Atu XX- The Aeon, flame on!

ravenest

I'm interested. Wikipedia gives a wide variety of years for the end of this Age, ranging from now until the twenty six hundreds.

Well, I can supply you with a list of them too .... I can just make them up . Or work them out on a dodgy premise / system.

I want to know how people are getting these dates .

Show me the money !
 

ravenest

Actually, calculations based on the boundaries of the constellations as set by the IAU in 1928 even lead to 2600 AD.

Whoa there !

This is what I mean ( nothing personal, if I could just select a 'volunteer' from the audience ..... ummmm .... Michael ! You will do . ) It all seems so unclear .

In my view, the last post I made, what Aeon said is totally unclear to me : " " Since the boundaries between signs are better established these days (and we're not using tropical astrology either, but actual astronomy ..... " , my confusion here is , what does the accuracy of sign boundaries (being tropical) have to do with it since "we are not using tropical " :confused:

And Michael, do you mean, in the above quote, the Age of Aquarius will start 'around' the time ( so as not to be TOO picky ) when the E.P. passes over the constellational boundary into Aquarius as set by the IAU in 1928 ?

-
 

Zephyros

Well, I can supply you with a list of them too .... I can just make them up . Or work them out on a dodgy premise / system.

I want to know how people are getting these dates .

Show me the money !

Well, the Wikipedia article on Axial Precession says thus:

...the apparent position of the Sun relative to the backdrop of the stars at some seasonally fixed time slowly regresses a full 360° through all twelve traditional constellations of the zodiac, at the rate of about 50.3 seconds of arc per year (approximately 360 degrees divided by 25,772), or 1 degree every 71.6 years. The constellation or house of the zodiac in front of which the Sun rises at the vernal equinox is therefore changed, and this is described as "the age of (the zodiac sign or house)," (e.g.; The Age of Aquarius).

So that sets the stage for what defining an Age and how it is measured.

The equinoxes occur where the celestial equator intersects the ecliptic (red line), that is, where the Earth's axis is perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the Sun and Earth. (Note that the term "equinox" here refers to a point on the celestial sphere so defined, rather than the moment in time when the Sun is overhead at the Equator, though the two meanings are related.) When the axis precesses from one orientation to another, the equatorial plane of the Earth (indicated by the circular grid around the equator) moves. The celestial equator is just the Earth's equator projected onto the celestial sphere, so it moves as the Earth's equatorial plane moves, and the intersection with the ecliptic moves with it. The positions of the poles and equator on Earth do not change, only the orientation of the Earth against the fixed stars.

Then, the article provides a table with these dates for the changing of the ages.

Taurus 4500 BC 2000 BC

Aries 2000 BC 100 BC

Pisces 100 BC AD 2700

So it would seem that it is in the 2700s. For those of us who, to use a "north-centric" term, down under:

sky, and the nominal south pole star is Sigma Octantis, which with magnitude 5.5 is barely visible to the naked eye even under ideal conditions. That will change from the 80th to the 90th centuries, however, when the south celestial pole travels through the False Cross.

Now, the article on the Age of Aquarius says this:

Astrological ages exist as a result of precession of the equinoxes. The slow wobble of the earth's spin axis on the celestial sphere is independent of the diurnal rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the annual revolution of the earth around the sun. Traditionally this 25,800-year-long cycle is calibrated, for the purposes of determining astrological ages, by the location of the sun in one of the twelve zodiac constellations at the vernal equinox, which corresponds to the moment the sun rises above the celestial equator, marking the start of spring in the Northern Hemisphere each year. Roughly every 2,150 years the sun's position at the time of the vernal equinox will have moved into a new zodiacal constellation. However zodiacal constellations are not uniform in size, leading some astrologers to believe that the corresponding ages should also vary in duration. This however is a contentious issue among astrologers.

In 1929 the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around 2600 CE. Many astrologers dispute this approach because of the varying sizes and overlap between the zodiacal constellations.

So I guess astronomically it is possible to make relatively accurate calculation of where the sun will be at a given vernal equinox. But is that "it?" Is the overlap enough to explain an almost seven hundred year range of opinion?
 

Michael Sternbach

Whoa there !

This is what I mean ( nothing personal, if I could just select a 'volunteer' from the audience ..... ummmm .... Michael ! You will do . ) It all seems so unclear .

In my view, the last post I made, what Aeon said is totally unclear to me : " " Since the boundaries between signs are better established these days (and we're not using tropical astrology either, but actual astronomy ..... " , my confusion here is , what does the accuracy of sign boundaries (being tropical) have to do with it since "we are not using tropical " :confused:

And Michael, do you mean, in the above quote, the Age of Aquarius will start 'around' the time ( so as not to be TOO picky ) when the E.P. passes over the constellational boundary into Aquarius as set by the IAU in 1928 ?

-

Yes. That's probably as good as it gets from an astronomical view. It's also what Jung stated. Have a look at this:

http://www.oocities.org/astrologyages/ageofaquarius.htm

*snip* So I guess astronomically it is possible to make relatively accurate calculation of where the sun will be at a given vernal equinox. But is that "it?" Is the overlap enough to explain an almost seven hundred year range of opinion?

Probably, the crucial question is whether we base the calculation on the movement of the E.P. through the constellations (and mind you, there are thirteen to fourteen of them touching the ecliptic, not just the twelve that gave their names to the signs) or through the sidereal zodiac. The problem with the sidereal zodiac (widely used in India today) is that there is no general agreement as to where exactly on the ecliptic it begins (that is, where to locate 0° Aries). There are widely differing values for this ayanamsa in use which also lead to different results regarding the time that the E.P. moves from sidereal Pisces to sidereal Aquarius.
 

Aeon418

If you are not using tropical astrology here , what has the " boundaries between signs are better established these days " comment got to do with non-tropical astrology ? :confused:

I've PM'd you a link to some info.

Anyone else who wants a look, ask Ravenest for the link. It's on another forum, so I can't post it without incurring the wrath of the site Mods.
 

ravenest

Well, the Wikipedia article on Axial Precession says thus:



So that sets the stage for what defining an Age and how it is measured.

No offence Z but I have been talking about this here for years ..... I know what axial precession is and understand the dynamic ... and I can look up google and wiki.

Sorry if that seems short, but time and time again, when I try to bring this issue up, I get explained the basics and get sent links with dodgy info etc.

The understanding of the basic issues isnt the question, the question is .... still, H O W do they get this date , and keep some type of valid astrological principles in the process ?

Then, the article provides a table with these dates for the changing of the ages.

Taurus 4500 BC 2000 BC

Aries 2000 BC 100 BC

Pisces 100 BC AD 2700


Yes ... the lists of dates again .... without explanations as to how ....

So it would seem that it is in the 2700s. For those of us who, to use a "north-centric" term, down under:



Now, the article on the Age of Aquarius says this:



So I guess astronomically it is possible to make relatively accurate calculation of where the sun will be at a given vernal equinox. But is that "it?" Is the overlap enough to explain an almost seven hundred year range of opinion?

I think the issue is people ( from people here ... all the way to Jim Eismann , DuQuette, and Crowley, who have built up Thelemic cred ) , dont understand some basic issues.


Sigh .
 

Zephyros

No offence Z but I have been talking about this here for years ..... I know what axial precession is and understand the dynamic ... and I can look up google and wiki.

None taken, I'm the one who doesn't understand these things, so I was thinking out loud there.

I thought it was obvious when I'm talking about stuff I know about and when I'm just spouting. :)

The understanding of the basic issues isnt the question, the question is .... still, H O W do they get this date , and keep some type of valid astrological principles in the process ?

Keep in mind that even the articles are a bit vague, none of them giving satisfactory answers. There are possibly no satisfactory answers especially when combining straight astronomy and astrology.

I think the issue is people ( from people here ... all the way to Jim Eismann , DuQuette, and Crowley, who have built up Thelemic cred ) , dont understand some basic issues.


Sigh .

Quite possibly. Most people wouldn't know anything about it at all if there hadn't been Hair, so it isn't as though it is common knowledge beyond cosmic quantum flow and stuff.
 

ravenest

Yes. That's probably as good as it gets from an astronomical view. It's also what Jung stated. Have a look at this:

http://www.oocities.org/astrologyages/ageofaquarius.htm



Probably, the crucial question is whether we base the calculation on the movement of the E.P. through the constellations (and mind you, there are thirteen to fourteen of them touching the ecliptic, not just the twelve that gave their names to the signs) or through the sidereal zodiac. The problem with the sidereal zodiac (widely used in India today) is that there is no general agreement as to where exactly on the ecliptic it begins (that is, where to locate 0° Aries). There are widely differing values for this ayanamsa in use which also lead to different results regarding the time that the E.P. moves from sidereal Pisces to sidereal Aquarius.

Thank you !

Someone knows a bit of what I am referring to !

Guys, look at a constellation map. Have you ever looked at a star atlas ? Are you familiar with the constellations and boundaries and their shape and how they intersect the ecliptic. They are all over the place. Unequal , disjointed jig saw. One corner of Cetus goes up to the ecliptic, the EP will pass through that constellation ... will we have an age of the Whale ?

(Waits for Michael to return with info about how that happened in the 70s when we all went nuts about whale songs :laugh: )

Also, if we wanted to look at an astronomical position of a planet , in reality, there are even more constellations it can be in, as planets do not have to follow the LINE of the ecliptic, but their path is within the BAND of the ecliptic .... much much wider .

If you Follow some constellational boundaries, they go along, to enclose a constellational asterism, then do a right angle, zoom off through space, do 2 right angles around some distant lone star and zoom back to the asterism, so that the constellation has this weird square corridor sticking out from it.

There are multiple constellations on the ecliptic, according to this idea

and this is what I am trying to get at ... the idea

if the idea is that ..... when the EP passes a constellational boundary and goes into that constellation, we are in the age of that constellation. But some are massive ( like Libra - because she stole Scorpios claws ) and Scorpio is tiny on the ecliptic ... any constellational (on one of these astronomical maps we are talking about ) 'age' for Scorpio would be over in a relative blink .

The whole idea of the ages being equal periods means they can not be mapped on to the CURRENT astronomical chart .... and it makes trying to work out a lot of astrology useless or ridiculously complex. That was the whole point of making an equal 12 SIGN equal degree system in the first place that overlaid the constellations !

This is also what 'sidereal astrologists do. They dont follow the constellations ... or they would have a sign of Ophiuchus ... they use the 12 equal house system and attempt to shift the whole thing around to account for precession .... it doesnt match the astronomical sky either !

This is IMO why the GD were experimenting with a new system based on older forms of astrology.

It isnt THAT hard to work out. One has to look at older forms of

I just think its nuts to think the world astrological age changes according to some 'arbitrary' constellational boundary drawn recently on the current map .... thats ridiculous !

If any one else is still with me ..... my suggestion is, to look at historical changes in constellations ( generally via culture, not every model that appeared in one culture ) and get an idea about how constellations and their boundaries are very flexible, What is less flexible is asterisms. So one needs 12 general asterisms on the ecliptic and work out the degrees before and after them to make 30.

Some protest this as things will happen like Scorp will intrude on Lib .... but IMO that is actually a restoration as the old Scorpions claws went to Libra ... and other dynamics.

My prefered system is actually a true sidereal system and not based on any imaginary and arbitrary area of 'void space' around, near of far away from an asterism. ie, based on stars.

And since my theory is that any constellational 'space' is better defined by varient energy of a decan ... and decans get their energy from particular stars on or perpendicular to the ecliptic, then the whole thing can be worked out that way . The precession, modern boundaries decided by astronomers, unequal constellations, etc etc etc dont even have to enter into it .

Does anyone follow me here ? (please dont explain the dynamics of precession to me again in answer }) )

I better stop here.
 

Aeon418

I want to know how people are getting these dates .

Show me the money !
I just did. Or did you miss the significance of the Synetic Vernal Point?
 

ravenest

I've PM'd you a link to some info.

Anyone else who wants a look, ask Ravenest for the link. It's on another forum, so I can't post it without incurring the wrath of the site Mods.

I keep asking you about what you wrote ... and you seem to be avoiding it ???

3rd time ; - " You must have missed this bit I asked you about ( again if I read you right ) , I would really like to know :

You ; " Since the boundaries between signs are better established these days (and we're not using tropical astrology either, but actual astronomy) ..... "

Me; " What ?

If you are not using tropical astrology here , what has the " boundaries between signs are better established these days " comment got to do with non-tropical astrology ? "




Thanks for Jims rave, but it doesnt answer my question, does it ? ... and it has some bad and common flaws in it . Especially at his point 1 where he misses the whole import of tropical astrology tracking the seasons .... hence the whole point of much of past astrology and ancient astronomy.... the reason for aligning pyramids , building Stonehenge, Ring of Brodgar ... etc. etc. ie, the seasons .

I would rather people keep the conversation here and answer questions about what they ( or I ) wrote than just give them some link or wiki definition .... this is not about my lack of understanding of celestial mechanics.