PDA

View Full Version : About Ophiuchus the 13th sign


Maggiemay
19-05-2009, 06:47
I've been reading about the 13th sign and I like the idea of it.

However, I read that most astrologers do not use it. Why is that?

After all, if it's a real constellation, shouldn't it be taken into consideration?

Could someone clue me in?

Thanks,

Maggie :)

Minderwiz
19-05-2009, 07:16
DON'T GO THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We've had enough debate on that a year or so ago. It is a constellation NOT a sign. Indeed it is not and never has been a signThere are only 12 Signs and always have been that's it LOL

Conversely signs are NOT constellations, the two are quite different, even though they share some of the same names.

Ophiuchus was never, ever considered important for Astrology. Only Astronomers seem to think that it should be used in Astrology.

Constellations are groupings of real stars in real space. They're all over the place LOL. Signs did originate out of a small group of constellations that lie on the ecliptic and whilst there are more than 12 constellations that project into the ecliptic only 12 were ever used for charting the ecliptic and only 12 became signs, as the system of measurement was codified,

If you look at the constellations you'll find they overlap and that some are bigger than others. Astrology (and Astronomy) used them as the basis for measuring planetary movements but tidied them up into the signs - 12 equal divisions of the ecliptic circle.

Oh, and it's nothing to do with the sidereal zodiac. That to has 12 equal signs, that do not match the actual constellations in terms of positionaThough the origin of that zodiac is measured from a star in Aries.

Now if you want to be kind to my blood pressure, you'll drop the issue entirely LOL

PS If you really want to know then here's the link to the relevant thread

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=54777&highlight=Constellations

Maggiemay
19-05-2009, 07:54
Thank you for the explanation and the thread. :)

Now if you want to be kind to my blood pressure, you'll drop the issue entirely LOL

Dropped. No more boo-boos. ;)

Maggie

ETA : Just checked the thread. Brutal. LOL

Maggiemay
19-05-2009, 08:29
deleted

ravenest
20-05-2009, 13:36
Now if you want to be kind to my blood pressure, you'll drop the issue entirely LOL

:laugh:

Did someone in here say Ophiuchus?

Oooops! Better not talk about THAT we dont want moderators popping a vein!

[Not many here want to talk about it, as, I feel, it questions the whole mechanics and logic of the type of astrology MOSTLY presented here, (but there are other types) and although I myself have high blood pressure I would be quiet happy to discuss this issue via PM's so as not to disturb the others - I've never felt threatened by innocent enquiry ;) ]

Maggiemay
21-05-2009, 04:50
, I feel, it questions the whole mechanics and logic of the type of astrology MOSTLY presented here, (but there are other types)

I'm curious ; what other 'types' of astrology is there? Unless, of course, you are referring to a specific school of thought?

Maggie :)

PS: Isn't red wine supposed to be 'good' for high blood pressure?! LOL

Maggiemay
21-05-2009, 04:53
double post

ravenest
27-05-2009, 13:27
I'm curious ; what other 'types' of astrology is there?
I would be quiet happy to discuss this issue via PM's so as not to disturb the others

(abcde)

ravenest
30-05-2009, 12:45
Thank you for the explanation and the thread. :)

I meant to post this lnk before but forgot. It might explain some of ther stuff in PM's
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=54694&highlight=sez

Minderwiz
30-05-2009, 20:37
Much of the discussion in that thread shows the difficuly to carrying out rational discussion in this area. Not because one or other view is not rational but because there are clear problems with definitions and axioms.

Even worse reference to history is difficult because much of the foundations of Astrology lie in times long before writing or recording other than on cave walls. We can thus only speculate about belief, even if we can identify planets or constellations in those cave murals.

If one is arguing from one belief system against someone whose views are based on another, it is virtually impossible to arrive at common ground unless one or other party is willing to change their axioms. Try convincing a devout fundamentalist Chiristian that a scientific view is the only correct explanation of the world around us.

There is also the problem of etymology. Astrology means the study of the stars so the constellations must be the main thing we study. Well we need to remember that the 'stars' were not understood in terms of modern science. The ancients saw two types of stars, those that moved or wandered and those that stood still. The wandering stars were always the prime object of interest but their wandering needed to be measured or charted and the fixed stars were literally the obvious background. So Astrology as a study of the wandering stars is by no means a misnomer or claiming to be something that it is not.

It's also clear that it wasn't as simple as that. The fixed stars carried significance to society. Whether this significance lay in their relation to the seasons or was distinct from it is not clear and whether this significance predated the measurement of the wandering stars is also not clear and probably never will be. That star patterns not on the ecliptic have significance is also clear but again whether this is due to 'seasonal' factor or some independant belief system is not clear. It can be argued but we do not know for sure. What we do know is that many fixed stars had importance to traditional astrologers, an importanace that lasted well into the seventeenth century. Sadly that importance is largely overlooked by today's Astrologers.

It is reasonably clear that a joined up zodiac, was a fairly late invention most likely by mesopotamian astrologers. It's their zodiac that has come into modern use and it is clear that they distinguished between signs and constellations and introduced the 12 equal divisions.

That they did so does not preclude or should be allowed to preclude other forms of Astrology and I see absolutely no reason at all why a 'Southern hemisphere' version should not be developed. The traditional Northern version has obvious problems in the Southern Hemisphere.

What I do object to is then deliberate misrepresentation, which is often done by critics of Astrology, or to be more precise horoscopic Astrology. The Ophiucus issue being one. I won't rehearse the arguments, Dave made them clear in his post but the short answer us that Ophiuchus is irrelevant to horoscopic Astrology, is now and always was and it's existence was not something that was discovered in the 1950s.

So please can we respect traditions and by all means advance alternative views but make clear the basis of these views. Also as Dave points out Tropical and Sidereal proponants of Horoscopic Astrology are just as bad at this. So if Ravenest would like to put forward an alternative view, either developed or putative then this forum should welcome that.

Maggiemay
31-05-2009, 01:45
I would be quiet happy to discuss this issue via PM's so as not to disturb the others -
I meant to post this lnk before but forgot. It might explain some of ther stuff in PM's
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=54694&highlight=sez

Ravenest, if anything, why didn't you PM me the thread directly?!

Anyhow, This whole topic is too complex for me at the moment.

Thank you.

Maggie :)

thorhammer
31-05-2009, 01:52
I think that's exactly the conclusion to which Minderwiz desired you to come, MM ;)

\m/ Kat

Maggiemay
31-05-2009, 01:58
I think that's exactly the conclusion to which Minderwiz desired you to come, MM ;)

\m/ Kat

:)

MM

Minderwiz
31-05-2009, 03:52
Yes the issues are complex. The point I was trying to make is that one can proceed to discuss some of the issues and complexity without it becoming an uncomfortable experience for those participating.

The Western Astrological tradition is not the only way to approach Astrology. What is more it has been subject to major changes over the last few thousand years, so quite often there is a time line issue to consider. Nor would I argue that the changes constitute evolution or a process of development, leading to improvement. In short the notion that Western Astrology is the only acceptable Astrology is false.

There are also real issues about whether it can be transplanted root and branch into the Southern Hemisphere, indeed were I to live in the Southern Hemisphere that would be one of my prime areas of interest and it's one that perhaps should be more regularly considered on this forum.

dadsnook2000
31-05-2009, 08:14
Imagine a peeled orange with 12 segments. These segments are filled with seeds. Are all the seeds alike? Basically, yes.

Now imagine that space around our solar system is like-wise divided into twelve orange-like-segments, the poles of earth aligned with the top and bottom of each segment. Within 15 light years of Earth each segment has two or three stars within it, within 100 light years each segment has a hundred or more stars within it, and then there are millions of stars further out in space within the bounds of our imaginary orange segment. Are all of those stars alike. Unlike the seeds, no. Some stars are small dark dwarf stars, spent and collapsed from more-normal stars, some are giants that might be hundreds of times bigger than our Sun, others radiate energy upon Earth (at times) which can reach 10,000 times what our nearby sun radiates even though they might be 40,000 light years away.

Now comes the impossible task. Imagine that all of those diverse stars, near and/or very far away, radiate something such that they collectively coax our orbiting solar system planets passing through their segment (relative to Earth) to be angry, more prone to taking action, seeing things as threatening and needing to be protected against. Then imagine that the next segment of space with its billions of variable star types happens to collectively influence planets moving through its bounds with a more harmonious nature, an attitude that is kind of cool, a desire for peaceful surroundings and comfort.

Imagine that each of these twelve segments, collectively containing billions upon billions of stars, were all arranged such that they bestowed a certain set of influences on Earth that promoted specific attitudes, responses, feelings, inclinations, likes and dislikes --- and that each segment, while different from the others were part of a whole system of influences designed just for us here on Earth.

Absurd isn't it.

Other than myth, marking holidays, helping to tell time or to navigate while out at sea, teaching children about cultural stories, the stars and constellations do not collectively have astrological significance. The "zodiac" that many on this list use, isn't defined by the stars above, but instead by the wobble of the Earth's poles, the tilt of those poles relative to our orbit about the Sun, and Aries Point which marks one of the two times each year when the poles are perpendicular to the Sun and solar system plane. In other words, the zodiac is much closer to home than the stars, it is right here on or near Earth. The zodiac is the accumulated cultural influence of the seasons which affect agriculture, travel, commerce, clothing, cities, sports, and many other facets of life. The zodiac is within us and is collectively defined by our world as part of our common experience.

Our charts, the positions of the planets, the time and place of our birth all give us our individuality, but we live within certain common areas as well. That is what the zodiac truly is, and its not out there 14 thousand light years away. Dave

Maggiemay
31-05-2009, 09:28
Thank you so much for taking the time to weigh in. I appreciate it.

I feel bad because the analogy of the peeled orange actually made sense to me! LOL ... but then again, my natal mercury is receiving a square aspect from Neptune... :)


Other than myth, marking holidays, helping to tell time or to navigate while out at sea, teaching children about cultural stories, the stars and constellations do not collectively have astrological significance.

I see.

Yet, didn't the Egyptians give specific meaning to each star and planet? Why is it that we usually refer to astral influences as : Jupiter this... Saturn that... etc... ?

The "zodiac" that many on this list use, isn't defined by the stars above, but instead by the wobble of the Earth's poles, the tilt of those poles relative to our orbit about the Sun, and Aries Point which marks one of the two times each year when the poles are perpindular to the Sun and solar system plane.

That's it?!

Where were you my whole life Dadsnook2000?! LOL

In other words, the zodiac is much closer to home than the stars, it is right here on or near Earth. The zodiac is the accumulated cultural influence of the seasons which affect agriculture, travel, commerce, clothing, cities, sports, and many other facets of life. The zodiac is within us and is collectively defined by our world as part of our common experience.

The concept is soooo new to me...I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around it.

Our charts, the positions of the planets, the time and place of our birth all give us our individuality, but we liven within certain common areas as well. That is what the zodiac truly is, and its not out there 14 thousand light years away. Dave

I'm DYING in here!!!

I was under the impression that planet Earth was subjected to the the other solar system's planet's centrifugal force.

Regards,

Maggie :)

dadsnook2000
31-05-2009, 11:37
Maggiemay said:
"Yet, didn't the Egyptians give specific meaning to each star and planet? Why is it that we usually refer to astral influences as : Jupiter this... Saturn that... etc... ?"

I noted that the stars didn't COLLECTIVELY imbue any "sign-like" meaning or influence upon us here on Earth or upon the planets that circle the Sun along with us. A small number of stars have INDIVIDUALLY been abscribed by various people over the ages to have specific influences when rising or culminating in one's chart or when in aspect to the Sun or Moon. These influences are often described as, for example, being like Jupiter and Mars or having a nature like Saturn and Mercury.

The planets, or wandering stars, have always had specific attributes which have a great deal of commonality among various cultures. Some individual stars, such as Sirius, have been held in great esteem by ancient peoples, particularly the Egyptians, yet the star is not seemingly given any specific planet-like influences that I have seen astrologers refer to in chart analysis.

Certainly nobody has been able to separate the hundreds of visible stars seen in just one degree of the sky such that they can say that one does this and another means that ---- how would you plot those in a chart? How might one interpret these many new pieces of information? If many have trouble with using hundreds of asteroids in a chart, it must be impossible to deal with the many-more thousands of stars. Dave

Maggiemay
31-05-2009, 12:59
I understand.

The "zodiac" that many on this list use, isn't defined by the stars above, but instead by the wobble of the Earth's poles, the tilt of those poles relative to our orbit about the Sun (...)

If that is the case, then the fact that the constellations have moved should not concern us. That much has become clear.

What about those spots in the sky which have been given names. I'm guessing, each section needed to be named in order to keep track of them, so when ''they'' saw that one of the spot looked like a scale (in the sky) they called it: Libra and so on and so forth... Does that sound about right?

What a fascinating (& complex) science Astrology is: The more I learn, the more I'm in awe.

Thank you Dadsnook2000.

Maggie :)

Minderwiz
31-05-2009, 19:42
Hi Dave, Glad to see you again and hope you are doing well.

Just a couple of points

Firstly Dave states what should be obvious but is often overlooked. The zodiac is a geocentric concept - it's Earth bound. What is more so are the constellations - as opposed to the individual stars that 'compose' them.

Orion, for example, only makes sense when viewed from Earth (or a nearby planet or solar system) and even then only for a limited period of time (in the history of the universe). Shift the angle of view and Orion no longer exists. The stars that 'compose' it do not lie equidistant from Earth, they lie at varying distances. In other words we are not looking at a fixed object.

As Dave points out, there are trillions of stars out there of which many thousand can be viewed from Earth. Of those maybe only 50 have had any real significance culturally and only a handful of constellations have also been seen as culturally important.

Those are the ones that seem to mark either the four quarterpoint of the Suns' perceived path or some other important directions on Earth, such as marking due North (with some error).

Stories that involve twins (well two humans) that have cultural and religious significance date from the time that the constellation of Gemini was a marker for the Spring Equinox in the North. I would guess that there are similar stores in the Southern Hemisphere that mark the Spring Equinox (or other quarter point).

This is not to 'devalue' the role of the fixed stars. I very much regret there fall from usage in modern Astrology. They are important cultural markers. However as Dave points out, there qualities are usually described with reference to the qualities of a planet.

Yes the zodiac of the twelve signs is a marker system. There is some debate as to whether a zodiac of the constellations predated it, or had significant use by Astrologers - as opposed to certain constellations, which clearly were used as markers. That 'zodiac' though was not a joined up one. For Natural Astrology you only need to be able to predict the equinoxes and the solstices, and not necessarily all four. So you don't need a 'circle of animals'. Only when you begin to use Astrology for other reasons does a need arise.

Now whatever is the case above, the growth of the zodiac of twelve signs is one that has become used widely in Europe, the Middle East and India. Elsewhere you will no doubt find different perceptions.

Does this mean that we shouldn't bother about precession? Well yes and No. The annual cycle of the seasons is independent of the stellar background, so from that point of view the answer is yes - don't bother.

However a circle needs a beginning point if it is to be used for measurement and any beginning point is arbitrary. Usually the beginning point has some cultural meaning. The Spring Equinox in the North is one such point. The Tropical zodiac keeps to this not matter what the stellar background. The Sidereal zodiac takes the Spring Equinox as it was two thousand odd years ago - and uses a Star in the constellation of Aries as it's origin.

However that point too is arbitrary. Go back another two thousand odd years and the Spring Equinox was in Taurus, and another two thousand odd years and it's in Geminii and so on. The origin has to be set somewhere though, so the arbitrary sidereal starting point is arguaby as good as the arbitrary spring equinox of the tropical system.

Incidentally the shift against the stellar background of the ecliptic points is not just longitudinally. There is a latitude shift as well. In terms of the planets this has little or any significant effect because they are in or near the ecliptic plane. However there is an effect against the stellar backdrop. Does this matter? Only to Astronomers and those who do not see Astrology as having meaning only in a cultural context.

Maggiemay
31-05-2009, 22:24
I am so glad we are having this conversation. It's absolutely brilliant. :)

Maggie

ravenest
01-06-2009, 13:18
So if Ravenest would like to put forward an alternative view, either developed or putative then this forum should welcome that.
Thank you :)

ravenest
01-06-2009, 13:32
Now comes the impossible task. Imagine that all of those diverse stars, near and/or very far away, radiate something such that they collectively coax our orbiting solar system planets passing through their segment (relative to Earth) to be angry, more prone to taking action, seeing things as threatening and needing to be protected against. Then imagine that the next segment of space with its billions of variable star types happens to collectively influence planets moving through its bounds with a more harmonious nature, an attitude that is kind of cool, a desire for peaceful surroundings and comfort.

Imagine that each of these twelve segments, collectively containing billions upon billions of stars, were all arranged such that they bestowed a certain set of influences on Earth that promoted specific attitudes, responses, feelings, inclinations, likes and dislikes --- and that each segment, while different from the others were part of a whole system of influences designed just for us here on Earth.

Absurd isn't it.



I find it just as 'absurd' as many other convenient models that work including geocentric viewpoints. By the above emotive reasoning I think a non-astrological scientists could see the same 'absurdity' in any angular arrangement of planets could cause us 'to be angry, more prone to taking action, seeing things as threatening and needing to be protected against. '

ravenest
01-06-2009, 14:25
(I hope you can understand I am bouncing off your ideas and questioning things and seeking sensible clarification and not attacking personally)


Firstly Dave states what should be obvious but is often overlooked. The zodiac is a geocentric concept - it's Earth bound. What is more so are the constellations - as opposed to the individual stars that 'compose' them.
Zodiac seems a much clearer word to use than astrology when discussing this - thanks.

Orion, for example, only makes sense when viewed from Earth (or a nearby planet or solar system) and even then only for a limited period of time (in the history of the universe). Shift the angle of view and Orion no longer exists. The stars that 'compose' it do not lie equidistant from Earth, they lie at varying distances. In other words we are not looking at a fixed object.
Yes it is / was made '3-d' ... its a model, a concept, which is only relevant to the earth observer and makes no scientific sense ... just like the geocentric viewpoint.

Stories that involve twins (well two humans) that have cultural and religious significance date from the time that the constellation of Gemini was a marker for the Spring Equinox in the North. I would guess that there are similar stores in the Southern Hemisphere that mark the Spring Equinox (or other quarter point).
So, how did this cultural and religious Gemini influence come about? It is postulted that it was because the (northern hemisphere) spring equinox point, was in the CONSTELLATION of Gemini ... not the sign of Gemini, not so many degrees off a point in the earth's orbital path. What makes one age different from another, what makes the eqinoctal point have various influence over the whole of the earths evolutionary history (so goes the theory), my friends, is the passing in front of, or moving 'through' a CONSTELLATION.

Why was the age of Aries said to be a different enrgy and 'lesson' from Pisces? The influence of the CONSTELLATION!

Yes the zodiac of the twelve signs is a marker system. There is some debate as to whether a zodiac of the constellations predated it, or had significant use by Astrologers
Perhaps you can help with this one Mindy? I posted before that the western zodiac did coincide with the constellations (roughly and gragraphicaly - ie. 0 deg. Aries cosmologically WAS the same point as 0 deg Aries astrologically) at a certain time, my point was that they used to coincide. I was told that my calculation was a few hundred years off so I was wrong ... my point WAS that they DID coincide at some time.

Now here is the issue, in my friend's American Ephemeris, pre 2000 (or maybe it was the 2000) issue, she showed me at the front, in directions for calculations, where it instructed one NOT to forget to add the figures for equinoctal precession. Now, of course, I cant find a copy of that old ephemeris anywhere.

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen this, or have these old ephemeris? This was essential to my original idea as I noticed this calculation was removed and then people started arguing with me that a sign never represented a constellation (even though they are named the same and in the same order).

- as opposed to certain constellations, which clearly were used as markers. That 'zodiac' though was not a joined up one. For Natural Astrology you only need to be able to predict the equinoxes and the solstices, and not necessarily all four. So you don't need a 'circle of animals'. Only when you begin to use Astrology for other reasons does a need arise.

Yes, the earlier Egyptian Zodiacs (not ones like the Dendra Zodiac which is actually Greek with the Egyptian stuff added) where liniar.

Now whatever is the case above, the growth of the zodiac of twelve signs is one that has become used widely in Europe, the Middle East and India. Elsewhere you will no doubt find different perceptions.
Including in Aboriginal Australia where the dark shapes of dust clouds OBSCURING the stars are the ones that the animal shapes are made out of amidst the millions of stars visible in the Australian outback. That is; the shapes are made not between the relationships of stars but by the abscence of stars

Does this mean that we shouldn't bother about precession? Well yes and No. The annual cycle of the seasons is independent of the stellar background, so from that point of view the answer is yes - don't bother.
Exactly! I have fully acknowledged the use of western tropical astrology as a great tool for the seasons but astrology is vastly greater than that ... or is assumed to be by the vast majority and by popular definition (again - dictionaries and other astrologers). But many people use astrology for other purposes, eg. Bio-dynamic agriculture uses astrology, the seasons are of ultimate importance (agriculture) yet they use a sidereal system and postulate energy coming from and even beings residing in constellations, their system can be checked in your garden or by the taste and healthyness of the produce. Just because that idea might seem 'absurd' as Dave says, doesnt stop the food tasting great!

Minderwiz
01-06-2009, 21:29
Yes I fully understand your aim is to raise reasonable questions.

No, it is / was made '3-d' ... its a model, a concept, which is only relevant to the earth observer and makes no scientific sense ... just like the geocentric viewpoint.

Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here. A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'


So, how did this cultural and religious Gemini influence come about? It is postulted that it was because the (northern hemisphere) spring equinox point, was in the CONSTELLATION of Gemini ... not the sign of Gemini, not so many degrees off a point in the earth's orbital path. What makes one age different from another, what makes the eqinoctal point have various influence over the whole of the earths evolutionary history (so goes the theory), my friends, is the passing in front of, or moving 'through' a CONSTELLATION.

Why was the age of Aries said to be a different enrgy and 'lesson' from Pisces? The influence of the CONSTELLATION!

Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations, rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?

Perhaps you can help with this one Mindy? I posted before that the western zodiac did coincide with the constellations (roughly and gragraphicaly - ie. 0 deg. Aries cosmologically WAS the same point as 0 deg Aries astrologically) at a certain time, my point was that they used to coincide. I was told that my calculation was a few hundred years off so I was wrong ... my point WAS that they DID coincide at some time.

Now here is the issue, in my friend's American Ephemeris, pre 2000 (or maybe it was the 2000) issue, she showed me at the front, in directions for calculations, where it instructed one NOT to forget to add the figures for equinoctal precession. Now, of course, I cant find a copy of that old ephemeris anywhere.

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen this, or have these old ephemeris? This was essential to my original idea as I noticed this calculation was removed and then people started arguing with me that a sign never represented a constellation (even though they are named the same and in the same order).

Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!

The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs. The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.

But many people use astrology for other purposes, eg. Bio-dynamic agriculture uses astrology, the seasons are of ultimate importance (agriculture) yet they use a sidereal system and postulate energy coming from and even beings residing in constellations, their system can be checked in your garden or by the taste and healthyness of the produce. Just because that idea might seem 'absurd' as Dave says, doesnt stop the food tasting great!

Fully agree about those uses. However, do the people you refer to not use signs rather than constellations. I remember you referring me to an article on this, in which it was quite clear that 30 degree equal segments were used, even though the author chose to call them constellations, they were in effect signs.

I also don't have problems with using lunar cycles rather than solar ones or as more important than solar ones. After all unitl the widespread use of sun sign astrology came about Astrologers knew that the Moon was the most important planet in a chart in terms of fortunate outcomes.

Foe those wanting to read more I'd recommend

Nichoas Campion - The Dawn of Astrology
Willis and Curry - Astrology Science and Culture

No doubt ravenest would also like to recommend some books and websites for an alternative view.

Now I've thrown a few challenges back there but the problem is the tantelising lack of evidence from so long ago. All we can do is build theories about what may have happened. An attempt to rationalise the past.

We also need to bear in mind that precession is not a step change it's a contiuous change, slowly to be sure but it is noticable over a long time. Hence the messiness of cultural changes. It's perhaps (and I stress 'perhaps') an phenomenon that led to myths of a fall, as the position of constellations in the sky changed. The introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on Fixed Stars is quite interesting from that point of view.

ravenest
02-06-2009, 14:02
Well, I have to say this is the best answer by far I have had yet. Thankyou.

Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here.
Either am I :laugh: a stupid typo I guess, I meant 'Yes' of course and edited my post accordingly.

A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'.
What do you mean by technically? As refered to by scientists, astrophisicists? I looked the word up and it appeared with constellation as the same meaning. I thought an asterism was any collection of stars but a constellation was a grouping as observed from earth? Yes I DO understand the shape of Orion and any constellation will change accordingly to where one views it from.

Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation Now know? I knew that all along! I have even had trouble over the last 5 years explaining the difference to some astrologers? Oh gawd! has my communication been THAT bad?

but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations.
It is a fairly well accepted MODE (not fact or even reasonible thought - see it as a tool) in some magical systems and hermetic western occult schools, this is where Steiner giot it from. It survives in some of the Order of the Golden Dawn papers although I cannot point you to the orignating source.
[QUOTE=Minderwiz]
rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?
No evidence. I ASSUME that constellations passivly recieved a meaning and as time went on they were given their own life or Identity (heck that even happened with my car and the commune's tractor!) then it was assumed either perhaps by ignorance or for convenience that it was active and the powers resided in the things themselves. A LOT of magical / mythical stuff starts like this, but I see these things as tools that help make other unexplained things work for us.

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?
Well, we know that now ;) I was refering and tying these ideas into this theory that is in some magical / occult traditions and in SOME astrology of the progression of great astrological ages due to the effect of the constellations

I should point out that the artistic and magical part of my brain that does things (that might even work on the physical plane) is different from my intellectual side. Mentally and scientifically I can say rubbish to the idea that there is a big star goat in the sky that beams his energy down to us (same as that internal cynic can say rubbish to Neptune infuencing the psyche) but it can be integrated into a useful system - I fully acknowledge some people wont like that, but I thought at least magicians occultists and SOME astrologers might understand that.


Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!
The point was it was in a western tropical ephemeris and ... oh it doesnt matter!

The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs.
Yes it is - one appears to be modernised by modern English and I'd expect intelligent people to be WAY beyond that type of silly hair splitting that makes in depth and difficult conversations not worth while.

The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.
Yes, hence the inability to PROOVE either point of view. But what I have been thinking is that there have developed two schools of throught. One internal and solar based and the other external and stella based. It is AS IF the one school knew that the stars and constellations marked a point on the ecliptic that had seasonal reference, that point marked the ecliptic (so many degrees from whatever arbitrary staring point) and that was the use of the stars, as markers, as is often pointed out here. The focus was distances from the eqinoxes and solstices . As the background 'moved' the distances from the equinoctal point had to remain the same so the zodiac started to 'move' against the background stars. The other school (magical and hermetic, like the G.D. saw the actuall constellations as significant and not just the markers as distances from the equinox or solstice. The occult (meaning occluded or 'hidden') viewpoint had to do with greater life issues, spirituality, initiation, like direction and purpose. The other viewpoint seems to relate more to seasons, agriculture and the casting of fortunes for the populace, not a map for an individual initiatory journey. I never claimed my ideas wwere in the mainstream, but I have encountered them in other places. I feel that its our western perspective that is slowly trying to take over and these ideas are now being lost or poo-pooed. It is the sky beings that LIVE IN the shapes in the sky, asterisms, constellations and dust clouds that give hope and help and example to man in his initiatory journey for people like the certain Aboriginal tribes of Australia, and here we have a living ancient system of star lore STILL HAPPENING older than any other record we know, even in writing. But it might be too alien and removed from the cultural roots and environment for some here.

Fully agree about those uses. However, do the people you refer to not use signs rather than constellations. I remember you referring me to an article on this, in which it was quite clear that 30 degree equal segments were used, even though the author chose to call them constellations, they were in effect signs.
Yeah but they postulate the existence of beings within these constellations. If one looks carefully at the material, their sky maps, astro charts and planting guides one can see that although their system IS devided into 12 equal segment unnatural zones, within this are diagrams of the actual constellations with the rlevent space either side of the CONSTELLATION BOUNDARY.There is research within the organisation to claify these boundaries of influence within a constellational area. This is done by, eg. a ceratin plant is recorded to commence flowering when a specific planet is in a specif sign [I said that on purpose as one can find it in their literature but they MEAN constellation and sign is a (confusing for some) convenience (I believe MOST dont know the diff anyway]. they watch the planet, track the sky and observe the plant. when changes are seen in the plant the planits position is noticed (in the actuall sky) as information builds up they hope to construct some more accurate boundaries and dates. I know it LOOKS like a sign but when examines the literature the theory is deffinatly constellational, even though they are bordered by equal segments. Its a work in progress, and that's what I like about it.

Now I've thrown a few challenges back there but the problem is the tantelising lack of evidence from so long ago. All we can do is build theories about what may have happened. An attempt to rationalise the past.
Not just that but an attempt to understand the past, it need not be rational, but it should be rational according to its OWN precepts (which may not be rational outside the box). That can also help us understand some inherited traditions, dispell some ghosts and graft new discovers onto ancient 'wisdom'.

We also need to bear in mind that precession is not a step change it's a contiuous change, slowly to be sure but it is noticable over a long time. Hence the messiness of cultural changes. It's perhaps (and I stress 'perhaps') an phenomenon that led to myths of a fall, as the position of constellations in the sky changed. The introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on Fixed Stars is quite interesting from that point of view.

ravenest
02-06-2009, 14:09
Well, I have to say this is the best answer by far I have had yet. Thankyou.

Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here.
Either am I :laugh: a stupid typo I guess, I meant 'Yes' of course and edited my post accordingly.

A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'.
What do you mean by technically? As refered to by scientists, astrophisicists? I looked the word up and it appeared with constellation as the same meaning. I thought an asterism was any collection of stars but a constellation was a grouping as observed from earth? Yes I DO understand the shape of Orion and any constellation will change accordingly to where one views it from.

Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation Now know? I knew that all along! I have even had trouble over the last 5 years explaining the difference to some astrologers? Oh gawd! has my communication been THAT bad?

but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations.
It is a fairly well accepted MODE (not fact or even reasonible thought - see it as a tool) in some magical systems and hermetic western occult schools, this is where Steiner giot it from. It survives in some of the Order of the Golden Dawn papers although I cannot point you to the orignating source.
[QUOTE=Minderwiz]
rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?
No evidence. I ASSUME that constellations passivly recieved a meaning and as time went on they were given their own life or Identity (heck that even happened with my car and the commune's tractor!) then it was assumed either perhaps by ignorance or for convenience that it was active and the powers resided in the things themselves. A LOT of magical / mythical stuff starts like this, but I see these things as tools that help make other unexplained things work for us.

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?
Well, we know that now ;) I was refering and tying these ideas into this theory that is in some magical / occult traditions and in SOME astrology of the progression of great astrological ages due to the effect of the constellations

I should point out that the artistic and magical part of my brain that does things (that might even work on the physical plane) is different from my intellectual side. Mentally and scientifically I can say rubbish to the idea that there is a big star goat in the sky that beams his energy down to us (same as that internal cynic can say rubbish to Neptune infuencing the psyche) but it can be integrated into a useful system - I fully acknowledge some people wont like that, but I thought at least magicians occultists and SOME astrologers might understand that.


Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!
The point was it was in a western tropical ephemeris and ... oh it doesnt matter!

The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs.
Yes it is - one appears to be modernised by modern English and I'd expect intelligent people to be WAY beyond that type of silly hair splitting that makes in depth and difficult conversations not worth while.

The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.
Yes, hence the inability to PROOVE either point of view. But what I have been thinking is that there have developed two schools of throught. One internal and solar based and the other external and stella based. It is AS IF the one school knew that the stars and constellations marked a point on the ecliptic that had seasonal reference, that point marked the ecliptic (so many degrees from whatever arbitrary staring point) and that was the use of the stars, as markers, as is often pointed out here. The focus was distances from the eqinoxes and solstices . As the background 'moved' the distances from the equinoctal point had to remain the same so the zodiac started to 'move' against the background stars. The other school (magical and hermetic, like the G.D. saw the actuall constellations as significant and not just the markers as distances from the equinox or solstice. The occult (meaning occluded or 'hidden') viewpoint had to do with greater life issues, spirituality, initiation, like direction and purpose. The other viewpoint seems to relate more to seasons, agriculture and the casting of fortunes for the populace, not a map for an individual initiatory journey. I never claimed my ideas wwere in the mainstream, but I have encountered them in other places. I feel that its our western perspective that is slowly trying to take over and these ideas are now being lost or poo-pooed. It is the sky beings that LIVE IN the shapes in the sky, asterisms, constellations and dust clouds that give hope and help and example to man in his initiatory journey for people like the certain Aboriginal tribes of Australia, and here we have a living ancient system of star lore STILL HAPPENING older than any other record we know, even in writing. But it might be too alien and removed from the cultural roots and environment for some here.

Fully agree about those uses. However, do the people you refer to not use signs rather than constellations. I remember you referring me to an article on this, in which it was quite clear that 30 degree equal segments were used, even though the author chose to call them constellations, they were in effect signs.
Yeah but they postulate the existence of beings within these constellations. If one looks carefully at the material, their sky maps, astro charts and planting guides one can see that although their system IS devided into 12 equal segment unnatural zones, within this are diagrams of the actual constellations with the rlevent space either side of the CONSTELLATION BOUNDARY.There is research within the organisation to claify these boundaries of influence within a constellational area. This is done by, eg. a ceratin plant is recorded to commence flowering when a specific planet is in a specif sign [I said that on purpose as one can find it in their literature but they MEAN constellation and sign is a (confusing for some) convenience (I believe MOST dont know the diff anyway]. they watch the planet, track the sky and observe the plant. when changes are seen in the plant the planits position is noticed (in the actuall sky) as information builds up they hope to construct some more accurate boundaries and dates. I know it LOOKS like a sign but when examines the literature the theory is deffinatly constellational, even though they are bordered by equal segments. Its a work in progress, and that's what I like about it.

Now I've thrown a few challenges back there but the problem is the tantelising lack of evidence from so long ago. All we can do is build theories about what may have happened. An attempt to rationalise the past.
Not just that but an attempt to understand the past, it need not be rational, but it should be rational according to its OWN precepts (which may not be rational outside the box). That can also help us understand some inherited traditions, dispell some ghosts and graft new discovers onto ancient 'wisdom'.

We also need to bear in mind that precession is not a step change it's a contiuous change, slowly to be sure but it is noticable over a long time. Hence the messiness of cultural changes. It's perhaps (and I stress 'perhaps') an phenomenon that led to myths of a fall, as the position of constellations in the sky changed. The introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on Fixed Stars is quite interesting from that point of view.

ravenest
02-06-2009, 14:12
extra wierd. When I submit reply I cant see my posts, blank screen (blue) where text should be .... but I think its there! I just cant see it, Can you.
Heeeelp!

Ed to add. But now I can see this one!!!

I hope you can Mindy (or save it) I put time and money into this at IT cafe for a long response to yours above ... basically, some great answers and thankyou, but I am not gonna sit here and pay to write for another hour and loose it all :( :( :(
QUACK!!!
Far too wierd for me ... I'm going home.
(If I were paranoid I'd think I was being censored :laugh:

Minderwiz
02-06-2009, 19:31
ravenest - Not sure what is wrong. However when I clicked on 'edit' on your post I did find your original post. When I clicked 'save' it simply went back to the blank screen.

Because of the time difference, I'll try to rescue it and copy and past the parts.

All being well it will be there when you return but may be in sections, as I have no idea what trips the black screen.

You sure you done nothing to anger the constellations :)

Minderwiz
02-06-2009, 19:35
Attempt at rescued post from ravenest - Part 1

Well, I have to say this is the best answer by far I have had yet. Thankyou.

Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here.
Either am I :laugh: a stupid typo I guess, I meant 'Yes' of course and edited my post accordingly.

A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'.
What do you mean by technically? As refered to by scientists, astrophisicists? I looked the word up and it appeared with constellation as the same meaning. I thought an asterism was any collection of stars but a constellation was a grouping as observed from earth? Yes I DO understand the shape of Orion and any constellation will change accordingly to where one views it from.

Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation Now know? I knew that all along! I have even had trouble over the last 5 years explaining the difference to some astrologers? Oh gawd! has my communication been THAT bad?

but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations.
It is a fairly well accepted MODE (not fact or even reasonible thought - see it as a tool) in some magical systems and hermetic western occult schools, this is where Steiner giot it from. It survives in some of the Order of the Golden Dawn papers although I cannot point you to the orignating source.
[QUOTE=Minderwiz]
rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?
No evidence. I ASSUME that constellations passivly recieved a meaning and as time went on they were given their own life or Identity (heck that even happened with my car and the commune's tractor!) then it was assumed either perhaps by ignorance or for convenience that it was active and the powers resided in the things themselves. A LOT of magical / mythical stuff starts like this, but I see these things as tools that help make other unexplained things work for us.

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?
Well, we know that now ;) I was refering and tying these ideas into this theory that is in some magical / occult traditions and in SOME astrology of the progression of great astrological ages due to the effect of the constellations

I should point out that the artistic and magical part of my brain that does things (that might even work on the physical plane) is different from my intellectual side. Mentally and scientifically I can say rubbish to the idea that there is a big star goat in the sky that beams his energy down to us (same as that internal cynic can say rubbish to Neptune infuencing the psyche) but it can be integrated into a useful system - I fully acknowledge some people wont like that, but I thought at least magicians occultists and SOME astrologers might understand that.

Minderwiz
02-06-2009, 19:36
Attempt at rescued post - Part 2


Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!
The point was it was in a western tropical ephemeris and ... oh it doesnt matter!

The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs.
Yes it is - one appears to be modernised by modern English and I'd expect intelligent people to be WAY beyond that type of silly hair splitting that makes in depth and difficult conversations not worth while.

The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.
Yes, hence the inability to PROOVE either point of view. But what I have been thinking is that there have developed two schools of throught. One internal and solar based and the other external and stella based. It is AS IF the one school knew that the stars and constellations marked a point on the ecliptic that had seasonal reference, that point marked the ecliptic (so many degrees from whatever arbitrary staring point) and that was the use of the stars, as markers, as is often pointed out here. The focus was distances from the eqinoxes and solstices . As the background 'moved' the distances from the equinoctal point had to remain the same so the zodiac started to 'move' against the background stars. The other school (magical and hermetic, like the G.D. saw the actuall constellations as significant and not just the markers as distances from the equinox or solstice. The occult (meaning occluded or 'hidden') viewpoint had to do with greater life issues, spirituality, initiation, like direction and purpose. The other viewpoint seems to relate more to seasons, agriculture and the casting of fortunes for the populace, not a map for an individual initiatory journey. I never claimed my ideas wwere in the mainstream, but I have encountered them in other places. I feel that its our western perspective that is slowly trying to take over and these ideas are now being lost or poo-pooed. It is the sky beings that LIVE IN the shapes in the sky, asterisms, constellations and dust clouds that give hope and help and example to man in his initiatory journey for people like the certain Aboriginal tribes of Australia, and here we have a living ancient system of star lore STILL HAPPENING older than any other record we know, even in writing. But it might be too alien and removed from the cultural roots and environment for some here.

Minderwiz
02-06-2009, 19:40
Attempt at rescued post - Part 3


Fully agree about those uses. However, do the people you refer to not use signs rather than constellations. I remember you referring me to an article on this, in which it was quite clear that 30 degree equal segments were used, even though the author chose to call them constellations, they were in effect signs.
Yeah but they postulate the existence of beings within these constellations. If one looks carefully at the material, their sky maps, astro charts and planting guides one can see that although their system IS devided into 12 equal segment unnatural zones, within this are diagrams of the actual constellations with the rlevent space either side of the CONSTELLATION BOUNDARY.There is research within the organisation to claify these boundaries of influence within a constellational area. This is done by, eg. a ceratin plant is recorded to commence flowering when a specific planet is in a specif sign [I said that on purpose as one can find it in their literature but they MEAN constellation and sign is a (confusing for some) convenience (I believe MOST dont know the diff anyway]. they watch the planet, track the sky and observe the plant. when changes are seen in the plant the planits position is noticed (in the actuall sky) as information builds up they hope to construct some more accurate boundaries and dates. I know it LOOKS like a sign but when examines the literature the theory is deffinatly constellational, even though they are bordered by equal segments. Its a work in progress, and that's what I like about it.

Now I've thrown a few challenges back there but the problem is the tantelising lack of evidence from so long ago. All we can do is build theories about what may have happened. An attempt to rationalise the past.
Not just that but an attempt to understand the past, it need not be rational, but it should be rational according to its OWN precepts (which may not be rational outside the box). That can also help us understand some inherited traditions, dispell some ghosts and graft new discovers onto ancient 'wisdom'.

We also need to bear in mind that precession is not a step change it's a contiuous change, slowly to be sure but it is noticable over a long time. Hence the messiness of cultural changes. It's perhaps (and I stress 'perhaps') an phenomenon that led to myths of a fall, as the position of constellations in the sky changed. The introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on Fixed Stars is quite interesting from that point of view.

From Minderwiz

This is as much as I could recover. I'm not sure whether it is complete so if there was more, you may need to try and recreate it. The only thing I can think of as the problem is the sheer length of the post. It might have been better to try putting it in two or three posts. But that's with hindsight.

Minderwiz
02-06-2009, 19:55
Reply to rescued post part 1

I don't think there's much to separate us here. Yes, I can see and understand your point about things taking on a life of their own, and even agree with it. I suppose the only comment I would make is that this is humans doing their usual anthropomorphic thing.

My point on asterisms is that Orion just doesn't exist if looke at from somewhere else, not that it looks different.

Sorry the comment on you grasping the difference between constellations and signs was tongue in cheek and I should have made that clear.

I don't have any problems with magical traditions or your split personality between science and Magic. I share that one.

I think one issue that has not been made clear is the nature of influence and can something 'influence' even though it is passive? I'd certainly agree that SOME constellations as human constructs have become incorporated into human belief systems and as such might influence the way that humans perceive the world around them. However I don't see any active influence in the sense of 'radiations' or what ever you choose to call emanations from the constellations, effecting human behaviour.

Minderwiz
02-06-2009, 20:07
Reply to recovered post Part 2

The Golden Dawn is too big an issue to go into in any depth but I agree with your admission that they are not mainstream, indeed they are an extreme minority in terms of Astrology. Now that is not to say that they should be ignored - I personally find them extremely interesting. Similarly the hermetic tradition is a minority one - though culturally of importance. However whether the hermetic tradition is a 'medieval' invention is an open question LOL

My point being that there may not be any real continuity in the hermetic view. It's possible that it is simply a romantic view of the 'golden age' which never existed. Or again they may have something.

I confess pure ignorance on Aboriginal beliefs so I just don't have the competence to comment on that part of your answer.

Minderwiz
02-06-2009, 20:24
Reply to recovered post Part 3

My only comment on the planting theorists is that they are deeply confused in trying to do two things at the same time, use signs and use constellations. I haven't the time here to check your interpretation so I might be doing them an injustice. At least they only use 12 divisions so they too don't think much of Ophiuchus LOL

Planting of anything is Earth bound and depends strongly on the cycle of seasons. Some plants are winter, most are spring and summer. Try planting them out of season to verify that. So success or otherwise is more likely to be seasonal. Though I agree that Moon cycles are also important. I would also guess that a winter plant in the Northern Hemisphere is a winter plant in the Southern, which would mean it 'flowers' under different signs or constellations if it is moved from one to the other. Also I'm assuming equal but opposite latitudes here.


Yes we do rationalise the past, and try to understand. The problem to overcome is our own frames of reference may be major obstacles and the reasoning process we employ is quite different from that even 500 years ago let alone 3,000 years ago. Getting into the minds of those ancients is a major challenge and it has to be done on limited evidence.

That is by no means to say that we shouldn't try. I think we should. Just don't accept it as any stronger than a working hypothesis.

One final comment. It's also worth noting that the constellations are human constructs and as such did not spring ready made into the heavens. Many of those in the Southern Hemisphere are of very recent origin.

The boundaries between constellations are very messy - indeed it's as late as the 1920s that the boudaries were settled. Just in time for Astronomers to abandon them altogether LOL.

SOME constellations though have played a great role in human culture and I fully acknowledge that. What I challenge is that they have any active influence. Indeed as they only exist in the minds of men and women, it is extremely unlikely that they do. But that mental perception may well have influenced human behaviour to a very significant extent at certain periods of human cultural development.

We may not share the same approach but I think these last few posts have shown that the foundations of Astrology, are worthy of some debate.

ravenest
04-06-2009, 13:22
The "zodiac" that many on this list use, isn't defined by the stars above, but instead by the wobble of the Earth's poles, the tilt of those poles relative to our orbit about the Sun, and Aries Point which marks one of the two times each year when the poles are perpendicular to the Sun and solar system plane.
[This is part of the posting I couldnt do:]
I dont understand this at all. How can the pole become perpendicual to the Sun (?) and the plane of the Solar System at those points? When it is tilted at approx 23 degrees all the rest of the year, This would negate the seasons if it was a graduall change and cause absolute catastrophe on earth if it was a sudden change.

MY understanding is that the pole stays at 23 deg tilt with the tilt always in the one direction, the direction of the tilt is what is rotating and that takes 36.000 years approx (doesnt it?) to make one revolution.

If one was on the Sun and could see the line of tilted axis it would appear 23 deg at equinoxs but at Solstices would appear vertical as one is looking straight at it, the top would be further away at winter (for north hemisphere) and the bottom closer for the summer in the south hemisphere and visa versa at the opposite solstice.

Does that make sense? If not, get a stick, bend it and look sideways at it, see the bend? Now turn it 45 degrees and the stick 'looks' straight, (its an old Uri Geller spoon bending trick - just rub the spoon for effect as you slowly and imperceptibly turn it)

Still dont get it? Then go to any juniour school atlas which will have a diagram of the seasons, the sun, the tilted axis,on 4 earths in each position and a simple explaination of how it works.

This one really stumped me and I cant nut out Dave Daddsnook's reasoning (unless he is heliocentric :laugh: ... or maybe born with the Sun in (constellation) of Leo ?
[just joking Dave.]

ravenest
04-06-2009, 14:50
I also missed being able to post any references to what I said earlier in relation to WHY I believe there is a system that works with the constellations and star groups that give energy to earth (via the Sun and Planets and their relationships - ie. a part of the Solar system infront of a constellation) remembering these systems are NOT mainstream.

"But this rule shall NOT for one moment affirm ... that the nature of the Sun is not modified by THE CONSTELLATION in which he is."
(ie, the Sun's energy is modified by what constellation it is in)
The Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn by Israel Regardie (Llewellyn) - The Paper; 'The Law of the Convoluted Forces ...' p 241.

"(This) Zodiac is the division of the star maps into 12 sectors through which the Sun travells. These are the PHYSICAL STARS that can be observed with your NAKED EYE."
Biodynamic Astro calendar 2007 back page.

"We could picture the constellations as consonants of the Universal Language and the planets as the vowels. The continuing varing relationships of the planetary vowels to each other against changing stella background brings about a rich speaking of the STARS FORM GIVING FORCES INTO EARTHLY EXPRESSION."
Intro to Astro calendar 2008.
{Empahsis added}
(This system of astrology is a development of Steiners esoteric astrology which is based on a cosmological theory that is a blend of Copernicus -Heilocentric and Tycho Brahe - - who postulated a dual centre with both earth and sun rotating around each other. Stiener postulates both centres moving in a path through space in the form of a lemniscating spiral.)

As far as using a geocentric tool, even if it extends as far as one can imagine to include all visible stars which make up a constellation is no more absurd, geocentric or egotistical than the concept of the Christian God, Genisis, the garden of Eden etc etc, But those stories hold a wealth of magical and occult symbolism which can be utalised by very intillegent people.

I agree however with both Dave and Mindy that it does seem fanciful (and probably is), that a constellation or star group ( or asterism if you prefer - I see Rosemary Clarke prefers that term when discussing sacred Egyptian astronomy) has an ID or spirit that influences things on earth. But consider this interesting paradox (and I am not claiming it is proof, but think it interesting in that):
How do we explain attribution of a whole set of ideas and things in one section of the sky when it is very simiar to another culture and the two never had contact,
Eg the aboriginal story of the formation of the stars we call Scorpio is such a 'scorpionic' story; sex, wierd sex actually, breaking of mores and taboos, secrecy, lies, spying, a flight or escape and persuit across the earth followed by a flight up into the sky (scorpion / eagle) - I think I posted elsewhere about this in more depth?

(part 1 .... I dont want to break anything :laugh: )

ravenest
04-06-2009, 15:09
In one region of the sky is the area and star pattern known to Euros as Corvus - the Raven. The Wardaman people of north Australia attribute this same area to waag-waag the Crow.
(I'm sure someone will point out that a crow isnt a raven :rolleyes:)
What Euros call Cygnus the swan is called Barag-barag by the Wardaman culture -the cormorant, Guardian of the North.
Aquila, the eagle companion of Zeuss is Gulyan, the wedge tailed eagle for many northern aboriginal cultures while in the south they call it Totyarguil, the eagle who guards totemic laws and ceremonies.

They dont all match of course, Pegasus the fyling horse is Merlemerle the butterfly. But lets rememeber, the aboriginals had never seen a horse.

In the Euro sky is also Parvo the peacock and the Pheonix. Some may find it interesting that all the Euro birds above represent significant stages in alchemy and can be linked together for meaning.

The initatory traditions of Austraila definatly link all the parts of the sky together and make a greater story and stages of processes. One can also do it with a modern constellational map.

At present I am trying to find a book (in my storage - where most of my refrence material is) that outlines a british astro system that predates greek roman, it is claimed that the large ground drawings spread through some parts of the british isles are this old horoscope, and again all the characters in this horoscope fit together and tella greater story.

I havent got these ideas through my wacky imaginations or one source reference or book, they have been developed over time from different now scattered sources, traditions I have been interested in or initiated into and talking with people - the aboriginals - although Wardaman Star Lore can be encountered in 'Dark Sparklers" (sorry forgot the author) a very complex book, dont think their system will be simple primative or easy, their kinship systems are academicaslly known to be the most complex in the world!

There is a much bigger side to this where these beings are contacted, but I wont be raving about that here (I dont want to get speared in the leg ;) )

But it IS out there, it is an old idea .... and that is where I got my ideas from.

Fire Cat
04-06-2009, 20:53
I dont understand this at all. How can the pole become perpendicual to the Sun (?) and the plane of the Solar System at those points? When it is tilted at approx 23 degrees all the rest of the year, This would negate the seasons if it was a graduall change and cause absolute catastrophe on earth if it was a sudden change.

I believe he was talking about the migration of the equinoxes. A slight wobble does not equate to the earth's axis becoming parallel to the sun:

http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/precession_of_the_equinoxes.jsp

dadsnook2000
05-06-2009, 05:36
Picture holding one of those plastic triangles that school kids use. Picture your kitchen or dining room table having a large circle (Earth's orbit) drawn upon it with a vase of flowers in the middle of the table (the Sun). Now, select a window or a door or a picture on the wall---this will represent a fixed point in the universe, outside of our orbit. Then follow these steps.

** Hold the triangle upright with one edge resting on the circle on the table. The angled edge pointing upward will represent the tilted axis of Earth even though it doesn't match the 23.5 degree tilt.
** Pivot the upright triangle upon its lower edge (that is touching the table top and the circle) such that the tilted edge points/aligns with the selected target (window, doorway, picture).
** Move the triangle such that you follow the circle on the table, always making sure that the tilted edge of the triangle is pointed at the target (window, picture, doorway).
** At some points the tilted edge will align with both the Sun and the target. This will be summer for the northern hemisphere.
** Moving around the circle on the table top another 90 degrees or a quarter circle, you will reach a point where the tilted edge of the triangle points to the target while the vase of flowers is 90 degrees to the side. This is a solstice point.
** You will discover two solstice points (where the Sun, target and tilted edge of the triangle are all in line) and two equinox points at 90 degrees to those points where the flat side of the triangle is perpendicular to the vase of flowers (Sun).

Upon completing the movement of the triangle about the circle, always keeping the tilted edge of the triangle aligned with the target, you should have noticed that when you passed a point of either side of the circle where the triangle was a right angles to the vase/flowers in the middle of the table. The flat sides of the triangle would have been square/90 degrees relative to the vase and the target. AT THOSE TWO POINTS, THE AXIS OF THE EARTH (THE TILTED EDGE OF THE TRIANGLE), now looking at the flat side of the triangle, WAS SQUARE TO THE SUN (THE VASE). This would be/represent the two equinox points, spring and/or fall.

Although the wobble of the Earth's axis is a reality, it is a really, really slow wobble. From year to year we can treat it as fixed relative to its tilt towards any far distant reference point.

In my opinion, all who wish to study astrology are doing themselves the greatest disservice if they don't study and understand the basics of astronomy first. Dave

Minderwiz
05-06-2009, 05:51
Well I'm not as skilled as Dave when it comes to the celetial mechanics but as I understand it.

Earth's poles are at right angles to Earths's Equator.

At the Equinoxes, the Sun appears to move from the Southern Hemisphere into the Northern (and Vice Versa). That is at the equinoxes the Sun appears to lie on Earth's Equator (The Equator and the Ecliptic are conincident at those points)

As Earth's poles are perpendicular to the equator, they must AT THOSE TWO POINTS be perpendicular to the Ecliptic and by extension to the Sun.

Now Dave will correct me if I've over simplified LOL but I think that's the gist of it.

ravenest
06-06-2009, 10:46
By the way, thanks for all the recovery work on my posts. :)
And all the explainations. oO course I dont get the description Dave, I'm printing, going home later and following your instructions. I know full the well the difficulty of explaining these things in print only. (hence the 'experiment' directions.

I have another question though (sorry, my brain keeps asking me questions)

Considering all the previous re the non use or value of constellations in astrology, and taking all the points made (not the ones by me :laugh:) why do people who use a sidereal system re-alighn their signs to rougly co-incide with the constellations (or if that is not the reason, why move it back the same amount of degees as the equinoctal progression has moved relative to the tropical ephemeris?)

dadsnook2000
08-06-2009, 11:12
Most of the Sidereal astrologers I know of, or the few I have met, use the Sidereal Zodiac (SZ) for measurement and placement purposes, but they do not use the signs for interpretive purposes. Nor do they use constellations for any purpose except possibly historical research when ancient records indicated certain stars or signs rising as a means of noting the calendar's progress.

Relative to correcting for precession in charts, I'll answer this in two parts:

FIRST, there is no real difference between a natal chart in the Tropical Zodiac (TZ) and one cast in the SZ except for the sign-degree designations. The planets have the identical orientation to the angles of the chart and to each other, the aspects are the same. It is only how we use the chart that may be different----meaning signs, sign rulers, dignities, etc.

SECOND, when it comes to forecasting or prediction using Solar Returns, one quickly discovers that TZ Solar Returns are very poor in saying what will happen and on what day something specific will happen. There have been many books written on this subject and they are rule-bound, have various ways to fudge on their answers and are generally weak and ineffective. I say that to you and to any professional who reads this.

However, once one corrects for precession, one actually "siderealizes" the solar return chart---the chart is for a different time and has different angles and can be read very differently (and simply) compared to a TZ chart. The differences are due to the Earth having to travel further, taking more time, to reach its actual birth alignment (between the Earth, Sun, Star background). This difference int time and rotation, and the resulting chart makes all of the difference in the world, all of a sudden astrology works in a very clear, simple direct manner.

So, to summarize the second point, the natal chart can be be read and used as it is, as can secondary progressions, solar arc directions and transits to the natal chart. This is because these charts are all based on static positions or positions that occurred within a few days of the birth chart. But once we go to solar returns, as one example, we are casting charts for a time far in the future relative to the birth chart. In that time, precession has slid the TZ backwards some part of a degree from its natal position. Since it takes the Sun a whole day (plus a bit) to move that full degree, the actual Solar Return will not occur for several/many hours after the out-of-alignment TZ indicates it has occured. This is why TZ Solar Returns are not useful.

Now, before anyone asks me how to do these types of charts, I need to say a few things. First, its simple but it is too complicated to convey the methods here for the typical cross section of early-studies students on this list. (I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but only a few have shown the deeper understanding of astrology needed to do this more advanced work). Second, I have a blog where worked examples of these methods are shown and where it can be talked about. http://ninthhouse.wordpress.com/
Third, I'm writing a book which I may be able to publish this fall which goes into this very well with lots of examples, diagrams, etc.

Dave

Minderwiz
08-06-2009, 19:31
I have used precessed Solar Returns - thanks to Dave's earlier threads and I do find them useful.

Just two points on the above:

Please remember that the SZ here is a 'measuring rod' and nothing else.

If you are using Solar Fire, or other Astrological Software you can easily switch between TZ and SZ Solar Returns, through the relevant dialogue box.

ravenest
09-06-2009, 11:40
Most of the Sidereal astrologers I know of ..... Third, I'm writing a book which I may be able to publish this fall which goes into this very well with lots of examples, diagrams, etc.

Dave
Thanks Dave.

ravenest
09-06-2009, 12:13
Well I'm not as skilled as Dave when it comes to the celetial mechanics but as I understand it.

Earth's poles are at right angles to Earths's Equator.

At the Equinoxes, the Sun appears to move from the Southern Hemisphere into the Northern (and Vice Versa). That is at the equinoxes the Sun appears to lie on Earth's Equator (The Equator and the Ecliptic are conincident at those points)

As Earth's poles are perpendicular to the equator, they must AT THOSE TWO POINTS be perpendicular to the Ecliptic and by extension to the Sun.

Now Dave will correct me if I've over simplified LOL but I think that's the gist of it.

I dont think either of you have the gist of it - unless I am reading your posts VERY unclearly. Let's go through what was posted.
"As Earth's poles are perpendicular to the equator, they must AT THOSE TWO POINTS be perpendicular to the Ecliptic and by extension to the Sun."

If something is perpendicular to the ecliptic, it is perpendicular to the plane of the Solar system (as the definition of the ecliptic is that mean line that the inner planets follow around the sun , or the line that any possible eclipse will occur on). That is, this plane extends in two directions - x & y then perpendicular is z, straight upwards in relation to the line drawn between x & y. If x and y are in a 90 degree relationship to a third object or direction WITHIN their own plane then they can be said to be square, as in dave's triangle model posted above. perpendicular is STRAIGHT UP 90 from that plane not sideways, that is square. Perhaps you meant the earth is square to the sun at an eclipse, but its axis is not perpendicular to the ecliptic.

Earth's poles are at right angles to Earths's Equator.

Yes, the earth’s poles are at right angles to the earth’s equator, as is with any rotating spherical body. Why? Because any ‘equator’ is drawn by extending a line out at the CENTRE of the axis and 90 deg from the ALIGNMENT of the axis, if the axis is tilted the equator will be ‘tilted’ at the same angle. Basic geometry but important to remember for the explanation below.

At the Equinoxes, the Sun appears to move from the Southern Hemisphere into the Northern (and Vice Versa). That is at the equinoxes the Sun appears to lie on Earth's Equator (The Equator and the Ecliptic are conincident at those points)

Yes, the Sun does appear to go from north hemisphere to south and visa versa at equinoxes and yes, the sun does APPEAR to ‘lie’ on the equator at an equinox, BUT the sun actually is CROSSING the equator at the equinox. At the equinoctial points the ecliptic and equator cross. On a star map this is shown by the celestial equator (the extension of the earth’s equator onto the celestial sphere) and the ecliptic (the extension of the solar system’s equator - or disc) crossing and they occupy, for one moment in time and one point in space the same position (I assume conincident in Minderwit’s post means co-incident and that means occupy the same point?).


As Earth's poles are perpendicular to the equator, they must AT THOSE TWO POINTS be perpendicular to the Ecliptic and by extension to the Sun.
No they don’t - as they assume the same point there is no need for the axis to change or become perpendicular because the sun ‘passes through that point’ (I think your usage of the term ‘ lie' on the equator is a bit confusing, the sun crosses the equator at that point)

Traveling along the path of the ecliptic, the sun will pass over the equator as both ecliptic and equator cross at the equinoctial point. Remember, the equinox is one point and one moment in time, the sun is directly over the equator for an instant and then gone, although from observation it seems to take some time, the same as a full moon is only for an instant although it may look full for hours – or even days to some.

Minderwiz – the sun is following the path of the ecliptic, when the ecliptic and the sun cross the equator, the sun is over the equator because it is crossing it not because the earth’s axis has become perpendicular.

The rotation of any point on that equator will always pass through the centre regardless of the angle of the earth’s rotational axis. It’s fairly basic geometry and one needs to understand this before one can even contemplate celestial mechanics – however I do believe you have a good knowledge of astrological mechanics.

ravenest
09-06-2009, 12:14
Let’s examine Dave’s model and see what it IS saying:

The angled edge of the triangle (angled in relation to the flat table) represents the tilted axis of the Earth (tilted in relation to the Plane of the Solar System, the Sun and the ecliptic).

Following Dave’s instructions we are holding the flat edge of the triangle flush with the table surface and sliding that flat edge around the circle marked on the table and keeping it flush with the table while the angled edge always points in the same direction (like the axis tilt of the earth) towards the target or window.

At this stage, anyone will realize that under these conditions the slanted edge (which represents the tilted axis of the earth) can never change its angle because it is set in the rigid structure of the plastic triangle! It does however illustrate how the earth’s axis CANNOT become perpendicular at an equinox.

One thing Dave’s model demonstrates is that no matter which part of the circle the triangle or the earth is in, the angled edge of the triangle, representing the earth’s axis, always points in the same direction and always is the same angle.

This phenomenon is handy, as in a system where a body orbits another there is no real direction between them until one gets reference to a third point or direction, this constant directional pointing of the earth’s axis gives this third and constant direction.

So in Dave’s model we CAN say that when the earth (or the triangle) is off to the left of our observation point, it is at 90 degrees or square to the Sun or vase IN RELATION TO the direction the axis is pointing. In this position Dave makes the point that the flat SIDE of the triangle (not the edge) is pointing at the sun or vase and that THIS is 90 deg or square to it and that is correct. The angled EDGE of the triangle however, representing the earth’s axis, is still pointing at the target, the axis has not become vertical but the flat SIDE of the triangle (or the axis direction) is square to the sun as Dave makes a point of highlighting with many capitals. Mindwiz, if you don’t get it – get out a plastic triangle and try it.

What Dave is demonstrating is that if 1 point is 90 deg to a second point, in reference to a third point it can be said that point 1 is 90 degrees to, or square to, point 2. Or, 90 degree relationships can be said to be square. This means that the axis is square or ‘side-on’ to the sun, the ecliptic and is an equinox, it does not demonstrste that the axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic. This is a good model to understand what square to the sun means and demonstrate that there is no changing in the axial tilt of the earth - it affirms the information I was trying to communicate.

It is a good model to show how the earth’s axis points in one direction but, as I have said previous, any junior school atlas has a diagram which explains it MUCH simpler and clearer.

And yes, Dave is right, the wobble is slow. Very slow, considering the wobble has only gone through about 30 deg of one revolution in roughly 2,100 years.

So it isn’t this wobble that is changing anything significantly over the course of a few years, the seasons or any movement of the direction of the earth’s axis, that’s to do with the tilt of the axis and orbital mechanics, which I will attempt to explain below.

ravenest
09-06-2009, 12:15
If anybody out there still don’t get it, try another visualization: Let’s go back to Dave’s triangle model. See the sloped or angled edge as the axis of the earth and now visualize the earth around the axis and the triangle, visualize the earth with the axis sticking out through the poles for ease of visualization (for simplicity, forget earth’s daily rotation for now).

Let’s become the sun (heliocentric) and look out at the earth in its orbit. Facing ‘ahead’, that is, in the direction the earth’s axis is pointing, we will start off by looking over to our left. When we look over to the earth on our left we can see the sphere of the earth, like a round disc shape or circle and the tilted axis. The axis is sloped to the left at the bottom and to the right at the top ( / ), we are looking at it ‘side-on’, this is 90 degrees or square to the sun and an equinox position. This is the position Dave described above with the triangle model.

Now move the earth around another 90 degrees so it is ‘straight ahead’. Now the axis isn’t slanted but APPEARS straight up and down ( ! ) and now APPEARS to be vertical at the solstice because we are in line with the direction the axis is pointing (but only from a heliocentric viewpoint) but if we look carefully we would see the bottom of the axis is closer to us and the top further away, we can see the south pole and see that most of the southern hemisphere is lit by the sun. This is north hemisphere winter and summer in the south because it is getting more sun.

Now continue around to your right until the sun is again 90 degrees or square on the other side of the circle. It’s the same view as the opposite equinox except now the axis bottom is to the right and the top to the left ( \ ) – it hasn’t changed direction but you did when you turned around to look behind you. Again, it is square to the sun. Keep moving the earth around until it is ‘behind’ you. The axis will appear vertical again. Then it will be summer for the north, you will see the North Pole.

Now, try looking from one equinoctial viewpoint, through the sun to the other equinoctial point. If we use the empty equinoctial point as a first sighting point and the centre of the sun as the second point (celestial mechanics are calculated via the centre of a body) and look at the earth on the other side of the circle at the opposite equinox position (exactly, at that one moment of the equinox) the centre of the sun will align with the earth’s equator and the apparent centre of the earth’s disc.

Now, watch that point of the sun’s centre on the earth’s equator. Stop the earth in its path around the sun but rotate the earth on its axis (which is still tilted).

Because the sun’s centre point is in the centre of the earth’s disc and the equator bisects the middle of the disc, the sun will always appear to be over the equator as the earth turns. In fact, the axis can be tilted at any angle, 80 deg – 10 deg, whatever and because any equator must be 90 from its axial direction, the rotation of any point on that equator will always pass through the centre and align directly with the sun. Very basic geometry.

ravenest
09-06-2009, 12:15
But of course we can’t stop the earth in its orbit. If we slowly move our stopped earth the lined up centre of the sun moves off the equator and the angular relationship between sun and earth changes – or, the earth will move out of square to the sun. The path the sighted centre of the sun makes on the earth will gradually move away from the equator towards one of the tropics, scribing a spiral path around the earth as it turns. When it eventually gets to a tropic after the earth traveling 90 deg or ¼ of its orbit around the sun, to a solstice position, the point starts to come back and cross over the equator and ‘spiral’ around the earth as it moves towards the opposite tropic, and so on.

The sun is over the earth’s equator at an equinox, because, at an equinox, when the sun is exactly square to the earth, the centre of the sun lines up with the centre of the earth’s disc, like a dot marking the centre of a circle. Any centre of any disc or circle is passed through by a line bisecting that circle – its very basic geometry. One is a point in the middle, the other a line through the middle – on any tilt or angle, it will still pass through the centre.

P.S.
There is another movement within the axis but it does not significantly effect things over a short period - The earth’s axis remains tilted at 23.5 degrees throughout its orbit but this is a mean value and the value may vary by up to 9 seconds (of a degree). On 1 / 1 / 1950 the value was 23 degrees 26 minutes and 45 seconds, the value decreases annually by 0.47 of a second of a degree.]


For those that don’t understand the wobble in the axis that moves the equinoctial point through the constellations go back to Dave’s model with the triangle and see the angled edge as the axis, imagine it as a line or pencil. Hold the pencil in the middle with one finger and thumb and hold the top end with your other fingers, now rotate the top end in a circle while holding the centre still. Note that the bottom of the pencil makes a circle in the opposite direction. It is like the wobble a spinning top develops as it slows down. As the axis ‘wobbles’ the earth’s North Pole makes a circle. The extension of this, the North Celestial Pole, then scribes a circle in the heavens. Thousands of years from now the Pole Star will not be the Pole Star, the pole will have moved through the heavens. And the movement of the axis will move the angular relationship of the equator to the heavens (or celestial sphere) so the point where the celestial equator (the extension of the earth’s equator on to the celestial sphere) intersects or crosses the ecliptic (the extension of the Solar System’s ‘equator’ or disc on to the celestial sphere) – that is, the equinoctial point, as marked on a star map – will travel backwards along the path of the ecliptic. Just as our wobbling top slows down more and more and finally begins to touch the floor, on one side as the wobble makes the axis lean over, the edge of the top scrapes the floor. This point of contact between rotating top’s edge and floor will move in a circle, although the top is spinning and it is this spinning edge in contact, the point of contact rotates around the top’s axis. This is a similar image of the equinoctial point changing and moving through the ecliptic constellations.

ravenest
09-06-2009, 12:58
I'm sorry if my posts seem numerous and long but I notice this thread has over 600 hits so quiet a few people are probably interested.

I'd also like to thank the patient moderator :)

triplewaterastro
09-06-2009, 15:08
I've had good luck using the 12-sign zodiac. I'm not sure why people bring up the "13th sign" but I've been able to use 12 signs very well.

Minderwiz
10-06-2009, 03:45
I'd also like to thank the patient moderator
No they don’t - as they assume the same point there is no need for the axis to change or become perpendicular because the sun ‘passes through that point’ (I think your usage of the term ‘ lie' on the equator is a bit confusing, the sun crosses the equator at that point)
It’s fairly basic geometry and one needs to understand this before one can even contemplate celestial mechanics – however I do believe you have a good knowledge of astrological mechanics.

The moderator sighs, summons the patience of Job and counts to 10,000 then sighs again.

Ravenest,

I think we have a real communication issue here. So I’ll try and reiterate.

Looking at it from a Geocentric point of view (and I make no apology for that)

The declination of the Sun appears to change throughout the year, moving in a cycle from maximum 23.5 degrees North to maximum 23’5 degrees South. in respect of the equator. Now from a heliocentric point of view, this reflects the constant angle of the axis of Earth in respect of the ecliptic, if you take a heliocentric view. The change in declination in relation to the equator can be meaured through observation on Earth.

However my point was a geocentric one and I will continue it. as the Sun appears to move around the Earth, it’s declination must change from North to South and vice versa. The change over points, are on the equatorial plane (extended out into space) and for a moment, as the Sun touches this plane, Earth’s poles are perpendicular to it.

From a Geocentric point of view the Sun’s declination varies, From a heliocentric point of view the Earth’s axis maintains a constant angle to the ecliptic.

The change of seasons from a Geocentric point of view is due to the changing declination. From a heliocentric point of view it is due to a change in the angle of incidence between the Earth and the Sun’s rays due to the tilt in the Earth's axis. At the Equinoxes the angle of incidence is 90 degrees and the circle of illumination passes through the poles. The poles are perpendicular to the Sun’s rays.

Now I don’t expect you to take my word for this last point. Please read

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

You will even find a diagram showing this.

So No, I’m not claiming that the Earth’s axis changes. What I am claiming is that at the equinox the Sun is in the same plane as the equator and is at right angles to the poles (Geocentric) or that at the Equinox the Sun’s rays are at right angles to the Poles (Heliocentric).

At all other times the Sun has declination North or South (Geocentric) or the angle of incidence of the Sun's rays varies from 90 degrees to a greater or lesser extent (Heliocentric)

Edited to add:

I am not citing the above to try and prove you 'wrong'' merely to stress the difference in reference points used by us. The communication issue relates to my post on the equinoxes giving a Geocentric explanation. As I had stated the geocentric concept in relation to the seasons earlier I assumed that in my post. Message 'Never assume anything'

ravenest
10-06-2009, 12:03
Thanks HEAPS Mindy!

I dont have time for anything but a quick read of your last post but I will take a copy home and examine this, we might (now) be actually saying the same thing (see below) as I try to struggle through the syrup of my mind (or perspective outlook).

ravenest
10-06-2009, 12:08
I went through all this in my now twisted brain and believe I have an answer, wrote it out at 1am last night, downloaded to USB and this bl**dy internet station USB port dont work. I will try later at another place.

ravenest
10-06-2009, 12:40
http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

You will even find a diagram showing this.



Ooohhhh, I'm gonna have fun withTHOSE diagrams

ravenest
10-06-2009, 15:38
(Ah ... this is better)

I was thinking about this last night and decided I HAVE to be wrong in thinking you mean what I thought you did, because you cant mean that , that the axial tilt of the earth, goes from 23 deg, to perpendicular at an equinox. It’s too crazy and must be a different framework used in astrology or the terminology is wrong or something. So now my head is doing gymnastics trying to nut out another interpretation of what you guys mean.

I am thinking in terms of celestial mechanics and astronomy, BECAUSE of the dictionary definition - "celestial mechanics–noun-the branch of astronomy that deals with the application of the laws of dynamics and Newton's law of gravitation to the motions of heavenly bodies. "
And in astronomy; [Norton’s Star Atlas p.5]
“Fundamental concepts.
The Celestial Sphere.
A convenient means of studying the relative positions of heavenly bodies based upon their appearance to the observer … most problems in positional astronomy can therefore be solved by the use of SPHERICAL trigonometry … the hypothetical concept of a celestial SPHERE is INVALUIBLE as the foundation upon which all fundamental considerations of the positions and motions of heavenly bodies are based.”
[My emphasis – note; sphere means 3-D]

I was not thinking in terms of astrology as you Dave said I needed to understand celestial mechanics ... which I believe I do and the celestial sphere by the way IS a geocentric concept.

So now I am trying to figure it out from a variant point of view.

I think astrologers mean this: The line of the directional pointing of the earth’s axis is perpendicular to the sun at an equinox. Stripping down Dave’s triangle model the essentials I see are the directional pointing of the axis and the sun. If I draw this on a piece of paper I draw a vertical line (axis) and mid way along the line, off to the right I draw a dot (sun). I can see how the sun is ‘square’ to the line and I can draw a line from the sun to the middle of the line and see a perpendicular relationship.

I can understand that if I see it as a flat map the earth is square to the sun but usually the relationship of the earth’s axis to the ecliptic is thought of in an extra dimension, a 3-D model. So I take a piece of round paper, dot a circle in the sun for the middle, a smaller one out from the sun for the earth, the edge of the paper is the circle of the ecliptic. I pierce the paper with the pencil at the earth and pull it half way through and hold it straight out in relation to the surface of the paper and the ‘ecliptic edge’ of the paper to make it perpendicular to the ecliptic. This is what I thought you meant by perpendicular to the ecliptic. But this is wrong, and I must give you guys credit that you cant think that is what is happening.

So I tilt the angle of the pencil 23 degrees; this is a more correct model but the axis is not perpendicular ... Until, I hold the piece of paper up and look at it side on (another view of the object in 2-D but from another direction – sideways instead of looking down from the top as in the line and circle model) the axis is still 23 deg BUT as I slowly rotate the paper and hold it level the pencil moves around the circle and APPEARS to become perpendicular to the side view edge of the paper representing the ecliptic!

MY GOD- it’s the Uri Geller spoon bending trick! This must be what you mean also.

At present the only way I can see a perpendicular relationship between line and circle is to view the model sideways with the pencil sticking through the paper and rotate it until the pencil appears vertical BUT this is only possible due to angular relationships in the 2-D side on view.

I can see how both these dynamics occur at an equinox depending on ones viewpoint but I haven’t seen this in astronomy or referred to in a star atlas, or any definition of an equinox, equinoctial point, or ecliptic, none of the definitions of these things in my Norton’s (star atlas) mention it.

I can see the axis can appear perpendicular to the ecliptic in 2 different 2-D views (from the side and above) and not in 3-D, and this 3-D view, I believe is fairly essential in studying celestial mechanics (which is the level I assumed we were talking on as BOTH of you referred to the need to understand celestial mechanics to understand what you were talking about). Perhaps you meant astrological mechanics?

I find, although correct from limited viewpoints, 2-d maps very narrow and not as correct and they lead to misinterpretations, not an opion just held by me but also; "most problems in positional astronomy can therefore be solved by the use of SPHERICAL trigonometry … "

If the refrence to my lack of understanding of celestial mechanics is causing confusion one should understand that that celestial mechanics is part of astronomy and that best works with a 3-d GEOCENTRIC map using spherical trigonometry. While astrology seems to more utalise 2-D models from varient viewpoints.

Minderwiz
10-06-2009, 19:42
I don't make any claims for expertise in celestial mechanics, as my original post clearly states. So I say the next bit with some trepidation.

You seem to assume that I refer only to a 2-D model. Even in a 3-D Geocentric model the Sun is at right angles to the polar axis at the equinox. Simply extend the plane of the equator (NOT the ecliptic) into space (as said in my previous post) and at the point the Sun passes through this plane, from below to above and vice versa, it's centre will at some moment lie on this plane and it is as right angles to the poles. Not before, Not after, but at that point.

From a Geocentric point of view the Sun's angles to the polar axis and to the equator varies throughout the year. The axis remains constant. From a Geocentric point of view we can take the polar axis as vertical with the ecliptic inclined to it (Heliocentric the ecliptic is at right angles to the Sun's axis and the Earth's axis is inclined to the ecliptic).

Now all that I am doing here is suggesting that the Geocentric explanation of the seasons is actually a useful one for the basis of Tropical Astrology. Though Tropical Astrology is perfectly consistent with a Heliocentric View as well. to quote from the web page I cited:

'Midway between the solstices are two dates when the sun shines directly on the equator, and we have a situation like our hypothetical one, where the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic. (The axis is still tilted, still pointing at the North Star, but it is tilted sideways with respect to the sun, rather than towards or away from the sun). )The circle of illumination passes through the poles, the sun's rays strike the equator at an angle of 90 degrees'

Now it is the change is in tilt of individual poles, either towards the Sun or away from it that cause the seasons. Where the tilt is 'neutralised' at the equinoxes we get the Sun perpendicular to the poles both EFFECT and also in FACT - IF we shift our point of view.

And I think you put your finger on the change in viewpoint in an earlier post.

Try getting an Orange and sticking a knitting needle through it's centre. Take a Football and clamp the orange with the knitting needle square on to the football but at an angle, from your current viewpoint.

Now shift your viewpoint so that the knitting needle appears vertical (without moving the orange, or the football in any way) Look towards the football and you will see from that viewpoint the needle IS perpendicular to the football, i.e. the tilt is irrelevant. Point either the sharp end or the blunt end towards the football at an angle and the tilt becomes very relevant.

Shift the viewpoint from the ecliptic but leave the celestial bodies in their equinoctial positions and the Earth still tilted in relation to the ecliptic and you will find a viewpoint in which the poles are vertical, and perpendicular to the Sun. To misquote Einstein, perpendicularity is relative to the location of the observer.

Now I suspect we both agree on what I have said above. I also suspect that the confusion arises because I'm talking about points and you are talking about lines - which you seem to recognise in a previous post.

Bernice
10-06-2009, 20:31
Minderwiz explains it very well ravenest :)

A long time ago I got The Astrologers Astronomical Handbook by Jeff Mayo. This book also explains it very well, and includes small diagrams for clarification.

As Astrology is the 'Mother of Astronomy' it's worth coming at it from the astrological viewpoint.

Just a suggestion.


Bee :)

Minderwiz
10-06-2009, 21:13
Thanks Bernice. I try my best to be accurate but Celestial Mechanics is NOT my forte.

In case my explanation above is not absolutely clear as a 3-D model, have a look at this video on UTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHTA7S_JGk&feature=related

This shows a shift in viewpoint that makes the polar axis perpendicular to the Sun's rays (and of course the Sun).

ravenest
11-06-2009, 14:33
Minderwiz explains it very well ravenest :)

A long time ago I got The Astrologers Astronomical Handbook by Jeff Mayo. This book also explains it very well, and includes small diagrams for clarification.

As Astrology is the 'Mother of Astronomy' it's worth coming at it from the astrological viewpoint.

Just a suggestion.


Bee :)
Thanks B. I'm about to eat humble pie (with smart alec sauce).

ravenest
11-06-2009, 14:46
Ermmmmmmm. I finally got it. What's wrong with my brain. ( I know, I know, your gonna say ":well that's a question you should ask a psychologist, not an astrologer." :laugh:)

I wont go through my other questions ( re shift of equinoctal point as cultural marker) as Minderwitz probably needs a holiday - from me. Although I reckon I owe him a lobster dinner by now.

[I had a dream about him last night, he looked like his avatar and was my next door neighbour ... I looked Denis the Menace, he was Mr. Wilson. I better not say what happened in the dream - Poor Minderwiz! Oh dear, I should pay more attention to my unconcious.]

Sorry if my obsinate confusion confused anyone else. A friend explained it to me like this; when an axis goes 'straight through' a plane it is perpendicular to the plane in the 3 directions, in this case it is only perpendicular in 2 directions the other is 23 deg off. And then I finally saw it in my brain. If I stand a match straight up from a compass face and tilt it 23 deg to north the match is 90 degrees to the east and west. There is still something I am not getting about it when I rotate the different maps in my head, but I guess I will get that too eventually.

ravenest
11-06-2009, 14:47
oh yeah, and thanks to that tutorial link, I printed it and took it home to do the tutorial ... it even has a test at the back ...!

Minderwiz
11-06-2009, 18:55
Cheers ravenest!!

Glad we have established communication.

Just to help you get your head round your friend's explanation, Consider the following.

A Football suspended on a string from the ceiling with an equator marked on it at right angles to the line of the string. This is the Sun. Now consider an orange with a knitting needle through it suspended with the knitting needle pointing to the ceiling and an 'equator' drawn on the orange at right angles to the knitting needle. The orange is suspended so that the football's equator and the orange's equator lie on the same plane parallel to the ceiling.

Now fix them in this position with a round skewer passing through the centres and equators of both football and orange. The knitting needle is perpendicular to the football's equator. This is the 'hypothetical' situation referred to on the website.

Now release the knitting needle and rotate the orange around the skewer till it reaches an angle of 23.5 degrees in respect of the football's equator. In one dimension the knitting needle is not perpendicular but the skewer is still at right angles to the knitting needle - in that dimension it is perpendicular and will remain perpendicular whatever the angle or rotation on the skewer.

Incidentally, in the extract from the website I quoted it says that the polar axis 'still points at the North Star' As the Earth goes round it's orbit that relationship does not change, causing the orientation of the axis to the Sun to change (North pole pointing toward Sun, Polar axis square on, South pole pointing towards Sun, Polar axis square on). I think this is what Dave was trying to get you to model, using the triangle, in his post.

Now, If we lived closer together I'd say we share a pint on the discussion in a local hostelry. Pity we can't!

And please drop in at any time - Your discussions do liven the place up and they do make me think!

Bernice
11-06-2009, 21:34
Minderwiz: Your discussions do liven the place up and they do make me think!

Me too!

I've been popping in and out of this thread - a silent stalker....
I've really enjoyed Ravenests' posts about the constellation names/qualities.
But the 3-D celestial mechanics threw me for a bit! :confused:
Rather like someone applying quantum math to a basic arithmetic equation.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that the mechanics and application of Astrology is relative, just like every other form of existence throughout the 'universe' (as we are pleased to call it). When we speak of planets being in a certain sector of the sky (constellation or zodiac), these 'positions' are only relative to us on Earth. So applying a broader relative model (beyond the Solar System) has no bearing on the 'local-art/science' of astrology. (Just in case Ravenest goes wandering off into Deep Sky... :) )

MaggieMay: I've been reading about the 13th sign and I like the idea of it.
However, I read that most astrologers do not use it. Why is that?
After all, if it's a real constellation, shouldn't it be taken into consideration?

Could someone clue me in?
Thanks, Maggie
Back to the thread.

I actually tried charts with this 13th sign, some years ago. After dickering with them for a while I returned to the standard 12.

Realistically speaking, there are enough 'constellations' out there - that can be seen from Earth - for someone to incorporate them into yet another branch of astrology :) However it would be a monumental task, probably taking years to assess the 'qualities/influences' let alone the math, and the resulting chart arrangement - not to mention it's interpretation! - would likely be over-complicated, and maybe not have any 'human' application that we are currently aware of. (Or perhaps, not likely to attain....)

But there's no immutable Law to prevent someone trying..... :)

Bee :)

ravenest
13-06-2009, 11:50
Thanks guys. It's a relief to know that I'm not ONLY just annoying you. :laugh:

Boy have I been nutting this out, and trying to see why I still have some blocks to it. I might have higher expectations of myself than i am capible of ... i want to understand all the celestial movements and how they happen and be able to visualize them all moving together ... all at once.

And this process is helping imensly. I'll re-quote the following, not to dispute it but to show where my difficulties lie. It took me a while to re read through the posts and track my thought processes to see why I was getting confused in my 'unconscious logic'.


...Looking at it from a Geocentric point of view (and I make no apology for that)

The declination of the Sun appears to change throughout the year, moving in a cycle from maximum 23.5 degrees North to maximum 23’5 degrees South. in respect of the equator.

Easy, I can deal with that as I can visualise standing on the earth watching the sun go back and forwards over the equator.


Now from a heliocentric point of view, this reflects the constant angle of the axis of Earth in respect of the ecliptic, if you take a heliocentric view.
Problem. I'm standing on the Sun, or being the sun, looking out at the earth, as the earth rotates around me it's axis angle of direction changes (relative to my viewpoint), as mentioned before, left to right, straight up and down, right to left, straight up and down and so on ... like the video link you posted. And in the heliocentric viewpoint I mentioned previously. Seeing this vertical viewpoint was triggered me finally to understand what I thougth you meant. But it is confusing to me to think this heliocentric viewpoint shows one the constant angle of the axis at 23 degrees.


The change in declination in relation to the equator can be meaured through observation on Earth.

However my point was a geocentric one and I will continue it. as the Sun appears to move around the Earth, it’s declination must change from North to South and vice versa. The change over points, are on the equatorial plane (extended out into space) and for a moment, as the Sun touches this plane ...

Okay, as I said above, I am now on the earth watching the Sun (geocentric now) and watching the sun cross the equator, I can easily imagine the the change over point on the equatorial plane and its extension in a plane out to space that has the sun on it.

... earth’s poles are perpendicular to it.

Okay I will visulase the earths poles, in relation to this plane. How caan I see them from earth. I cant, it was too hard for me ... I treid but got all confused ... one is up there behind me on that angle and the other is down there in front at that angle and .... nah! To see the axial relationship I have to get off the earth and look at what you are saying. But what do I do?
I track my heliocentric view from sun to earth path backwards to the sun and turn around and look and the axis is 23 deg. The 90 degree relationship of the earths axis is not apparent from either angle. I have to look at it sideways and see both sun and earth and instantly I realise, of course, it is perpendicular because it ALWAYS IS perpendicular in that dimension and never changes, its the viewpoint that changes. So to understand it I have to see it from NEITHER a helio or geo centric viewpoint. I have to get outside and become an objective observer to the system. Like in Dave's triangle model - that is neither from the sun's or earth's perspective its a 'comocentric' view?

I have to function through the cosmocentric view.

From a Geocentric point of view the Sun’s declination varies,
Ahhh ... good!

From a heliocentric point of view the Earth’s axis maintains a constant angle to the ecliptic.
ARRRGH! but I THINK I know what you mean. (I like the refrence that it is always pointing at the north star.)

A lot of this is me trying to nut out what others mean. eg. the tutorial said the earth's axis is always parrallel to itself. WHAT! That's impossible, it does not make sense ( and my astrologer / astronomer friend agrees -) But I think that means that if the angle of directional pointing of the axis is marked with a line at various points in its orbit, THOSE lines are parrallel. (My friend then got it when I explained further).

Th At the Equinoxes the angle of incidence is 90 degrees and the circle of illumination passes through the poles. The poles are perpendicular to the Sun’s rays.
Ahhhh. For me, with this way of explaining it, I can more easily comprehend what you mean and start to see the other axis where it IS at 90 deg.

ravenest
13-06-2009, 11:59
Me too!

I've been popping in and out of this thread - a silent stalker....
I've really enjoyed Ravenests' posts about the constellation names/qualities.
But the 3-D celestial mechanics threw me for a bit! :confused:
Rather like someone applying quantum math to a basic arithmetic equation.
Oh yeah! :laugh: Here I was thinking I had to understand celestial mechanics :rolleyes: and it is the BASEST of sphereical geometry. The angle IS always 90 deg. in that direction throughout its whole rotation.

The definition of celestial mechanics I found related to astronomy and that directed me to the 3d view. Thats why I see lines instead of dots or points ( 3 points make a surface but 3 intersecting lines make space). But, by focusing on the points, one gets specifics about one point of view that might not be apparent in the 3-D view.

Now I think the best approach is the 3-d view, then pull each view apart and examine it from that direction, then put them all back together and add the next direction of time/motion. So it makes your earlier comment;


As Astrology is the 'Mother of Astronomy' it's worth coming at it from the astrological viewpoint.


Rather interesting.

ravenest
13-06-2009, 12:15
I think it's worth keeping in mind that the mechanics and application of Astrology is relative, just like every other form of existence throughout the 'universe' (as we are pleased to call it). When we speak of planets being in a certain sector of the sky (constellation or zodiac), these 'positions' are only relative to us on Earth. So applying a broader relative model (beyond the Solar System) has no bearing on the 'local-art/science' of astrology. (Just in case Ravenest goes wandering off into Deep Sky... :) )
But I LOVE wandering in Deep Sky!


Back to the thread.
Oh yeah! :laugh: I forgot about that!

I actually tried charts with this 13th sign, some years ago. After dickering with them for a while I returned to the standard 12.
I dont consider it a sign (I can hear Dave rumbling off in the background) My very first original point (years ago :laugh: ) was to explore a system using the constellations without considering them as signs.

Realistically speaking, there are enough 'constellations' out there - that can be seen from Earth - for someone to incorporate them into yet another branch of astrology :) However it would be a monumental task, probably taking years to assess the 'qualities/influences' let alone the math, and the resulting chart arrangement - not to mention it's interpretation! - would likely be over-complicated, and maybe not have any 'human' application that we are currently aware of. (Or perhaps, not likely to attain....)

Not astrology as most see it here. I am looking at a different application where a 12 neat balanced system may not apply. I checked the definition of astrology from several sources but I think the deffinition is a lot narrower here. But that's okay, so to avoid confusion I will call what I am interested in ' Star Lore'

And I am rather surprised that many could not make the connections I have pointing out, dont you guys over there in the 'States or Canada or sth America have native traditions that are like astrology that can give you an idea of this more natural and not necassarily complecated mathmatical approach. I assumed you did, but maybe that part of the indingeneous culture is lost or more secret over there?


But there's no immutable Law to prevent someone trying..... :)
Trying ???? Some have been using it quiet well for over 40,000 years 'down' here. ;)

ravenest
13-06-2009, 12:20
Now, If we lived closer together I'd say we share a pint on the discussion in a local hostelry. Pity we can't!

Sorry, dont touch the stuff. However, would love to have same discussion under the winter sky here beneath a zillion bright twinkling stars (like it is at present).

ravenest
13-06-2009, 12:27
Here is a link to the practice I have been trying ( for a looooooong time now, it's difficult.

http://www.winternet.com/~blister/GEMS/lib_0536.txt

Minderwiz
13-06-2009, 19:46
I checked the definition of astrology from several sources but I think the deffinition is a lot narrower here. But that's okay, so to avoid confusion I will call what I am interested in ' Star Lore'

You make an interesting point there ravenest.

Interesting because there seem to be those who would argue that such 'Star Lore' is NOT Astrology but Astronomy:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gtosiris/page1.html

Now before you get too hot under the collar, I AGREE with you, I think it IS Astrology and certainly Nick Campion counts it as Astrology in his 'Dawn of Astrology'.

I think the author there takes too narrow a view of Astrology, though I don't dispute his history. He also is guilty of using a modern 'compartmental' or 'subject' view. I doubt that 5,000 years ago humans distinguished between religion and Astronomy, viewing the latter as entirely secular. Indeed I would have thought that a distinction between religion and secularity was not in their frame of reference. So perhaps we should have a thread on 'What is Astrology'.

Minderwiz
13-06-2009, 20:49
Back to the thread

We should remember that the 88 recognised constellations were not always 'recognised' LOL

Ptolemy only listed 48 constellations (c150 AD) long after Mesopotamian and Greek Astrology was established. Most of the later additions are of course Southern Hemisphere ones.

About 500 years before Ptolemy, it seems the list was around 30 constellations, the 12 which gave their names to the zodiac plus another 18. The existence of what I have seen refered to as Parazodiacal constellations (ones which touch the zodiac) was certainly known to the Babylonians, who listed Orion, Perseus, Auriga and Andromeda as such,in the Mul Apin. So Astrologers clearly have known for as long as the 12 sign zodiac has existed, that it was an abstraction and those Astronomers who use Ophiuchhus as evidence of Astrologer's ignorance of the zodiac either don't understand their own co-ordinate system and it's origin (the Astronomical co-ordinate system used to be the 12, 30 degree segments) or are simply trying to make an attack on Astrology for the sake of it, in the hope that the public don't have enough knowledge to realise the attack is bogus.

Oh, the reason why the zodiac 'passes' through Ophiuchus is the redrawn constellation bounderies published in 1930 by the IAU. One might ask Astronomers why they didn't change THEIR co-ordinate system as a consequence.

Incidentally, Astronomers also base their co-ordinate system on the equinox (Vernal in Northern Hemisphere/Autumnal in Southern Hemisphere) AND they also 'confusingly' call it the Aries Point, So next time an Astronomer asks you why you insist on saying that the Sun is in Aries, when it's really in Pisces, tell them it's because you are using the same co-ordinate system as they are and they should not ask such silly questions. You might divide your map into 12, 30 degree segments, each with a name, they might divide their's into 24 15 degree segments on maps, but both are measured from the same point. And that system was set up by people who did not distinguish between Astrology and Astronomy but believed both disciplines were inseparable.

Note for ravenest

I'm quite sure the Aborigines in Australia also recognised constellations that were not on Ptolemy's list, at the time he compiled it. So I am referring to a Northern Hemisphere knowledge base. I'm also sure that the 30 or so Constellations recognised by classical Greek Astrologers did not comprise the sum total of human knowledge in the Northern Hemisphere. My point was that the constellations did not all spring into human consciousness at the same time.

Bernice
13-06-2009, 23:05
Minderwiz: We should remember that the 88 recognised constellations were not always 'recognised' LOL
....................
AND
....................
I'm quite sure the Aborigines in Australia also recognised constellations that were not on Ptolemy's list, at the time he compiled it. So I am referring to a Northern Hemisphere knowledge base. I'm also sure that the 30 or so Constellations recognised by classical Greek Astrologers did not comprise the sum total of human knowledge in the Northern Hemisphere. My point was that the constellations did not all spring into human consciousness at the same time.

Agreed....

Bernice:
But there's no immutable Law to prevent someone trying.....

Ravenest:
Trying ???? Some have been using it quiet well for over 40,000 years 'down' here
Rubbish! There is no evidence that any peoples 40,000 years ago had mapped out star systems which are now only visible via high tech means. Maybe you didn't actually read what I posted ........?

Ravenest, you said that you "love wandering in deep sky". This begs the question = are you a Trekkie?

Bee :)

Minderwiz
14-06-2009, 00:20
Not astrology as most see it here. I am looking at a different application where a 12 neat balanced system may not apply.

I do see the problem here. The Sumerians, influenced the Babylonians who seem to have developed the 12 sign Zodiac. The Babylonians in turn contributed to mainstream Greek Astrological thought both through normal trade and through Alexander's conquest.

From Alexander onwards we have something of an Astrological Imperialism. Greeks influence Romans, Romans influence Europeans and Arabs. Europeans take this culture with them through colonisation to much of Africa, the Americas and Australasia.

OK that is much over simplified but it does account for the prevalence of the 12 Sign approach. As I pointed out above the 360 degree circle, itself a Babylonian development has determined the co-ordinate approach for both Astrology and later on, Astronomy.

In the exported Western culture the Astrology that is most practiced and followed is the horoscopic one and that is therefore naturally reflected in the posts here.

The very sad thing, which you are absolutely right to draw attention to, is that other traditions have been lost or overwhelmed or simply ignored. Even traditions within Europe that are not of Romano-Greek origins have been pushed out. Celtic Astrology is largely lost and only a New Age imitation now exists.

The trouble is now that unless there are experts in other traditions who visit such sites as this, the imbalance is likely to remain. So I hope that as you look at developing new systems you will share the ideas with us.

One last point. back on the topic. We are assuming that the zodiac had 12 clear constellations which determined it's number of signs. It's also possible to argue that the number system used by the Babylonians - based on 60, was itself derived from pre-Sumerian systems of counting based on 12 and 5.

That is the Babylonians took 12 signs because it fitted their numeral preconceptions, rather than because of 12 clear constellations. They then named the signs conveniently after constellations. The base of 12 in turn is likely to be based on the number of lunations in a year.

OK I know it's not precisely 12 lunations, but then the first stabs at measuring a 'year' could well have been on the basis of counting lunations and later generations refined it to our current state of knowledge.

If the above conjecture is correct then we might have had a 10 sign Zodiac if the Babylonians had used a decimal system or an 8 sign Zodiac if the Babylonians had used the octal system (indeed I have seen references to an 8 sign zodiac!)

Fire Cat
14-06-2009, 00:29
Was the Hebrews' zodiac system was influenced by the Babylonians or the Greeks?

Minderwiz
14-06-2009, 06:59
I know this sounds a silly question (but I have a reason for it)

When you say 'Hebrew zodiac' what exactly are you referring to?

Knowing will help me respond sensibly

Bernice
14-06-2009, 08:03
I know this sounds a silly question (but I have a reason for it)

When you say 'Hebrew zodiac' what exactly are you referring to?

Knowing will help me respond sensibly

Ive never heard of a Hebew zodiac. The later esoterics/ocultists have used astro. for the Qabalah (and on the Tree) - but the astrological correspondances for it don't seem to have originated with the Hewbrews.

Interesting..... :)

Bee

Fire Cat
14-06-2009, 08:47
It is the same zodiac, not claiming the Hebrews invented it, just wondering if it originates from the Babylonians (i.e., the Age of the Talmud) or the Greeks, or later during the Hellenistic Period.

Minderwiz
14-06-2009, 19:12
Well the Babylonians are generally credited with the 'invention' of the zodiac as a measuring device and that is around 600 BCE or a little before, so any biblical references which seem to refer to the zodiac are to the Babylonians,
especially as the captivity in Babylon was around that date (539-587 BCE)

The Greeks refined the use of the zodiac and really developed the 'horoscope' approach. Natal Astrology, as we now now it is a product of the Greek innovation based on a Babylonian idea.

We also know that the Babylonian zodiac also influenced the Persians, the Egyptians and the Indians.

Bernice
14-06-2009, 20:08
Thank you Minderwiz.... :)

But something always niggles at me re. the math.
Apparently (according to math gurus) it was the Arabs who introduced the concept of zero. And the 360 deg. begins (& ends) with zero.

?

Bee :)

Minderwiz
15-06-2009, 02:51
The Babylonians developed a positional system, rather like our decimal one.

When I went to primary school, we started off sums with columns, and even used 'H' for hundreds, 'T' for tens and 'U' for units. A '1' in the third column was '100' in the middle column it was '10' and in the first column it was '1'. The column position told you which power of 10 you were dealing with (of course we didnt know the columns represented powers of 10)

Now we also used a zero for the place holders if there was an absence of '10's or an absence of '1's but if you think about it, it's not vital for counting and recording. all you need is to put the numeral in the correct column.

Now the Babylonians worked in the above fashion, they had a symbol for '1' and a symbol for '10'. When the had reached '59', i.e. 5 '10's and 9 '1's, they started again with the symbol for '1' for '60' but moved it's position to the left as we do in our number system.

They proceeded in the same way till they reached the equivalent of '3,559' and then started again with the symbol for 1 but shifted a position to the left.

So 360 was represented as six '1' symbols representing 6 x 60.

They actually did develop a 'zero' symbol but it was only used in the 'middle' of numbers, not at the end. so they would use it in 3,601 but not in 3,660.

They clearly did manage to work with this without too much in the way of problems. However the arabic number system is far more elegant as well as being far more functional in advanced applications.

There are several websites that will explain the Babylonian system in such detail, just Google 'Babylonnian number system'.

Incidentally whilst it appears that it is widely accepted that the Babylonian number system has it's origins in the coming together of two peoples using different number bases, there does seem two versions of this. One, as I detailed above, based on 12 and 5 and another theory that it was based on 10 and 6. I Just don't have the expertise to even suggest reasons why one rather than the other should be preferred. However the base 12 and 5 explanation does offer a reasonable explanation of why they settled on 12 signs.

zhan.thay
15-06-2009, 20:11
At 21 Mar 2300 BCE, my version of SkyMap Pro shows Electra (17 Tauri), one of the leading stars of the Pleiades, at 0 degrees ecliptic longitude. Also, at that time, the ecliptic passed through very little of the modern area ascribed to Ophiuchus (from 198 to 207 ecliptic longitude, 9 days worth) and nowhere near its main figure. Theta Ophiuchi was the nearest star of the constellation to the ecliptic being about 202 ecl long & -1 ecl lat. By comparison the ecliptic passed through the modern Scorpius area from 180 to 198, 18 days worth.

At 2000 BCE, modern Aries' boundary (with Taurus) was at 359, Electra at 4. Scorpius went from 184 to 192, Ophiuchus 192 to 211.

At 1500 BCE, the line connecting the stars 41 Arietis & epsilon Arietis was very nearly coincident with 0 degrees ecliptic longitude. Scorpius went from 191 to 199, Ophiuchus 199 to 218.

At 1000 BCE, 0 degrees ecliptic longitude passed through the middle of Aries & through the middle of one of the fish of Pisces. Scorpius went from 198 to 206, Ophiuchus 206 to 225.

Projecting forward several millenia, it can be seen that the ecliptic will never not pass through modern Ophiuchus and going backwards in time it has never not passed through it either. The point to make, which I think has been stated before, is that the Babylonians did not have Ophiuchus as one of their constellations anyway when they divided the ecliptic into twelve equal segments.

zhan.thay
15-06-2009, 20:19
In the June 2009 issue of Astronomy magazine, Geoff Chester, U.S. Naval Observatory, answers the question, "The constellation Ophiuchus lies partly on the ecliptic, so why isn't it considered one of the zodiacal signs?"

Answer (in part): In the second millenium B.C., the Babylonians divided the sky into 12 equal segments along the ecliptic, which traces the apparent annual path of the Sun through the stars as seen from Earth. They named each 30 degree wide segment after a nearby star pattern. This established the 12 signs of the zodiac, which comes from the Greek 'zodiakos', meaning "circle of animals"

ravenest
18-06-2009, 14:50
Rubbish! There is no evidence that any peoples 40,000 years ago had mapped out star systems which are now only visible via high tech means. Maybe you didn't actually read what I posted ........?

No I didnt read the 'only visible by high tech means' I read this ; "Realistically speaking, there are enough 'constellations' out there - that can be seen from Earth." Where is the reference to high tech means?

Ravenest, you said that you "love wandering in deep sky". This begs the question = are you a Trekkie?

Bee :)
God no! But I enjoyed my time inside the Canberra deep space tracking centre.

ravenest
18-06-2009, 15:00
One last point. back on the topic. We are assuming that the zodiac had 12 clear constellations which determined it's number of signs. It's also possible to argue that the number system used by the Babylonians - based on 60, was itself derived from pre-Sumerian systems of counting based on 12 and 5.

That is the Babylonians took 12 signs because it fitted their numeral preconceptions, rather than because of 12 clear constellations. They then named the signs conveniently after constellations. The base of 12 in turn is likely to be based on the number of lunations in a year.

OK I know it's not precisely 12 lunations, but then the first stabs at measuring a 'year' could well have been on the basis of counting lunations and later generations refined it to our current state of knowledge.

If the above conjecture is correct then we might have had a 10 sign Zodiac if the Babylonians had used a decimal system or an 8 sign Zodiac if the Babylonians had used the octal system (indeed I have seen references to an 8 sign zodiac!)
Right on Mindy!
Try this; count to 25 using fingers. After 10 how does one keep track? On toes?
Now try not counting the thumb but using the thumb as the counter and press the thumb of the right hand on the index finger end 1, then the second part of the finger 2 and so on, one can count to 12 on one hand- one dozen. The groups of 12 or dozens are maked as before but on the left hand and so on giving a counting system of 12 in 4 stages of 3 (12, 4 , 3 remind you of anything) up to 144.
(Also I can hold my hands up to signal say ... 138 in one gesture, you cant do that by using fingers to count to 10. Perhaps some people found base 12 easier to work with?

Oh of course and as usuall I cant site reference or proof for my wacky ideas :laugh:

ravenest
18-06-2009, 15:02
They named each 30 degree wide segment after a nearby star pattern.

Well, that's what I ASSUMED, but not everyone agrees. Do YOU agree with that article?
[PS curious tag homelandman?]

ravenest
18-06-2009, 15:04
ooops - double post

zhan.thay
18-06-2009, 16:25
Well, that's what I ASSUMED, but not everyone agrees. Do YOU agree with that article?


Who can tell after 8,000 years or so? It has some semblance of logic to it though. I personally don't believe I have the intuitition or channeling powers to know what Babylonian astrologers may have decided at the time.

When I look at the night sky (the next time we get a clear night sky) and see planets between Libra and Sagittarius I think, as usual, I will relate their positions to Antares and the other stars of Scorpius because it is easily recognisable by comparison with Ophiuchus/Serpens Caput/Serpens Cauda.

zhan.thay
18-06-2009, 16:46
Regardless of whether Ophiuchus should or should not be inluded in the zodiac, the mythology makes for a fascinating tale. For example, see this quote from Allen, R.H., Star Names: Their Lore and their Meanings:

"But the Serpent-holder generally was identified with {Greek characters}, Asclepios, or Aesculapius, whom King james I described as "a mediciner after made a god," with whose worship serpents were always associated as symbols of prudence, renovation, wisdom, and the power of discovering healing herbs. Educated by his father Apollo, or by the centaur Chiron, Aesculapius was the earliest of his profession and the ship's surgeon of the Argo. When the famous voyage was over he became so skilled in practice that he even restored the dead to life, among these being Hippolytus, of whom King James wrote:

Hippolyte. After his members were drawin in sunder by foure horses, Esculapius at Neptun's request glewed them together and revived him.

But several such successful operations and numerous remarkable cures, and especially the attempt to revive the dead Orion, led Pluto, who feared for the continuance of his kingdom, to induce Jove to strike Aesculapius with a thunderbolt and put him among the constellations.

Note 1: According to Greek tradition, he was a lineal ancestor of the great physician, Hippocrates; ...
... The name and the profession were continued in the Asclepiadae, an order of priest-physicians long noted in Greece."

Minderwiz
18-06-2009, 19:26
Oh of course and as usuall I cant site reference or proof for my wacky ideas :laugh:

Don't mind that. The origin of counting systems is fascinating but no one know for sure for some of them. Ten fingers seems to be the completely obvious for base 10 and the space BETWEEN digits is four on each hand giving a base 8

I've seen the point about the 'segments' of the fingers giving a variety of bases.

homelandman,

Thanks for the astro-archaeology. Very interesting.

ravenest
24-06-2009, 12:54
Don't mind that. The origin of counting systems is fascinating but no one know for sure for some of them. Ten fingers seems to be the completely obvious for base 10 and the space BETWEEN digits is four on each hand giving a base 8

I've seen the point about the 'segments' of the fingers giving a variety of bases.


But never base 13 :laugh: