PDA

View Full Version : I've just got one question...


Theo Neandonly
01-04-2014, 12:25 AM
Hi there!

I've never been the big math or science buff, but I'm a reasonably intelligent guy and can grasp concepts. So I'm wondering why there is any doubt as to when the Age of Aquarius begins. After all, we use an ephemeris that delineates a precise dividing line between one sign and the next in order to calculate a natal (or other) chart, right? Why does that same division not apply to the precession of the equinoxes?

dr. farr
01-04-2014, 03:28 AM
Right-and regarding the orb factor mentioned by Caprising, also, the exact boundaries of the zodiacal constellations, where their "borders" are, how extended these are vis-a-vis the fiducal star of that constellation, are a matter of considerable historical controversy among various groups-hence the varying estimated times for the beginning of the Aquarian age.

The OP might find the thread entitled "Aquarian Age", in the Other Astrology Forum (astrology in the Age of Aquarius), of some interest, particularly the discussions starting on page 2 of that thread.

AstroLogical
01-04-2014, 04:02 AM
I may be out of line here but as my deeply metaphysical grandfather used to explain about this transition.... "Like the change of the seasons it is a gradual process that may span a few generations... that in the case of Age changes is either slowed down or sped up by the shift in consciousness of the people living during the time period of the cusp."

I would add that if one is simply looking for some geometric/mathematical cusp, the debate can rage on. However, the shift in consciousness is the real measure of the transition. When does Summer become Fall? Yes, you can look to the Equinox but the temps may still be over 100˚ (at least in California ;-) So, I prefer to give it a wide birth and not be quite so concerned with a precise measurement. I realize this view may run up against the OCD nature of many Astrologers, yet when dealing with an aprox 2150 year period, what's a year here or there when the awakening of a "New Age" has more to do with the resistance by some or the welcoming by others of this significant transition. It becomes like watching your hair grow... it is happening but it's quite difficult to witness it in real time.

Likely I haven't been much help but I had to stir the colors a bit...

A*L

mdinaz
01-04-2014, 04:56 PM
As AstroLogical suggests, there is no clear boundary between the two ages. With all the turmoil in the world, especially in the Muslim world, I would suggest that the Age of Pisces is still in effect but in its death throes. It's like the 100-degree day in late September or a May snowstorm, as was suggested.

Theo Neandonly
01-05-2014, 11:33 PM
Well, I appreciate the responses; unfortunately, no one has yet addressed the actual question I asked. After re-reading it, I realize that perhaps I need to re-phrase it more precisely.

I'm looking for an answer from someone who completely understands the mathematical/geometrical process of casting a horoscope. What I want to know is, if we used the same method of calculation (tropical Zodiac) that we use to determine planetary positions in a horoscope, to determine the beginning of an Age, when would the Age of Aquarius begin? And if applying that method of calculation to the precession of the equinoxes is not possible, why?

JUPITERASC
01-05-2014, 11:52 PM
Well, I appreciate the responses; unfortunately, no one has yet addressed the actual question I asked. After re-reading it, I realize that perhaps I need to re-phrase it more precisely.

I'm looking for an answer from someone who completely understands the mathematical/geometrical process of casting a horoscope.

What I want to know is,
if we used the same method of calculation (tropical Zodiac)
that we use to determine planetary positions in a horoscope,
to determine the beginning of an Age,
when would the Age of Aquarius begin?

And if applying that method of calculation to the precession of the equinoxes is not possible,
why?
BECAUSE

Tropical Astrological charts ignore precession completely :smile:

brief illustrated visual explains the crucial difference between Tropical and Sidereal astrology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related

JUPITERASC
01-06-2014, 12:12 AM
By the way :smile:

QUOTE

'…...Because the vernal point perpetually rose exactly due East and set exactly due West in what the Greeks termed the eighth, or rotating, sphere, the ancients were convinced
and more so after the discovery of precession
- that the equinoctial and solstitial points were the only fixed points in the heavens,
and hence no zodiac could be valid unless riveted to one of them.

This conviction obtained until Copernicus, in the 17th Century devised the Copernican system
in contradistinction to the Ptolemaic system,
when he discovered that it was earth that orbited Sun,
not vice versa.....'


'….In consequence
it was the equinoctial and solsticial points that were precessing
- or rather regressing,
and not the fixed stars.

Hipparchus, when compiling his star catalogue
plotted the positions of the fixed stars
from the equinoctial and solstitial points for the year 139BC approximately,

and Posidonius apparently improved on this idea
by making the zodiac as a whole commence with the vernal point fixed in 0 degree Aries.....'


source: Dr. Robert Powell 2007 HISTORY OF THE ZODIAC
http://www.amazon.com/History-Zodiac-Robert-Powell/dp/1597311529



'….This then was the birth of the modern version of the Tropical zodiac.
Before Hipparchus's time it had no existence,
and it was entirely a Greek innovation,
based on Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.);
"...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox,
in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..."

mdinaz
01-06-2014, 12:17 AM
Nobody, whether astronomers or astrologers, agrees on the divisions of the constellations. According to various sources, the Age of Aquarius began anywhere from the 15th century or not until the 33rd century. Some astronomers stated officially the boundary should be in 2600 AD. I think most astrologers, based on current events, view the new age coming sometime in the next several hundred years or so. You are never going to get a precise answer like "January 1st, 2500".

JUPITERASC
01-06-2014, 01:13 AM
Incidentally, the following is loosely based on information sourced from
THE HISTORY OF THE ZODIAC by Dr Robert Powell :smile:

When Ptolemy wrote Tetrabiblos, the Vernal Point of the Tropical Zodiac coincided with the Sidereal Zodiac almost exactly
and so for Ptolemy and those of his approximate time,
for example, Hipparchus, Manilius Valens et al
the Tropical Zodiac was to all intents and purposes the same as the Sidereal Zodiac.

However, what was not known by Ptolemy is that the Vernal Point of the Tropical Zodiac is not a fixed point.
The Vernal Point of the Tropical Zodiac varies - due to precession, or regression.
AND
the so-called 'Tropical Aries Point' is simply symbolic
because the Sun, during the 21st Century
- and indeed for close to two thousand years since the time of Hipparchus et al -
has not risen at
and does not rise at 0°Aries
when the Sun crosses the Equator on the first day of Spring at the Vernal Equinox


Ptolemy also believed that the Sun orbits Earth
THE UNIVERSE OF ARISTOTLE AND PTOLEMY http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html
– it was not until Copernicus time (for the West in any event)
that it was realised that Earth in fact orbits Sun.


Ptolemy was unaware that in the future as hundreds
then thousands of years passed
due to precession/regression,
the Tropical Zodiac would gradually drift
away from the degree at which Ptolemy (Hipparchus, Manilius, Valens et al) perceived it to be
(i.e. to all intents and purposes in synch with the Sidereal Zodiac).


Hence sky watchers close to two thousand years AFTER Hipparchus, Ptolemy et al
would note that on the first day of Spring 2014
Using the Lahiri Ayanamsa
Our Sun crosses Earth's Equator on the Vernal Equinox at 5° Pisces 57'

This means that when we personally view the background of stars in the sky for ourselves
0° Aries Tropical (ie the Tropical Vernal point)
is no longer located in Aries at all,
but has by the year 2014 on 20 March drifted to 5° Sidereal Pisces 57'



Use of "The Galactic Ayanamsa"
and
The Reckoning of the Sidereal Zodiac

EQUINOX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox


FREE ONLINE AYANAMSA CALCULATOR http://www.chennaiiq.com/astrology/ayanamsa_calculator.asp?place=CHENNAI&dd=6&mm=1&yy=2014&hh=1&nn=54&tzh=5&tzm=30&tz=E&Submit=Calculate


The exact location of the sidereal cusps in the ecliptic is a topic of debate amongst scholars since star and planetary placement started to be measured from the moving vernal point.
The exact distance in arc degrees between 0° tropical Aries (the vernal point)
and 0° sidereal Aries must therefore be calculated.
This distance is called the "ayanamsa" (a Hindu word).
There are several ayanamsas in vogue today,
all varying slightly from one another.
Most ayanamsas are reckoned to the stars,
which also move although quite slowly relative to Earth time.
The most common is the Fagan-Bradley Ayanamsa.
It is reckoned to the star Spica in sidereal Virgo.

Theo Neandonly
01-06-2014, 02:22 AM
Wow! JUPITERASC, thank you for the YouTube link, I loved that video clip! Definitely learned a few things, and the visual presentation was good for someone like me, who's attuned more to imagery than to words or sounds. I won't even pretend that my brain could cumulatively hold and add up all the relevant factors to the Earth's position in space at any given moment, but I'm better informed than I was. (I'll watch it a few more times later, to try to imprint more of the info.)

mdinaz, it has nothing to do with the stars or the constellations we group them into. I know that the constellations haven't aligned with the zodiac as we calculate it for a long time now. It's our mathematical division into 30-degree arcs (signs) I'm interested in, not the constellations.

So, sadly... so sadly... I'm still not sure why it can't be done. Would the answer be "because we can't map the 30-degree divisions (along the ecliptic, I think?) to the band in which the zodiacal constellations appear (regardless of their position within it)" ?

I guess I'll have to spend the time to dig into this question and answer it myself. *Sigh*

dr. farr
01-06-2014, 02:58 AM
No, its because all matters pertaining to the astrological ages have always been based upon precession relative to the zodiacal constellations, and NEVER relative to the tropical signs. Now, I am a 100% tropicalist (ie I use the SIGNS rather than the sidereal zodiacal constellations) for all astrological applications-however, in the matter of the Ages, these have always been relative to the sidereal zodical constellations-hence the variable estimations regarding the beginning and ending of these astrological ages...

JUPITERASC
01-06-2014, 11:30 AM
Wow! JUPITERASC, thank you for the YouTube link, I loved that video clip! Definitely learned a few things, and the visual presentation was good for someone like me, who's attuned more to imagery than to words or sounds. I won't even pretend that my brain could cumulatively hold and add up all the relevant factors to the Earth's position in space at any given moment, but I'm better informed than I was. (I'll watch it a few more times later, to try to imprint more of the info.)

mdinaz, it has nothing to do with the stars or the constellations we group them into. I know that the constellations haven't aligned with the zodiac as we calculate it for a long time now. It's our mathematical division into 30-degree arcs (signs) I'm interested in, not the constellations.

So, sadly... so sadly... I'm still not sure why it can't be done. Would the answer be "because we can't map the 30-degree divisions (along the ecliptic, I think?) to the band in which the zodiacal constellations appear (regardless of their position within it)" ?

I guess I'll have to spend the time to dig into this question and answer it myself. *Sigh*
'…..The approximate 2,150 years for each age
corresponds to average time taken for the vernal equinox to move from one constellation into the next.
This can be computed by dividing earth's 25,800 year gyroscopic precession period by twelve
the number of Zodiac constellations used by astrologers.
Astrologers disagree on when Aquarian age will start
and even if it has already started.
According to different astrologers' calculations, approximated dates for entering Age of Aquarius range from 1447 AD (Terry MacKinnell) to 3597 (John Addey).

Nicholas Campion in The Book of World Horoscopes
lists various references from mainly astrological sources for the start of the Age of Aquarius.....'


'….Based on research by Nicholas Campion
most published material states Age of Aquarius arrived in 20th century (29 claims)
with 24th century in second place with twelve claimants.

Astrological ages exist because of precession of the equinoxes.
Slow wobble of earth's spin axis on the celestial sphere
is independent of diurnal rotation of Earth on own axis and annual revolution of the earth around the sun.
25,800-year-long cycle is traditionally calibrated for determining astrological ages
by the location of sun in one of twelve zodiac constellations at vernal equinox
which is moment sun rises above celestial equator
marking annual start of spring in Northern hemisphere....' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius

No, its because all matters pertaining to the astrological ages have always been based upon precession relative to the zodiacal constellations,
and NEVER relative to the tropical signs.
Now, I am a 100% tropicalist
(ie I use the SIGNS rather than the sidereal zodiacal constellations) for all astrological applications
-however, in the matter of the Ages, these have always been relative to the sidereal zodical constellations-
hence the variable estimations regarding the beginning and ending of these astrological ages...
Exactly :smile:

'…..Roughly every 2,150 years the sun's position at the the vernal equinox will have moved into a new zodiacal constellation.


However zodiacal constellations are not uniform in size,
leading some astrologers to believe that the corresponding ages should also vary in duration.
This however is a contentious issue amongst astrologers.

In 1929 the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations.

The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around 2600 AD.

Many astrologers dispute this approach
because of the varying sizes of the zodiacal constellations
and overlap between the zodiacal constellations.....'

Theo Neandonly
01-06-2014, 05:27 PM
Well, for me, "the proof is in the pudding", as they say. Since I know from long experience that the tropical division of Zodiac signs works, I think that's the underlying truth; the constellations initially gave these 30-degree zones their names, because they're what was positioned in each zone when astrology as we know it was formulated.

I think for the determining of the ages we'd have to go back to the beginning of astrology -- that time when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were aligned.

Still haven't gotten to look into this yet -- maybe today.

JUPITERASC
01-06-2014, 10:10 PM
Well, for me, "the proof is in the pudding", as they say.

Since I know from long experience that the tropical division of Zodiac signs works,
I think that's the underlying truth;

the constellations initially gave these 30-degree zones their names, because they're what was positioned in each zone when astrology as we know it was formulated.....
Obviously, BOTH Tropical AND Sidereal are working zodiacs... simply that each astrologer has their preferred method

SO

For some astrologers 'the proof of the pudding is Sidereal'
and
For some astrologers 'the proof of the pudding is Tropical'

That is not the issue

The issue is
that Tropical and Sidereal are two separate methods
each works in their own way

It's possible to use both Tropical and Sidereal
or neither Tropical NOR Sidereal
as for example in
Uranian Astrology
It's simply a matter of preference :smile:

Mathematically speaking then,
each 'Age' is approximately 2,150 years
so
2,150 multiplied by twelve = 25,800

therefore

Tropical and Sidereal 0° Aries align
approximately
every 26,000 years

and

When Ptolemy wrote Tetrabiblos, the Vernal Point of the Tropical Zodiac coincided with the Sidereal Zodiac almost exactly
and so for Ptolemy and those of his approximate time,
such as Hipparchus, Manilius Valens et al
the Tropical Zodiac was to all intents and purposes the same as the Sidereal Zodiac

HOWEVER

THE TIME OF PTOLEMY, VALENS, HIPPARCHUS, MANILIUS ET AL
WAS NOT
'THE BEGINNING OF ASTROLOGY'

I think for the determining of the ages we'd have to go back to the beginning of astrology --

that time when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were aligned.

Still haven't gotten to look into this yet -- maybe today.
Tropical and Sidereal then
were previously aligned
26.000 years BEFORE Ptolemy, Valens, Hipparchus, Manilius et al

dr. farr
01-07-2014, 03:39 AM
Tropical and Sidereal then
were previously aligned
26.000 years BEFORE Ptolemy, Valens, Hipparchus, Manilius et al



...during the time of the ante-diluvian civilization some of us refer to as "Atlantis"...