question about the age of aquarius

AH020387

are we already in the age of aquarius or will it begin in december 21 2012?
 

dadsnook2000

What is an age, when is an age?

The Age of Aquarius became a common topic decades ago and was further popularized by the Broadway Show of that name. However, those events and times really pre-dated the actual Age of Aquarius by a couple of centuries.

The Earth's inclination to the Ecliptic path, as defined by our orbital plane about the Sun, is not a fixed tilt relative to point to/away from the Sun, but a tilt that slowly wobbles much like a child's top as it spins about on the floor, the handle on the top slowly describing small circles as the top itself spins rapidly on its axis. It is this tilt in our planet's axis that defines the first day, hour, minute and second of spring. Currently, spring occurs near March 21st. The zodiac is pegged to the exact moment of spring which defines where 0 degrees Aries lies.

Over time this "Aries point" shifts backwards against the Earth's orbital direction by a small amount each year, an amount so small that it will take almost 26,000 years for the slippage to move us fully around the orbital circle (sort of a circle) and back to the point it is at now. Where Aries 0 degrees is "now" can be compared to the fixed, unmovable Sidereal zodiac. Compared to the commonly used Aries 0 point among the fixed stars, the Tropical zodiac Aries 0 degree point is about 5 degrees of Sidereal Pisces. Moving at a rate of 1 degree every 72 years, the Tropical Aries point will not slide back to the last degree-minute-second of Sidereal Aquarius for ( 5 X 72 ) 360 years or so.

Can you wait that long? Dave
 

rachelcat

This is the most lucid explanation of the ages that I've seen. But disappointing! I don't think I can wait that long!
 

Minderwiz

The short answer is almost certainly 'No' and 'No'

The long answer depends on exactly what you mean by the 'Age of Aquarius'

If you're asking from a purely Astrological point of view there's no definite answer. Astrology does recognise the phenomenon of the 'precession of the equinoxes' which lies at the heart of the Astrological (and Astronomical) ages. Put simply precession is the process by which the Spring Equinox (March in the Northern Hemisphere) occurs slightly earlier each year, in terms of the Sun's position against the background of the constellations. When Astrology first began to use a system of measurement to determine the Spring Equinox, it was observed to occur when the Sun was passing in front of the constellation of Aries. We know that the Spring Equinox moves backwards one degree every 72 years (rounded figure), so if all constellations were of equal size the Sun would take 72 x 30 years or 2,160 (again an approximation) to move through a constellation.

However herein lies the first problem. Constellations are not of equal size, in terms of the arc of space they occupy and indeed they often overlap. This problem led to the development of the Astrological Zodiac of Signs, which although called after constellations are defined as 30 degree segments of space, whether or not they contain o, 1 or 2 constellations, or parts of constellations. That is the Zodiac never was a band of constellations, it always has been a band of equal 30 degree segments or Signs.

To add to the trouble when precession was seen to be leading to the March Equinox moving out of Aries, Western Astrology moved to a position where the start of the Zodiac (0 degrees Aries) is defined as the moment of the March Equinox and thereafter largely ignored precession - it's called the Tropical Zodiac (because it's cardinal points are marked not only by the equinoxes but also the solstices, when the Sun is on either the Tropic of Cancer or the Tropic of Capricorn). So from a Tropical point of view there will never be an Age of Aquarius because the March Equinox is by definition 0 Aries.

On the other hand Astrology as practised in India continued to use a starting point for the Zodiac which has the the start of the Zodiac measured from a point in the constellation of Aries (at least in principle) and recognised the March equinox has moved into the Sign of Pisces. (This approach is called the Sidereal Zodiac or the Zodiac of the stars, though actually that's a total misnomer, as it too uses 30 degree signs which may or may not contain the constellation that they were named after and may or may not contain parts of other constellations. The two zodiacs effectively differ about where the 0 point of Aries should be, either it's taken as the March Equinox, or from some point in Aries (not necessarily the 'start' but a particularly noticeable star).

So one way of defining the Age of Aquarius would be the date, as measured using a sidereal zodiac on which the March Equinox occurs in 29 degrees 59 minutes 59 seconds or earlier of Aquarius.

Now for this year, the March Equinox occurs at 05:15:45 GMT on March 20. If I cast a chart for this time using a sidereal zodiac I get a position of 05 degrees 05 minutes Pisces for the Sun. So the answer to your question would seem to be, It's not there now and it won't be there in December this year. Indeed it will not be there for another 361 years. Which is a bit of a disappointment as we won't be around to see it.

Now even that is a simplistic approach to the question. I deliberately used the term 'a sidereal zodiac' rather that 'the sidereal zodiac' because those who use a sidereal approach do not agree on the exact starting point and therefore have different values of the difference between The 0 degrees Aries of the Tropical Zodiac (March Equinox) and 0 degrees of the Sidereal Zodiac. So whereas I asked my copy of Solar Fire to do the calculation based on the 'Fagan Bradley' method, if I'd asked it to do the calculation based on the Krishnamurti method, I would have got an answer of 6 degrees 3 minutes Pisces, which would postpone the Age of Aquarius by almost another 72 years. And these two are not the only methods by any means, Solar Fire offers more than a dozen different calculations that I could use.

To add to the woes, if you insisted on it being the constellation of Aquarius, rather than the sign of Aquarius we would have the further complication of deciding exactly where the constellation begins and ends, and if that can't be done with any unanimity for Aries, what chance is there for Aquarius?

Finally just to depress you even further, there's no agreement on when the two zodiacs were last in sync. I've seen dates quoted, which range from around 254 BC to the third century AD - the calculations I've given above clearly put that point some time in the third century AD and I've not seen a sidereal zodiac calculation that is anywhere near 500 years earlier but that's not to say that it's not an arguable point.

I've attempted to give an objective answer to your question and of course this question has been with us as a regular, since the musical Hair provided us with the song 'This is the Dawning of The Age of Aquarius' and in some senses the song has a point. The sun's light can be seen on the horizon before it's technical rising, the point where it is actually on the horizon itself. So if 'dawn' could be said to start before sunrise, then this could, in terms of Astrological Ages, be the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, even if it's 300 years or so away, give or take a century. And just as the Sun's rays influence life even before it has fully risen, so there might be an influence of that coming Age. That being said - there are further questions as to whether sidereal Aquarius has the same connotations as Tropical Aquarius and indeed whether 'New Age' Astrology has any real validity.

'You pays your money and you takes your chance' so to speak :)

Sorry to be rather extensive in the answer, but it's a good question and one that others may think about from time to time.