About Ophiuchus the 13th sign

ravenest

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

Constellations and sidereal signs.

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

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

dadsnook2000 said:
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

Equinox part 1

Minderwiz said:
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.

Minderwiz said:
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.

Minderwiz said:
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?).

Minderwiz said:
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

Equinox part 2

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

Equinox part 3

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

Equinox part 4

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

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

the 12 energies

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.