) posits that the effect of the planets in the part of the sky that lines up with the physical constellation is what counts,"
No. That is not what Sidereal astrology posits at all. (See above.)
I'm beginning to suspect that you haven't studied the basics of this. I suggest you go to <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.solunars.com">www.solunars.com</a><!-- w --> and click on the Essays heading. Read especially the first article, and preferably the second article.
"whereas the other (tropical) says that their effect comes from being in that part of the sky, not necessarily having anything to do with the physical constellations."
The Tropical theory is that they are a certain distance from the northern hemisphere's vernal equinoctial point. It's not clear whether this means "in [some] part of the sky" in the way you mean. You are correct that it is irrelevant to any constellations (by any definition of the word).
@Jim Eshelman said
"Of course not. But, unless you're living only in a fantasy world, premises should be conformed to measurable, demonstrable fact when such facts are available. If one is ignorant of the facts, one can, perhaps, be taught; but if one knows the facts and ignores them, then that's where ridicule rightly enters the picture."
Above, am I ignorant of the facts? I'd like to make sure I have the picture straight. I wouldn't want to be living in a fantasy world."
I've done my best 😉 Yes, you have some basic facts wrong (e.g., your concept of the Sidereal theory of the zodiac) and you appear totally ignorant of the enormous amount of research that has been done in the last 60 years. In brief, there is no reasonable doubt that (1) there is a characterologically and circumstantially relevant "twelving" of the zodiac into equal 30-degree zones, (2) the boundaries of these divisions fall where the Sidereal boundaries fall, and (3) the boundaries do NOT fall where the Tropical boundaries fall. Please see the articles referenced above.