Astrology Is Not Astronomy
Someone recently asked me if I knew how inaccurate astrology was. She asserted that the planets had changed their orbits and that therefore astrology must be wrong.
This was a bit of an ironic assertion in that the planets have not significantly changed their orbits. So she was claiming that astrology was inaccurate based on her own inaccurate understanding of astronomy.
But let’s straighten this out. What has changed is the apparent position of the constellations of the zodiac as seen from the earth at any given time of the year. The constellations themselves haven’t changed. What’s actually changed is the earth’s axis of rotation. It wobbles. This causes very slow but cumulative changes in the backdrop of stars that can be seen from the earth at a given time, such as at an equinox.
Put bluntly and perhaps simplistically, if you were to stand in the same place at the spring equinox every year for approximately 25,765 years and note the backdrop of the constellations every single year during that time period–it would look as though the constellations moved backward, little by little, until they returned to the place they started. After a couple of thousand years, give or take, the Pisces constellation would appear to be where Aries was when you started. Then Aquarius would appear to be there. Then Capricorn. And so on.
Astrologers are not unaware of this. That’s why you’ll hear talk of things like the ‘Age of Aquarius.’ The Age of Aquarius is intended to designate the time period when the Aquarius constellation appears where the Aries constellation appeared in antiquity.
But this discussion masks a more profound misunderstanding about astrology that creeps into the thoughts of people who don’t know very much about astrology and even some who do. So I’ll say this flatly: astrology is not astronomy.
There are all kinds of understandable reasons why people might get the impression that it is: but it isn’t. Sometimes it amazes me how supposedly educated people can question astrology on this basis. There’s a relatively famous list of “embarrassing” questions posed to astrologers by astronomer Andrew Fraknoi. According to a website bio, Fraknoi was educated at Harvard and UC Berkeley, although he apparently does not have a doctorate, as he is not referred to as ‘Dr.’ Fraknoi. Still, Harvard and Berkeley are prestigious educational institutions, so presumably Fraknoi is educated enough to know that the basic terminology of astrology is physically incorrect.
The sun is never ‘in’ Sagittarius. Sagittarius is the name given to a group of stars that are a long way away. The sun can never get anywhere near these stars in a physical sense. If there was something magical in the space between these stars, the sun would never get close enough to find out about it. No planet is ever ‘in’ a constellation; the planet remains right where it’s always been–in the solar system.
To move astrology even further from astronomy, the constellations are ragged, messy affairs. Their beginnings and endings are a tad ambiguous. The astrological signs, however, are neat little 30 degree wedges. To some extent, it is fair to say the signs are arbitrary little wedges of space. They are named after constellations, but do not in any accurate way reflect the actual makeup of the stars in the ecliptic (the band in the sky across which the planets seem to travel).
Maybe astronomers forget that astrology doesn’t even make a pretense of astronomical accuracy because they tend to use the same misleading terminology–advising skywatchers, for example, that Venus is ‘in’ Capricorn, even though it’s ‘in’ the solar system and only appears against a backdrop given the standardized name the constellation of Capricorn.
If astrologers were use to precise terminology, they would say something more tedious than they usually do. Something like: “During this period, Jupiter, as plotted against a schematic and standardized map of the ecliptic, will be appearing within the 30 degree range of that map traditionally designated by astrologers as the sign of Aries.” Astrologically, it doesn’t matter what actual star names appear behind Jupiter when you look at the night sky. Aries is a name given, by tradition, to a designated piece of a map used in an ancient tradition known as Western astrology. The apparent position of the constellations has moved over the last few thousand years–the signs haven’t.
This is astrology’s right. There is no law that says the signs have to correspond with the constellations or with anything else in astronomy for that matter. Because astrology is not astronomy.
If astronomers, skeptics, or even believers think that astrology derives its basis from ‘magic rays’ emanating from the constellations, the planets, or anything else in the sky, then I suppose this is alarming and confusing information. I suppose such a person could think “you astrologers said the magic rays were coming from the constellation Pisces and beaming on to the planet Venus because the magic Pisces rays hit Venus when it looks like Venus is ‘in’ the constellation of Pisces, but actually Venus is ‘in’ the constellation of Capricorn, so isn’t it getting magic rays from the stars in the constellation Capricorn now? Oh my god.”
A part of me thinks that the above reasoning is slightly insane, but it does appear to be what many skeptics think astrology is all about. Magic rays. For the record, there are no known magic rays coming from any celestial body. No magic rays.
Instead, it appears that the approximate (repeat: approximate) apparent orbital periods of the various solar system planets and the apparent motion of the sun and moon, as well as some other non-planetary bodies and even imaginary points provide a very handy timing device for measuring the duration of various cycles in human affairs. No one really knows why, but a number of cultures have figured this out. The ‘stars’ or objects in the sky follow a predictable and regular mathematical pattern. This makes it very easy for human beings to note events against a standardized system of measuring time.
Different cultures (e.g., Mayan, Inca, Egyptian, Hindu, Chinese) use somewhat different cycles and measure somewhat different types of events. But all cultures with an astrological system simply figured out that the the predictable nature of celestial events allowed for standardized record-keeping in terms of cycles. It’s the standardization of measurement that underlies the ‘magic’ of astrology rather than any mystical ‘rays.’
There probably is some deep-rooted reason why the cycles of human affairs seem to approximately mimic the cycles of natural affairs, such as the apparent movement of bodies and mathematical points in the sky. Perhaps there is an element of magic or more precisely of wonder inherent in contemplating such relationships. I personally find it more accurate and more fulfilling to put the question of how such relationships can be apparent in the category of ‘unknown but beautiful to behold’ rather than ‘scientifically impossible’ or ‘scientifically plausible.’
But you can put the idea in whatever category you want as far as I’m concerned. As long as you remember that astrology is not astronomy and that I already know that.
I’ve also started a weekly
