Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?

david starling

Well-known member
The well-known and much talked and argued about Aquarian Age is entirely sidereal. That means, it doesn't have any application to the tropical zodiac most of us here, in this Community (including myself) are using.
But, the 2 zodiacs aren't really that different--they're measured in the same plane, both with 12 equally measured Signs, with the Earth in the center of the zodiacal circle. The placements of the Signs are out of alignment, but they have the same names and meanings. Aspects remain the same when moving from one type of zodiac to the other, in the geometrical sense. Only one thing the sidereal zodiac is telling us about that the tropical zodiac is not being used for: What's the Age-sign, and what degree is it in?
So, this question is: Hypothetically, should we be ABLE to find a way to determine the astrological Ages in a purely tropical manner? I see no reason to dismiss the possibility, as countless others have done in past, are continuing to do today. Any ideas on the answer?
 

Opal

Premium Member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

The well-known and much talked and argued about Aquarian Age is entirely sidereal. That means, it doesn't have any application to the tropical zodiac most of us here, in this Community (including myself) are using.

But, the 2 zodiacs aren't really that different--they're measured in the same plane, both with 12 equally measured Signs, with the Earth in the center of the zodiacal circle. The placements of the Signs are out of alignment, but they have the same names and meanings. Aspects remain the same when moving from one type of zodiac to the other, in the geometrical sense. Only one thing the sidereal zodiac is telling us about that the tropical zodiac is not being used for: What's the Age-sign, and what degree is it in?
So, this question is: Hypothetically, should we be ABLE to find a way to determine the astrological Ages in a purely tropical manner? I see no reason to dismiss the possibility, as countless others have done in past, are continuing to do today. Any ideas on the answer?

I am of the belief that if there is an Age system at all, and there is, then there is another set beyond that, and perhaps beyond that, and perhaps beyond that, that would keep reversing the polarities of the Zodiac with each beyond that.

But that is not what you are discussing. You are discussing a tropical set of ages. If we can use tropical we should be able to discern the ages tropically. But we are having issues just trying to discern the sidereal ages with the numbers that were gifted us.

What numbers would we use? The gifted ones? Or?
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

I am of the belief that if there is an Age system at all, and there is, then there is another set beyond that, and perhaps beyond that, and perhaps beyond that, that would keep reversing the polarities of the Zodiac with each beyond that.

But that is not what you are discussing. You are discussing a tropical set of ages. If we can use tropical we should be able to discern the ages tropically. But we are having issues just trying to discern the sidereal ages with the numbers that were gifted us.

What numbers would we use? The gifted ones? Or?

The astronomy just isn't in tune with the whole-number patterns you love. It's messy, and it varies when it comes to precession. Even the constellations are unequal in length, and we have to impose order on them by enclosing them within the self-constructed 12-spoke wheel of the zodiac.
Which are the gifted numbers? The #9 would be one for sure.
One thing that occurs to me is, the numbers you speak of are base-ten. Is the #10 a gifted number? Then, there's the concept of the 7 Heavens. What about #7?
 

Opal

Premium Member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Hi David,

5 -- 6 -- 12 -- 30 -- 72 -- 360 -- 2,160 -- 25,920

The numbers that have been passed down through the ages. The numbers that are called the numbers of precession. All numbers are sacred, but with these I find the largest commonality to be 9. As you know, with me it is about how to use them. If they work tropically it would be interesting.
For me, it is, how to use the numbers, whether it be sidereal or tropical or ? It is how do they work, for they would not be passed on through the ages, if they did not work.
Whenever I see the number 7 I think of the planets. The days of the week, which are represented by name of the 5 planets, sun and moon.
Talk to you later, I am tired.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Well, the number 360 is a good example of how imperfect the astronomy is when it comes to even numbers. There SHOULD be exactly 360 days in a year--that would be perfect, instead of 365.24.
Then, there's Pi, the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a perfect circle. It's irrational and never ending, which is a pretty good description of the Universe we live in.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Well, the number 360 is a good example

of how imperfect the astronomy is when it comes to even numbers.
There SHOULD be exactly 360 days in a year
--that would be perfect, instead of 365.24.
Rotational periods of the Earth all increasing by 0.002 seconds/day/century
Relative to fixed stars = 23 hr 56m 4.099s
Mean sidereal day relative to Vernal Equinox = 23hr 56m 4.091s
Mean solar day relative to Sun, average over a year = 24hr 00m 0.000s in 1900

Orbital periods of the Earth
Sidereal year Relative to fixed stars = 365.256363 Mean solar days
Tropical year Relative to Vernal Equinox = 365.242190 days :smile:
= 365d 05h 48m 45.2s = 31,556,925.2s
Anomalistic year Relative to perihelion = 365.259635 days
Eclipse year Relative to Moon's ascending node = 346.620075 days in 1999 +0.000001 days/year

Then, there's Pi, the ratio
between the diameter and circumference of a perfect circle.
It's irrational and never ending, which is a pretty good description
of the Universe we live in.
in fact, that's simply a mathematical description
based on current methods of computation
 

Opal

Premium Member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Thank you both! You both made me click!

What if it has nothing to do with the cycle of the year? 360 degrees is the circle. What if the number should be used in a mathematical way concerning the earth, but then we are back to the earth is not a perfect circle either.

I guess I am becoming more obsessed with the workings of the key of mysteries because with it, no numbers would be required. Just build a key with heel stones and wait for winter solstice.

But then, I do agree with a set of precessional ages beyond the ones we are seeking as well, that’s polarity would reverse, as David says, as a battery would with alternating current.

And then beyond that another precessional set. The one set of Precession is not enough to account for the differences in the sets of Precession in the last million years.

Good morning!
 

Opal

Premium Member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Also our present day calendar was derived from the need to divide the days and years into sections that were good for business. The system is not for the metaphysical use.

The earth has a calendar. It is called an ephemeris. The only accurate clock in and of the universe.

Let’s meet in two moons.

Let’s meet when the sun is at 24.36 degrees Sagittarius.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Thank you both! You both made me click!

What if it has nothing to do with the cycle of the year? 360 degrees is the circle. What if the number should be used in a mathematical way concerning the earth, but then we are back to the earth is not a perfect circle either.

I guess I am becoming more obsessed with the workings of the key of mysteries because with it, no numbers would be required. Just build a key with heel stones and wait for winter solstice.

But then, I do agree with a set of precessional ages beyond the ones we are seeking as well, that’s polarity would reverse, as David says, as a battery would with alternating current.

And then beyond that another precessional set. The one set of Precession is not enough to account for the differences in the sets of Precession in the last million years.

Good morning!
times have changed according to fresh calculations :smile:

a day on Earth WAS five hours and fifteen minutes SHORTER a billion years ago.

Scientists used a combination of astronomical theory
and geochemical signatures buried in ancient rocks
to show that 1.4bn years ago
the Earth turned a full revolution on its axis every 18 hours and 41 minutes.
As the Earth’s rotation gradually winds down, the moon moves further away.
Writing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Stephen Meyers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Alberto Malinverno at Columbia University in New York
calculate that over the past 1.4bn years the moon has drifted about 44,000km from Earth
to a distance of 384,400km.
Milankovitch cycles affect how much sun reaches the planet’s poles
they are prime drivers of climate change over timescales ranging from tens of thousands of years
to millions of years.
To pin down the frequency of the cycles
scientists looked at copper and aluminium ratios l
inked to climate change in the 1.4bn-year-old Xiamaling marine sediment in northern China
and the 55 m-year-old Walvis ridge in the south Atlantic, and fed these into a model.

Also our present day calendar was derived from the need to divide the days and years into sections that were good for business. The system is not for the metaphysical use.

The earth has a calendar. It is called an ephemeris. The only accurate clock in and of the universe.
Let’s meet in two moons.

Let’s meet when the sun is at 24.36 degrees Sagittarius.
As for the moon, it will not retreat from Earth forever.
At some point in the far future, it will reach a stable distance
when it will be visible only from one half of Earth, and never seen from the other

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/04/the-days-are-getting-longer-but-very-very-slowly
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

The sidereal Ages are based on Precession of the Equinox, which is the result of "Earth's wobble" as it rotates. In order for the tropical zodiac to have an Age-indicator of its own, it would require something similar, to cause a VERY slow transit through the tropical Signs.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

As the title suggests, the question I'm really asking in this thread is, do you have any objection to tropical Ages, to go along with the sidereal Ages? It would remove the need to consider the ayanamsa, which is a matter of opinion and causes tremendous confusion regarding just when the sidereal Ages begin and end. More importantly, in my opinion, is that we could place the Age-indicator (the measured point locating the Sign and its degree for the Age) in the tropical Chart, and know how it Aspects the Chart-configuration, and what House it's occupying. Currently, we can do that with a sidereal Chart (depending on the ayanamsa), but NOT with a tropical Chart.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

The sidereal Ages are based on Precession of the Equinox, which is the result of "Earth's wobble" as it rotates. In order for the tropical zodiac to have an Age-indicator of its own, it would require something similar, to cause a VERY slow transit through the tropical Signs.
As the title suggests,

the question I'm really asking in this thread is,

do you have any objection to tropical Ages, to go along with the sidereal Ages?

It would remove the need to consider the ayanamsa, which is a matter of opinion and causes tremendous confusion regarding just when the sidereal Ages begin and end. More importantly, in my opinion, is that we could place the Age-indicator (the measured point locating the Sign and its degree for the Age) in the tropical Chart, and know how it Aspects the Chart-configuration, and what House it's occupying.

Currently, we can do that with a sidereal Chart (depending on the ayanamsa), but NOT with a tropical Chart.
you just said

we can do that with a sidereal chart dependent on the ayanamsa
but NOT with a Tropical chart :smile:
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

you just said

we can do that with a sidereal chart dependent on the ayanamsa
but NOT with a Tropical chart :smile:

Right. I'm talking about a "voyage of discovery" regarding a tropical method for the Ages, tailored to the tropical Chart. Does anyone see a reason to go on that voyage, or not? I've just given reasons TO search for a tropical Age. What about any reason(s) NOT to search for it?
Any objection to BOTH tropical and sidereal having a way to determine the Astrological Ages?
 

Opal

Premium Member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Right. I'm talking about a "voyage of discovery" regarding a tropical method for the Ages, tailored to the tropical Chart. Does anyone see a reason to go on that voyage, or not? I've just given reasons TO search for a tropical Age. What about any reason(s) NOT to search for it?
Any objection to BOTH tropical and sidereal having a way to determine the Astrological Ages?

Okay. You are the lead. Where do we start? How do you want to go about this?
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?6

Okay. You are the lead. Where do we start? How do you want to go about this?

Well, I'll describe how I arrived at a candidate for a tropical Ages method, and why I felt compelled to do it, in a new thread. What I'm trying to understand on this one, is why nobody else bothered. Look at all the great thinkers and mystics, most of whom were and are tropicalists, who just automatically assumed that Ages were the sole province of the sidereal zodiac, without even exploring any other possibilities. Robert Hand and Robert Zoller for example. I think maybe they don't realize the Ages are the effect of Earth's wobble, and instead believe that they somehow beam down on us from the constellations. Even the sidereal Age-indicator is a function of Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Why haven't they figured out that these are EARTH'S Ages?
 
Last edited:

Opal

Premium Member
Well, I'll describe how I arrived at a candidate for a tropical Ages method, and why I felt compelled to do it, in a new thread. What I'm trying to understand on this one, is why nobody else bothered. Look at all the great thinkers and mystics, most of whom were and are tropicalists, who just automatically assumed that Ages were the sole province of the sidereal zodiac, without even exploring any other possibilities. Robert Hand and Robert Zoller for example. I think maybe they don't realize the Ages are the effect of Earth's wobble, and instead believe that they somehow beam down on us from the constellations. Even the sidereal Age-indicator is a function of Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Why haven't they figured out that these are EARTH'S Ages?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Game on. 😄
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Different folk have different minds.

Some people’s expertise, or obsession, are not the ages.
Exactly
specialisation/obsession may cause being uninformed vis a vis alternative fields of study
Look at all the geniuses
in other fields of endeavor
who think astrology itself is an archaic superstition.
but this thread is
not a discussion on whether astrology itself is an archaic superstition or not :smile:
 
Top