ive got a thoery, i will never be able to prove it, what if the stars in the sky are a map for our dna? when dna our first produced the magnetic/gravitatonal effects of the stars are something that our dna copies in a lose core way, our behaviours are decided for us when we are comcieved ,when our dna is first producd not when we are born, it all happens 9 months before we are born,so it dont matter what the stars are doing when we are born it happens when we are concieved and thats where we should really be looking. ? and the mad thing is science could probably prove this , if they reasearched it . imagine how if this thoery was true how it would change the way we live and engage in relationships , any mad scientists out there ??????
Very interesting thoughts indeed, and i like the idea that our biology is linked to the stars... but the whole nine months before things not working for me. It doesnt add up, as birth charts are such PRECISE things, and the system we have now works so PRECISELY also. Turning it all nne months backwards would make me, and every other human being, a completely different Sun, Moon (and other faster-moving personal planet) sign, and thus would actually, in effect, disprove astrology. It would show that actually we have been inaccurate and following the wrong leads for centuries, and this isnt true. I have during my studies, however, found links between the structure of dna and that of the heavens and also of time, but i believe our astrological system now is working and so this link is not directly transferable in the way you describe -Maximus
This isnt to say you are wrong, however. If you think about it, for you to be correct, we dont necessarily have to assme everything is nine months backwards. DNA could react to what WILL BE our birth time, and be produced in that fashion. This is, however, highly debatable, as this would suggest the actual knowledge of a foetus of the will-be location on Earth of its mother nine months ahead, and so puts free will into question
no it would not mean we are that wrong , gemini would still be gemini because wheather we measure it from the moment we are born or nine moths earlier the star postitions would be exactly consistant if you get what i mean .but maybe there would be the odd anomanly in the way the stars are lined up that would matter if we measured the sky when we are born to when we are concieved ,but the stars move in a pretty consistant way so it would only be the odd change here and there
we have only named things due to what we can see when we are born. and they are only names im a gemini not because of the name ,but because of the way i behave and think
I understand what youre saying, but theyd still be in a different part of the sky... And positions and their names are linked (i realise not exactly) to the constellations we see up there, and there is most definitely an outline of twins in our night sky...and those twins represent people who CURRENTLY have what we CURRENTLY call a "gemini" influence just perfectly... Im probably not making much sense:S I like your theories though. Il get back to you when more sensical
I think there is just a master plan that is unveiling itself. The stars and the planets correspnd to the plan. Everything is in equilibrium. At any one point in time whatever is happening in the universe and on Earth correspond. It is synchronicity. We and everything in the universe are one. When planets and signs move, so too do we and everything else. Everything affects everything else. Every action you make affects everything and being in the universe. Karma then kicks in. We are not seperate; we are one.
what about preemies ... babies who were 35 weeks in utero versus 9 months (40 weeks) ... their signs are based on their birthday, not conception. ?
Huh? Well yes...everyones is based on their birthday. The time a baby is "supposed" to be born is only a guess or a doctors idea. Im sure higher forces know differently
yes its all up for debate. its intresting to see if people that are quite early or late actually match their star signs or not. this would only affect poeple that would end up in a different sign if they went full term in thier pregenancy.to the one they were born in. it would eradicate my thoery or open it even further has anyone even examined this ???
if it matters so precisely as to the place you were born & the time i.e. in minutes ... then yes, it would matter if you were a full term baby or preemie or whatever. apparently (but I know little about astrology) it is where everything is in the sky at the moment you took your first breath. if it were the moment of conception, then the whole system would be different. two babies born at the same time in the same hospital have the same sun signs, moon signs, etc. but it is extremely likely that they were not conceived at the same moment nor the same place. maybe time to rethink?
Actually even in the same hospital there are seldom two babies born at the same time - even twins are separated by a few minutes usually. It can take as little as a minute or two to have different houses and ascendants, and that makes all the difference. So really you would have to have two babies literally born at the same time.
grateful kev ... you are not alone. many people have similar ideas, even if not the identical one. as we expand and center less around our solar system and more around the galactic center and begin to take into account the other stars of our galaxy ... like the golden spiral, we will soon be able to see those types of patterns more and more and more. the work of bernandette brady may interest you ... as well as jeffrey green. and i think its hard to say how dna is being formed at this time of transition ... as we are moving from the physical form of the dna for the 'homo sapien' to that of the "homo sapien sapien" ... which some people postulate will have 26 strands rather than the 2 ... perhaps our movement out of duality ... one can hope. there are several philosophies as to the astrology pre-birth, but it is the first drawn breath that is the usual link to this human existence where we attach the astrological chart. definitely the transits prior to birth can tell a story of the energies as they influenced the development, just as the transits after tell the story of the post-birth development.
actually, western tropical astrology that's is not true. the chart reflects a calculation of the planets based on a time-stamp that was locked by ptolemy in the first millenia ... the gregorian calendar (the one we currently use) is also attached to that calculation. you would want to use a sidereal chart or a visual astrology chart to see the planets as they really were if you were to go outside when the child was born and look up at the sky. presently western tropical astrology signs are nearly one sign off ... for instance, my daughter on christmas 1999, according to western tropical zodiac, her sun is in capricorn. but on that day, if i was to look out at the sun, i would have seen sagittarius behind the sun, NOT capricorn. its a piece of the puzzle relating to control of the masses, time and power of the earth, that as we become more conscious about our true realities it will help us understand our true destinies. i write a lot about this on my blog if you have more questions about this ... http://businessvoodoo.blogspot.com.
oh. sorry. I literally know my sun sign, moon sign & rising sign & that's about it, so I defer to everyone else on this board. please take what I say from that limited amt. of knowledge about the topic. I'll go look at your blogspot. I enjoy your posts, as well as the others here. Mostly it sounds like chinese to me and I do not know any chinese ...
Actually this isn't literally true, although "conventional" wisdom says otherwise. In both Tropical and Sidereal astrology, the zodiac and signs are divided by a neat 30 degrees. In reality the signs are not this neat. Some signs overlap others, some are more than 30 degrees and some are less than 30 degrees. In addition, neither sidereal or tropical show the real times that the planets are in the constellations. I have a table somewhere, but the one I remember, is Scorpio only has the Sun in it for about a week. I can dig up the table in a bit. Sideral's dates are based on the time way back when, when the Sun was 0 degrees Aries and kept that point fixed so that as the procession of teh equinoxes did its thing the signs shifted. Tropical just resets the 0 degree mark every year. In the end it comes down to where you want to start. Vedic astrology requires sidereal, but western doesn't, and I haven't found any true benefit to sidereal, and since all of my information is in tropical I'm just sticking to that. As far as time calculations, until the 1800s or 1700s, astrology used a 12am-12pm = day, and 12pm-12am = nights. New years was spring sometime. The dates were different. I know in my 17th century Lilly book, the dates in his example charts have to be modernized for our system. Regardless, as long as you can figure out what actual time they are actually talking about, it doesn't matter what date it says. Bottom line is if a birth happens now, then what will I call that time? If we agree what that time is, we can all it 55 o'clock on the 67th of Bunny. One other thing, the sideral/tropical debate has been going on forever. Ptolemy in the 2nd Century even talked about it and dismissed sidereal for the same reasons I am.
Never apologize for lack of knowledge. We have all been where you are, and some day you may be the best astrologer who ever lived. If anyone attacks you, then that is the clue that that particular person is trying to cover up their own lack of knowledge.
The chart is a psychological profile; a blueprint of the persona the being decided to explore this life. Each one of the planets is a psychological archetype - we each dramatize them in our own unique ways; i.e. the natal chart. So I don't believe casting a chart for the meat minus the being is of any value.
