PDA

View Full Version : wondering about galactic center


prudence
04-09-2006, 05:06
Hi,

after reading a post by paradoxx mentioning black holes, I went looking for info about them....long story short, I came across a lot of info about the galactic center, which is at 26' 55" SAG, according to many of the sites I visited.

I am wondering if anyone here uses the galactic center when reading charts for people. I have read that since Dec. of this year, Pluto has been "passing across" this point ( sorry if I am using incorrect terminology here), and is causing some major changes/disruptions. I have been looking at my husband's natal chart for a while, and notice that his MC is at 26 degrees Cancer, and this year has seen some major changes/disruptions in regards to his career. (saturn in his 5th house trines his MC at 23 degrees Pisces, which also seems important in relation to this upheaval)

I have also seen many mentions of Pluto's status as a planet having a lot to do with it's nearness to and transit through the galactic center.

I welcome your thoughts on this subject, thanks.

http://www.horary.com/hhcrl/galact.html

stardancer
06-09-2006, 16:38
I've seen the GC, but I've never used it. Someone would need to study it further in order for me to consider it. As it stands now, there a lots of points already to use and I'm pretty set on using the old standards (and the three new/old standards, too). :D

Btw, that article said this... "Astronomers paid little attention to the discovery, but to the astrology of consciousness, this discovery should rank right up there with the discovery of Pluto in 1930."

I was LingOL. Not a very auspicious remark, oh well. I still use Pluto, though. ;)

star-lover
06-09-2006, 17:02
so what exactly is the gc supposed to represent in a birth chart? where the centre of our lives really resides?


the gc point falls right on my jupiter in 26 sagitarius in the 4th house
so I'm interested lol

Phoenix Rising
06-09-2006, 17:07
This is a great question Prudence...I too would be most interested to know. I always thought the Galactic centre, was where our universe and stars, planets were birthed from. And it is interesting that Pluto has some connection with it..I wonder why then, astronomers have decided to downgrade it? Something fishy going on there if you ask me.

prudence
07-09-2006, 00:26
http://www.horary.com/hhcrl/galact.html

Here is another link, in this one, Pluto's discovery and recent "demotion" are discussed.

I have googled "GC natal charts" and many variations on that theme, and have come across lots of ideas, but am not sure what it exactly means in one's birthchart. Maybe it really has no impact at all or one that is very minimal. Right now, the main theme seems to be transformation and upheaval. Those sites where it is being discussed do make it seem like an awfully big deal. I have also had a look at a few "famous" charts, to see what relation there may be to the GC...and any who may be going through a period of upheaval, someone like Tom Cruise may be an interesting chart.

Star-lover, I would have to think this is a major transit for you, having your jup right at 26 Sag like that, are there any aspects to your Jup?....I'd be open to just looking at any or all of our charts here, to see if we can see what's emerging as a pattern or whatever.

I will try to find and post some more useful links in the meantime. Thanks for replying, stardancer, star-lover, and Phoenix Rising. :)

http://taratarotweb.tripod.com/id26.html

~this link talks about the spiritual aspects of this occurence, and quotes Alex Miller-Mignone's book, The Black Hole Book, and some of the ideas presented in it. ( I am hoping to order the book from him, and am awaiting a reply)

Ross G Caldwell
12-09-2006, 17:44
I think if you're going to use purely astronomical discoveries like the Galactic Center, you have to be at least a sidereal astrologer.

Pluto is emphatically NOT currently transiting the GC. Pluto is actually 29 degrees Scorpio, almost 25 deg away from the GC in Sagittarius.

The question is, is there a "Tropical" GC? I think that is absurd.

The GC is something physically real, it is not the same thing as the Tropical Zodiac. I.e. the GC is in the real constellation of Sagittarius, not the Tropical sign of Sagittarius. So while Pluto might be in the Tropical Sagittarius, it is not transiting the real GC.

BTW, there are traditions about the Milky Way, which say that the soul enters by one sign (Gemini I believe) and exits by another (Sagittarius?), so this might be a way to think about the use of the galaxy in a chart. These traditions come from a time long before the telescope was invented, and before people knew there were other galaxies and a much bigger Universe.

rainwolf
12-09-2006, 18:04
I've always liked astronomy, but black holes have always fascinated me the most. With a diameter as that web page suggests, it is theoretically possible to venture into that black hole, even though it would take forever for the person to cross the event horizon, from the perspective of someone far away.

The author of that page mentioned some interesting things:
Solar arcs and transits to this spot in every chart bring up travel, educational, spiritual and philosophical themes in client discussions. One of the most devastating times for a client has been Solar Arc Pluto square the natal GC. A profound crises of faith and belief occurs almost every time.

Another very curious impact of personal planets in aspect to the GC is the "other worldly" psychological impact these aspects seem to create. Some clients with aspects to the GC speak of not feeling 100 percent human, or not feeling they have had human ancestory.

leephd
12-09-2006, 23:22
Ok. Here's the question. Yes, I would agree with posters who say that something like the galactic center should only be considered siderial to siderial. Of course, that's easy enough, as it's just a quick change in reference.

There has developed one group of astrologers who are calling themselves shamanistic who have gotten very interested in this - along with declination cycles, among other things. It's actually a very curious case of jumping over the whole astrological corpus and trying to envision how paleolithic peoples saw the sky. But no question: they didn't see the galactic center.

This group is claiming that 2006 is going to be a very pivotal year, because of the line-up of some of these declination cycles, with the transit of Pluto at the GC. The problem with all this is that (1) we don't actually know what these ancient peoples THOUGHT the interpretation of the declination cycles was, only that they appea to have been aware of them; and (2) we don't have any other historical data for past astrological events of this nature, and hence, what they might mean.

I think this is a really important caution: you cannot simply assume that you have a clue about what a configuraton means when you don't have the benefit of past observations.

prudence
13-09-2006, 01:14
Thanks Ross, rainwolf, and leephd, for explaining it a bit more....so, in asking this question, I am mixing up sidereal and tropical approaches? So, if one were to use blackholes in natal chart interps, they would need to have the chart in sidereal "format" (sorry if that is the incorrect phrase) in order to use blackholes? i.e. Alex Miller Mignone uses sidereal?

(very grateful, but still a little confused :)) [and by "little" I of course mean "enourmously"] :D

Ross G Caldwell
13-09-2006, 01:48
Hi Prudence,

Thanks Ross, rainwolf, and leephd, for explaining it a bit more....so, in asking this question, I am mixing up sidereal and tropical approaches? So, if one were to use blackholes in natal chart interps, they would need to have the chart in sidereal "format" (sorry if that is the incorrect phrase) in order to use blackholes? i.e. Alex Miller Mignone uses sidereal?


Sidereal means a few different things to astrologers, depending on their school, but they all have in common that the chart has taken into account precession, which refers to a wobble in the Earth's rotation that makes the Vernal Equinox point (and the whole ecliptic and starry sky with it) go "backwards" over a period of about 26,000 years.

The essential effect of taking a sidereal approach is, that "what you see is what you get" - if you went out and looked at the sky, the planet really is "in" the Zodiacal constellation corresponding to the Zodiac sign it is named for.

My own "system" (hardly more than a framework at this point) is only mine - I haven't studied any schools of sidereal astrology. I see astrology as "real" - real physical forces, some very strong (like the Sun and Moon) but most very subtle but persistent. All of these forces act to create a complex web of energy that affects everything in the solar system, including Earth and everything on it, to a greater or lesser degree. When we are born (which I define astrologically for a person as the first unaided breath, or for ideas and organizations the moment of the creation of that idea in the minds of the people making it) the character of that moment is "imprinted" in us. The quality of that energy should be modifed by various other more immediate forces of the same character, such as strong electricity (at least, that's what I would expect - I would love to study people born close to electrical generators or during thunderstorms, and perhaps those born close to the Earth's magnetic poles).

For me, the Zodiac constellations, for which the signs were named, are convenient ancient fictions that cannot possibly exert any force. The signs are essentially descriptions of Earth energy at the time the Zodiac was fixed - around 2000 years ago. This is the reason that the Tropical zodiac Sun-signs still seem so appropriate, at least in the northern hemisphere, even though the constellations they referred to all that time ago have precessed almost a complete sign. I.e. Leos still exhibit classical Leo traits, even though most of them are born with the Sun in sidereal Cancer. The answer is that the Earth season is still the same, and imprints its qualities the same way no matter where the Vernal Equinox point is.

This only works for the Sun sign of course, since it is the Sun which determines the seasons. The other planets, for me, are independent of the signs or constellations, and only their aspects should be considered.

For things like the galactic center, I can't see how one can make a tropical use of it, without believing that the Zodiac constellation is actually one of the real actors in the chart - which I don't think tropicalists believe.

That is, the galactic center is a real energy source in a real constellation, not in the fictional tropical zodiac - in my humble opinion. Sagittarius the constellation (sidereal) cannot give this reality to Sagittarius the sign (tropical) as it precesses. There is not a "virtual" galactic center that makes the rounds once every 26,000 years. That is, in my opinion, because the signs refer to earthly seasons, and can be held not to precess, but the galactic center, since it exerts a real force, cannot. The galactic center really precesses with the constellation Sagittarius, and exerts its force from there.

Thus while Pluto is in the tropical Sagittarius, it is not in the real Sagittarius, and is not therefore transiting the GC. Whatever force Pluto might be exerting, and whatever force the GC is exerting, are not in conjunction at this moment.

See - it is much easier to be a siderealist! ;)

Ross G Caldwell
13-09-2006, 02:25
Thanks Ross, rainwolf, and leephd, for explaining it a bit more....so, in asking this question, I am mixing up sidereal and tropical approaches? So, if one were to use blackholes in natal chart interps, they would need to have the chart in sidereal "format" (sorry if that is the incorrect phrase) in order to use blackholes? i.e. Alex Miller Mignone uses sidereal?


I don't know about black holes... I suppose, by my theory, the only one that would matter would be the one at the center of our galaxy.

I should say that I remain open minded about some aspects of signs, taken sidereally as equal to the constellations. Particularly the activity in Sagittarius and Scorpio - one time I made an off hand prediction about something because something was going on in Scorpio (I believe) - and it came true shortly thereafter! Sorry I can't remember what it was, but it shook me. I remember only that it was a national or world event, not a personal one.

It could be that the energy of the galactic center, and the fact that the ecliptic crosses the galactic equator near there, makes these two constellations actually "live", while a constellation like Virgo I would tend to consider "inactive" or merely a fiction. If the crossing of the ecliptic with the galactic equator is an important point of energy, then the other crossing point in Gemini would also be important to consider. Perhaps they might be compared to the Moon's nodes, where it the Moon crosses "over" or "under" the plane of the ecliptic.

rainwolf
13-09-2006, 06:16
Well with procession correction, where is the GC? I'm guessing the author of the referred webpage used tropical, but if it is recent couldn't we use a tropical zodiac?

prudence
14-09-2006, 23:06
Hi Prudence,



Sidereal means a few different things to astrologers, depending on their school, but they all have in common that the chart has taken into account precession, which refers to a wobble in the Earth's rotation that makes the Vernal Equinox point (and the whole ecliptic and starry sky with it) go "backwards" over a period of about 26,000 years.

The essential effect of taking a sidereal approach is, that "what you see is what you get" - if you went out and looked at the sky, the planet really is "in" the Zodiacal constellation corresponding to the Zodiac sign it is named for.

My own "system" (hardly more than a framework at this point) is only mine - I haven't studied any schools of sidereal astrology. I see astrology as "real" - real physical forces, some very strong (like the Sun and Moon) but most very subtle but persistent. All of these forces act to create a complex web of energy that affects everything in the solar system, including Earth and everything on it, to a greater or lesser degree. When we are born (which I define astrologically for a person as the first unaided breath, or for ideas and organizations the moment of the creation of that idea in the minds of the people making it) the character of that moment is "imprinted" in us. The quality of that energy should be modifed by various other more immediate forces of the same character, such as strong electricity (at least, that's what I would expect - I would love to study people born close to electrical generators or during thunderstorms, and perhaps those born close to the Earth's magnetic poles).

For me, the Zodiac constellations, for which the signs were named, are convenient ancient fictions that cannot possibly exert any force. The signs are essentially descriptions of Earth energy at the time the Zodiac was fixed - around 2000 years ago. This is the reason that the Tropical zodiac Sun-signs still seem so appropriate, at least in the northern hemisphere, even though the constellations they referred to all that time ago have precessed almost a complete sign. I.e. Leos still exhibit classical Leo traits, even though most of them are born with the Sun in sidereal Cancer. The answer is that the Earth season is still the same, and imprints its qualities the same way no matter where the Vernal Equinox point is.

This only works for the Sun sign of course, since it is the Sun which determines the seasons. The other planets, for me, are independent of the signs or constellations, and only their aspects should be considered.

For things like the galactic center, I can't see how one can make a tropical use of it, without believing that the Zodiac constellation is actually one of the real actors in the chart - which I don't think tropicalists believe.

That is, the galactic center is a real energy source in a real constellation, not in the fictional tropical zodiac - in my humble opinion. Sagittarius the constellation (sidereal) cannot give this reality to Sagittarius the sign (tropical) as it precesses. There is not a "virtual" galactic center that makes the rounds once every 26,000 years. That is, in my opinion, because the signs refer to earthly seasons, and can be held not to precess, but the galactic center, since it exerts a real force, cannot. The galactic center really precesses with the constellation Sagittarius, and exerts its force from there.

Thus while Pluto is in the tropical Sagittarius, it is not in the real Sagittarius, and is not therefore transiting the GC. Whatever force Pluto might be exerting, and whatever force the GC is exerting, are not in conjunction at this moment.

See - it is much easier to be a siderealist! ;)Thanks for this, Ross! but...I think I got a little lost. (after "hi prudence or thereabouts :))

It is okay though, you do not need to try to re-explain this, I will figure it out sooner or later.

This is what I (thiink) I understand; sidereal approach cannot be used with GC, and if one uses a sidereal approach, the signs are shifted over one ie, my pisces sun would be a sidereal aquarius. One thing I am wondering, does the rest of one's natal chart also shift, ie natal moon at leo would now be cancer?

So, the transit that is happening now is mainly a Pluto transit(as far as a tropical approach is concerned), and I should just ignore the GC as far as this transit is concerned.

Well, thank you all for your very helpful replies. I do appreciate it even if I do not fully "get" it. ;)

Ross G Caldwell
15-09-2006, 01:02
Thanks for this, Ross! but...I think I got a little lost. (after "hi prudence or thereabouts :))

LOL - I know it can be hard. Some people easily think geometrically and in 3 dimensions, with everything moving around in their heads, while others simply cannot. Diagrams are very useful! Sometimes better explanations are as well...


This is what I (thiink) I understand; sidereal approach cannot be used with GC,

I actually think it is the opposite - the real power of the GC really resides in the constellation Sagittarius, so whatever the nature of its force, and whatever planet is really there, are better understood sidereally than tropically.


and if one uses a sidereal approach, the signs are shifted over one ie, my pisces sun would be a sidereal aquarius.

Not exactly.

The effect of precession (the Earth's clockwise wobble (seen from north)) makes any point in the signs move backwards at a rate of about 1 degree every 72 years. So right now, the Vernal Equinox point, which astrologers define as 0 degrees Aries, is at about 5 degrees Pisces. So 25 degrees of tropical Aries is sidereal Pisces. Thus not *every* tropical Aries is a Pisces; those born from around 16-21 April would still be Aries, both tropically and sidereally.

(if you picture the Earth's orbit around the Sun as an ellipse (not exactly a circle, more like a capital "O", then draw a cross in it "+" so that it fits, then the Equinox points are where the horizontal beam meets the narrower part of the orbit, and the Solstice points are where the vertical beam meets the longer part of the O. The Vernal or Spring Equinox is the precise point in the Earth's orbit when the Sun is at 0 degrees, whether you call it Aries or just 0 degrees of a 360 degree circle.)

This is incidentally why everyone is making a fuss about the "Age of Aquarius". The Vernal Equinox point is only about 5 degrees from entering the sign of Aquarius, so will be there in about 360 years.

One thing I am wondering, does the rest of one's natal chart also shift, ie natal moon at leo would now be cancer?

Yes - with the above proviso in mind, depending on whether your Moon is in the last 5 degrees of Leo or not. What you essentially do to get your sidereal chart is turn the zodiac dial counterclockwise about 25 degrees (roughly), while leaving everything else in the chart untouched (planets, horizon, MC).


So, the transit that is happening now is mainly a Pluto transit(as far as a tropical approach is concerned), and I should just ignore the GC as far as this transit is concerned.

Well, I *personally* would ignore it, since I don't believe in the theory behind it and haven't seen any tropical GC effect demonstrated. But you might get something from it from an astrologer who believed in it.


Well, thank you all for your very helpful replies. I do appreciate it even if I do not fully "get" it. ;)

You're welcome. I wish I had fancy diagrams to illustrate it all more clearly.