A Voyage of Discovery: Astrological Ages for the Tropical Zodiac

Monk

Monk

Premium Member
Hi David,


I have to check all known Eclipses with historical records, the earliest i can go is with a backward Julian Calendar to May 28th 585 BC, i have had to adjust this using Delta T, and still can not get a full eclipse, be wary of the rate of precession.
The Battle of the Eclipse link is below:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eclipse


Graph on private members download:-
 

Attachments

  • Picture 34 40% (2).png
    Picture 34 40% (2).png
    133.8 KB · Views: 21
D

david starling

Well-known member
Monk said:
Hi David,


I have to check all known Eclipses with historical records, the earliest i can go is with a backward Julian Calendar to May 28th 585 BC, i have had to adjust this using Delta T, and still can not get a full eclipse, be wary of the rate of precession.
The Battle of the Eclipse link is below:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eclipse


Graph on private members download:-
Click to expand...

I've seen a claim that the rate of precession has increased since ancient times. So, I'm not relying entirely on the current rate the further back I go. Slowing it down somewhat still fits the beginning of city-state civilization, the rise of Osirian worship in ancient Egypt, and the Hellenistic period from about 1400 B.C.E. to 400 A.D. I have the Mean setting for the beginning of the tropical Age of Capricorn at 405 A.D.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Monk, the Age ingresses don't require immediate events to mark them. The "Age" is an aggregate result of the effect of the Earth's wobble on everyone's Natal-chart at once, and it takes Natal-chart generations to make things happen, in correlation to the Age-sign and its rulership.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hi Monk :smile:

david starling said:
Fortunately,

the historical record is in good correlation
to the these tropical Ages,
Click to expand...
no kidding - Siriusly - there's no one agreed version of history :smile:
So question any of it
All historical documents are written by people
-fallible creatures, with individual perspectives and biases.
Also possible for somebody to write down something which is not accurate
simply through ignorance or error
for example, transposing two digits when writing down a year
or writing down the wrong year
because they’ve been given incorrect information
about when an event happened.
Documents may be written with what we’d regard as propaganda
or spin control in mind.
People are more likely to believe and repeat things they’ve heard
if they support what they already believe or would like to be true
or would like other people to believe.
A monk keeping a chronicle is more likely to record events he’s witnessed
if they imply good things about people sharing his theological positions
or bad things about people supporting positions he opposes.

Some documents contain at least some truths
So, we can trust some historical records.
But exactly what we can trust them about
is a very, very complicated question.

david starling said:
which rely on a zodiac set using the Equinoxes and Solstices, and a transiting "Age Window" constructed in accordance with the the 12 constructed 30 degree Signs, and transiting due to Precession of the Perihelion. The Age Window is centered on the center-line of Earth's elliptical orbit, with its leading point, "the Age-indicator", 15 degrees in advance of the Point of Perihelion. Currently, the True setting of the Age Window is extremely close to convergence with the tropical Sign Capricorn, so the Age-indicator is very close to tropical Aquarius for the year 2020. The first nutational ingress of the Age Window into tropical Aquarius will be in 2047, and the ingress that will signal the EFFECTIVE beginning of the Age of Aquarius will occur in 2149, which is when the steadily Direct-motion, Mean ingress into Aquarius will happen, based on a current precessional rate of 1.07 minutes of arc per year.

Incidentally, and without necessarily attaching any astrological meaning to it, Sirius happens to be at the other end of the Line of Apsides, close to the Point of Aphelion. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Point of Aphelion illustrated at https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1020228&postcount=1361
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
Hi Monk :smile:


no kidding - Siriusly - there's no one agreed version of history :smile:
So question any of it
All historical documents are written by people
-fallible creatures, with individual perspectives and biases.
Also possible for somebody to write down something which is not accurate
simply through ignorance or error
for example, transposing two digits when writing down a year
or writing down the wrong year
because they’ve been given incorrect information
about when an event happened.
Documents may be written with what we’d regard as propaganda
or spin control in mind.
People are more likely to believe and repeat things they’ve heard
if they support what they already believe or would like to be true
or would like other people to believe.
A monk keeping a chronicle is more likely to record events he’s witnessed
if they imply good things about people sharing his theological positions
or bad things about people supporting positions he opposes.

Some documents contain at least some truths
So, we can trust some historical records.
But exactly what we can trust them about
is a very, very complicated question.


Point of Aphelion illustrated at https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1020228&postcount=1361
Click to expand...

It's standard, Western, Northern hemispheric history. I cross-check from more than one source. Might not appeal to historical revisionists with an axe to grind. :biggrin:

J.A., your post is excellent, [IMO]
I've been extremely cautious about my sources, and am aware of different accounts about past cultures. You're right to warn about possible misinformation.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:

It's standard, Western, Northern hemispheric history.
I cross-check from more than one source.
Click to expand...
History is not only written by people
it is also written by the “winner” of a conflict.
And the history of people tends to be centered around conflicts :smile:
US history teaches about the patriotism of the colonists
against the big bad imperial British army.
The way the war is taught in Britain is very very different.
Winners or losers, there are multiple sides to every story
for example
"...In light of the U.N. language
even putting aside some of its looser constructions
it is impossible to know what transpired in the Americas
during the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries
and not conclude that it was genocide....."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
david starling said:
Might not appeal to historical revisionists with an axe to grind. :biggrin:
J.A., your post is excellent, [IMO]
I've been extremely cautious about my sources, and
am aware of different accounts about past cultures.
You're right to warn about possible misinformation.
Click to expand...
 
P

petosiris

Banned
JUPITERASC said:
History is not only written by people
it is also written by the “winner” of a conflict.
And the history of people tends to be centered around conflicts :smile:
US history teaches about the patriotism of the colonists
against the big bad imperial British army.
The way the war is taught in Britain is very very different.
Winners or losers, there are multiple sides to every story
for example
"...In light of the U.N. language
even putting aside some of its looser constructions
it is impossible to know what transpired in the Americas
during the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries
and not conclude that it was genocide....."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
Click to expand...

Interesting observation of historical bias, do you think it might also transpire in astrological history? :smile:
 
Monk

Monk

Premium Member
Hi Jup,
Hi David,


I would agree and concur, the error of precession isn't that large to effect an age of the Zodiac, i do think the Battle of the Eclipse was on the right date, although not a full eclipse, but if a dark cloud moved in front of the Sun it would seem very dark!


We all have different expertise, and i find your work on this fascinating, i find investigating ancient dates tedious regarding slight errors in precession.


There is so much i have to think of regarding ancient dates, the Thebes alignment of Sirius on sunset previous to 1st January 0045 BC was one of them.


However i'm 95% sure precession didn't effect the alignment, strangely if it did, the alignment would follow the Nile up to Aswan where Egyptian priests always looked for the heliacal rising of Sirius, or down the Nile towards Memphis, both of which doesn't change my hypothesis about the Plolemaic pharaoh Cleopatra.


Please continue, as i feel i deal with small margins of precession and you deal with larger margins regarding astrological ages.


On another thread when you are ready, i would love to hear your thoughts regarding Sirius that you mentioned earlier, regarding the ages.
oj5c2390c6.png

 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Between the two types of astrological Ages, tropical has the advantage of using astronomy for both the transiting Age-indicator AND the Sign locations. Practicing siderealists have about a 4 degree difference in Sign-placements, which affects the Age start-dates by as much as 300 years; and, tropical astrologers who co-opt the sidereal zodiac for Ages-only purposes add at another 300 years to the endless, opinion-based start-dates.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Between the two types of astrological Ages, tropical has the advantage of using astronomy for both the transiting Age-indicator AND the Sign locations. Practicing siderealists have about a 4 degree difference in Sign-placements, which affects the Age start-dates by as much as 300 years; and, tropical astrologers who co-opt the sidereal zodiac for Ages-only purposes add at another 300 years to the endless, opinion-based start-dates.
Click to expand...
petosiris said:
Interesting observation of historical bias, do you think
it might also transpire in astrological history? :smile:
Click to expand...
Indubitably - bias is ubiquitous :smile:
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Since what characterizes an astrological Age is the aggregate result of the effect it has in various ways in everyone's Natal-chart at once, for so many centuries, it behooves tropical astrologers to determine the Age-effect in tropical Charts.

It's patently obvious that the famous sidereal Ages can ONLY be determined in a sidereal Chart, NOT in a tropical one.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Since what characterizes an astrological Age is the aggregate result of the effect it has in various ways in everyone's Natal-chart at once, for so many centuries, it behooves tropical astrologers to determine the Age-effect in tropical Charts.

It's patently obvious that the famous sidereal Ages can ONLY be determined in a sidereal Chart, NOT in a tropical one.
Click to expand...

Behooves? ME? How exactly? :unsure:
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
A tropical Natal-chart can be ANTI the Age of Aquarius, and PRO the Age of Capricorn. I'm pro the Age of Sagittarius, which is the current background Age, and pro the Aquarian Age to come. Not too keen on the current foreground Age of Capricorn.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
Do astrological ages behoove traditional astrology? :unsure:
Click to expand...

Well, if you're a dyed-in-the-wool Trad, your expectations for the Aquarian Age will enhance the Traditionalistic doom and gloom factor.
Nothing to look forward to except more of the Greater Malefic's Age-rulership.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
There is one other possibility for a Traditionalistic astrologer regarding the rulership of the tropical Aquarian Age--Even though Saturn's rulership will continue on, following the Age of Capricorn, it may be a different version of Saturn, very similar in some ways to the Uranian rulership of Aquarius in Modernistic astrology. I've likened it to the ancient alchemical belief that the metal lead, associated with Saturn, can be changed into gold. THAT would be something to look forward to--Saturn as a Benefic, rather than Malefic.
Since the Signs impart qualities to the rulers, it just could be that Saturn's extremely long sojourn in Aquarius in place of Capricorn will cause a change for the better in how well we, as a species, are able to deal with Saturn's influence in our Charts.
 
Last edited:
Top