First Point of Aries

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

First Point of Aries

Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Calendar List

After looking at various sources, I notice that historically Westerners have tended to favor Gamma Arietis as the First Point of Aries, while Easterners have preferred Zeta Piscium (aka Raveti) If I convert their current equatorial positions to ecliptic coordinates, I find a rather large gap of at least 10 degrees of ecliptic longitude between them.

However, if I take Sagittarius A* as Sagittarius 0, convert its equatorial position to ecliptic coordinates, and move 120 degrees to designate Aries 0, I get a point whose ecliptic longitude is somewhere between Gamma Arietis and Zeta Piscium A happy compromise between East and West

WalterZiobro

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Ed Kohout-2
This email originated from outside ECU.

Hi Walter,

The Hindu/Indian zodiac, commomly called the "Lahiri," is based upon the star Spica being 0° Libra.

The Western "Fagan" zodiac is defined by the star Aldebaran being 15° Taurus.  

Both of these stars can be occulted by the Moon.

- Ed

*****************************************


On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:02 AM, Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Calendar List

After looking at various sources, I notice that historically Westerners have tended to favor Gamma Arietis as the First Point of Aries, while Easterners have preferred Zeta Piscium (aka Raveti) If I convert their current equatorial positions to ecliptic coordinates, I find a rather large gap of at least 10 degrees of ecliptic longitude between them.

However, if I take Sagittarius A* as Sagittarius 0, convert its equatorial position to ecliptic coordinates, and move 120 degrees to designate Aries 0, I get a point whose ecliptic longitude is somewhere between Gamma Arietis and Zeta Piscium A happy compromise between East and West

WalterZiobro

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

13520.11.09 - Re: First Point of Aries

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

9 Aquarius♒ 13520 UCC

Hey Walter

Yes indeed, a good E/W compromise! :D

Although from memory I think using Spica brings us a bit closer to Revati than the Aries star though right? (I'll have to refresh my memory on Stellarium!)

Cheers

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 1/28/20 9:02 AM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Dear Calendar List

After looking at various sources, I notice that historically Westerners have tended to favor Gamma Arietis as the First Point of Aries, while Easterners have preferred Zeta Piscium (aka Raveti) If I convert their current equatorial positions to ecliptic coordinates, I find a rather large gap of at least 10 degrees of ecliptic longitude between them.

However, if I take Sagittarius A* as Sagittarius 0, convert its equatorial position to ecliptic coordinates, and move 120 degrees to designate Aries 0, I get a point whose ecliptic longitude is somewhere between Gamma Arietis and Zeta Piscium A happy compromise between East and West

WalterZiobro

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--
.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Oh, I should point out that the quoted passage (re-quoted below) speaks of an SVP of 6 degrees Pisces in 1950.

The Northward equinox has moved almost a degree westward on the ecliptic since then. So now the sidereal-astrologers' sidereal 1st point of Aries has a current ecliptic longitude of about 25 degrees, and so that quoted SVP supports my claim that 25 degrees is standard for astrologers.

6 M
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

And I'll just add that of courses it's the sidereal astronomers that use a sidereal system of ecliptic-divisions. Therefore, when any astrologers speaks of an SVP, he's talking about the one used by the sidereal astrologers.    ...the one stated as standard by the sidereal astrologer whose article I quoted. 

That current standard Pisces 5 degrees SVP that he stated agrees wit what I'd previously read, and stated here, about astrologers' standard sidereal eclipti-divisions system.

6 M
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 3:24 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Oh, I should point out that the quoted passage (re-quoted below) speaks of an SVP of 6 degrees Pisces in 1950.

The Northward equinox has moved almost a degree westward on the ecliptic since then. So now the sidereal-astrologers' sidereal 1st point of Aries has a current ecliptic longitude of about 25 degrees, and so that quoted SVP supports my claim that 25 degrees is standard for astrologers.

6 M
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Ed Kohout-2
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

Gamma Arietis was used as the First Point of Aries by Copernicus in his star catalogue, and the Wikipedia article on the First Point of Aries mentions Gamma Arietis as having been used as such by Western astronomers

It's interesting to note that the current ecliptic longitude of 33 degrees for Gamma Arietis implies that the Age of Aquarius is already well underway It would have started when Gamma Arietis was at the ecliptic degree of 30. If you use the rate of precession as 1 degree in 72 years, then that point would have been passed 216 years before 2000, which would have been around 1780 , around the time of the American and French Revolutions

Novos Ordo Seclorum?

WalterZiobro




On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

It is also interesting to mote that both Gamma Arietis and Zeta Piscium have been used as the First Point of Aries, not so much for themselves, but because both of them are about 180 degrees opposite to Spica, which has been recognized as the First Point of Libra by ancient astronomers in both the East and West. In fact Hipparchus used Spica to measure the rate of precession

However, it turns out that Sagittarius A* is almost exactly 60 ecliptic degrees from Spica, and if you designate the First Point of Aries as 120 degrees from Sagittarius A*, it is almost exactly 180 degrees opposite Spica, and nicely placed between Gamma Arietis and Zeta Piscium

Also Sagittarius A* is much further distant than any of the stars used to reference the First Point of Aries, and thus has a much smaller proper motion than any of them In fact, the apparent proper motion of Sagittarius A * is caused by the sun slowly orbiting around it

WalterZiobro




On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Ed Kohout-2
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

Hi Walter,

Thank you for pointing out that Copernicus' star catalog (which is, unfortunately, filled with errors) was the originary source for this idea, and that it was highly unconventional in the tradition of such cataloguing, and that it still is irrelevant as a defunct paradigm.

The *only* reason the Chaldeans devised equal 30° signs of the zodiac was simply for mathematical purposes, and *not* to re-define boundaries of apparent constellations.  

Or, as I have said in many settings and forums, "There is only one Tropical Zodiac, but there can be an infinite number of sidereal zodiacs."  

Yet, we have to ask why any astrologer would use a sidereal zodiac, and the answer is that it removes the Earth's axial nutation that is the factor of precession.  Any choice of a favorite fiducial is simply a matter of personal preference, and most have chosen the Fagan value as it seems to have been a standard in pre-Chaldean times.  Fagan's basic proof is that the Babylonian "exaltations" of the planets fit very neatly into that particular starry matrix, and also the Sun's exaltation value.

All of which was basically unknown to Copernicus.

Finally, since you have brought up the revolutions, for a nice treat, you may want to calculate the solar position for George Washington's inauguration as the first president of the new USA, on April 30, 1789, at about 1 pm local mean time, and then apply the Fagan ayanamsa.  

- Ed

*****************************************

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:08 AM, Walter J Ziobro

Gamma Arietis was used as the First Point of Aries by Copernicus in his star catalogue, and the Wikipedia article on the First Point of Aries mentions Gamma Arietis as having been used as such by Western astronomers

It's interesting to note that the current ecliptic longitude of 33 degrees for Gamma Arietis implies that the Age of Aquarius is already well underway It would have started when Gamma Arietis was at the ecliptic degree of 30. If you use the rate of precession as 1 degree in 72 years, then that point would have been passed 216 years before 2000, which would have been around 1780 , around the time of the American and French Revolutions

Novos Ordo Seclorum?

WalterZiobro


On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

13520.11.10 - Re: First Point of Aries

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

10♒20 UCC

Dear Michael (& Walter and others)

There is No Agreed Standard

Thanks for the info. But just to say again that apart from the agreement on having 30degree segments there is no "standard" sidereal zodiac in terms of it's starting point, there are only several proposed versions (which I shared in the Ayanamsa article from Astrodienst). Just as there is not actually a conclusively proven theory for the cause of precession, there is only the "currently accepted" theory, largely because it was originally proposed by Issac Newton and has had some of its components, but not all demonstrated by observation and measurement.

So all that matters is that we state which assumption we are using as reference.

Sidereal Astrology

Thanks for the link, I've come across that site before. It's funny how everyone claims that their system is the only "real" or "true" system! Only the fullness of time will confirm which of many hypotheses turn out to be correct, once we have enough data over enough time to confirm the current and historic assumptions.

The Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs are both valid for different things for different reasons. For example, the Sidereal system makes sense when looking at the solar system in terms of its place in time and space compared to the wider galaxy and the Great Year. Therefore Sidereal Astrology would be more valid (if you give the meta physics of Astrology any validity in the first place!) when looking at World Events over time, energy that affects the whole planet. Whilst the Tropical system makes sense when looking at the energies of the seasonal yearly cycle and how they change and may affect individuals, depending where they were born, and are now, on the planet.

Three Zodiacs!

There are of course actually 3 Zodiacs: Tropical Signs (Months of the Year), Sidereal Signs (Great Months of the Great Year - also called "Astrological Ages") and Constellations (Asterisms of stars which appear from our perspective here on earth to be close together and loosely form certain shapes.

For more on this see here: http://rasa.ws/rasa-library-menu-page/rasa-library-articles-three-zodiacs/

and here: https://www.astrologyhub.com/the-three-zodiacs/

and here: http://www.medievalastrologyguide.com/the-zodiacs.html (this one has some good graphics)

One of the main benefits of understanding this is that you can use the correspondence between the Tropical and Sidereal systems to determine where we are in the Great Year (the Common Era), and this is what I do in the UCC to determine the Year Number, the Great Month, the Great Season and the Yuga at any point of the Great Year.

More on this here: https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/Universal%20Community%20Calendar%20Wiki.backup.html#More_About_The_Great_Year

(I have shared that link previously, but I share it again as reference to this discussion)

The Age of Aquarius is a 'Great Month'

So, what people call 'The Age of Aquarius' or the 'Age of Pisces' are merely Great Months within Great Seasons of the Great Year. Like the Year cycle of 12 "Zodiac Signs/Months", each having slightly different lengths due to the elliptic nature of our orbit, the Great Year cycle has 12 "Zodiac Ages/Great Months", each with varying lengths for similar reasons (see link above)

Anyway, I'm sure that whatever our individual perspectives may be, we can all agree on what a fantastic system the Zodiac is, and how useful it has been and will continue to be for us to explain "the view from our back yard", daily, monthly, seasonally, annually, and "great annually"!

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 1/28/20 8:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--
.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.10 - Re: First Point of Aries

Ed Kohout-2
This email originated from outside ECU.

Litmus,

Great points again.  You said, >> Anyway, I'm sure that whatever our individual perspectives may be, we can all agree on what a fantastic system the Zodiac is, and how useful it has been and will continue to be for us to explain "the view from our back yard", daily, monthly, seasonally, annually, and "great annually"! <<

Naturally, a 12-equal-sign paradigm approximates the number of lunations in a year, the extent of the Sun's aura of ~34°, and the sexagesimal counting system of the ancients.  But, really, Aquarius as a concept came about because the Sun was in front of this area of fixed stars during the rainy season in that part of the world.  The constellations on either side also have watery themes with fish motifs.  

- Ed

*****************************************

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 7:37 AM, Litmus UCC Zone
This email originated from outside ECU.

10♒20 UCC

Dear Michael (& Walter and others)

There is No Agreed Standard

Thanks for the info. But just to say again that apart from the agreement on having 30degree segments there is no "standard" sidereal zodiac in terms of it's starting point, there are only several proposed versions (which I shared in the Ayanamsa article from Astrodienst). Just as there is not actually a conclusively proven theory for the cause of precession, there is only the "currently accepted" theory, largely because it was originally proposed by Issac Newton and has had some of its components, but not all demonstrated by observation and measurement.

So all that matters is that we state which assumption we are using as reference.

Sidereal Astrology

Thanks for the link, I've come across that site before. It's funny how everyone claims that their system is the only "real" or "true" system! Only the fullness of time will confirm which of many hypotheses turn out to be correct, once we have enough data over enough time to confirm the current and historic assumptions.

The Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs are both valid for different things for different reasons. For example, the Sidereal system makes sense when looking at the solar system in terms of its place in time and space compared to the wider galaxy and the Great Year. Therefore Sidereal Astrology would be more valid (if you give the meta physics of Astrology any validity in the first place!) when looking at World Events over time, energy that affects the whole planet. Whilst the Tropical system makes sense when looking at the energies of the seasonal yearly cycle and how they change and may affect individuals, depending where they were born, and are now, on the planet.

Three Zodiacs!

There are of course actually 3 Zodiacs: Tropical Signs (Months of the Year), Sidereal Signs (Great Months of the Great Year - also called "Astrological Ages") and Constellations (Asterisms of stars which appear from our perspective here on earth to be close together and loosely form certain shapes.

For more on this see here: http://rasa.ws/rasa-library-menu-page/rasa-library-articles-three-zodiacs/

and here: https://www.astrologyhub.com/the-three-zodiacs/

and here: http://www.medievalastrologyguide.com/the-zodiacs.html (this one has some good graphics)

One of the main benefits of understanding this is that you can use the correspondence between the Tropical and Sidereal systems to determine where we are in the Great Year (the Common Era), and this is what I do in the UCC to determine the Year Number, the Great Month, the Great Season and the Yuga at any point of the Great Year.

More on this here: https://universalcelestialcalendar.com/Universal%20Community%20Calendar%20Wiki.backup.html#More_About_The_Great_Year

(I have shared that link previously, but I share it again as reference to this discussion)

The Age of Aquarius is a 'Great Month'

So, what people call 'The Age of Aquarius' or the 'Age of Pisces' are merely Great Months within Great Seasons of the Great Year. Like the Year cycle of 12 "Zodiac Signs/Months", each having slightly different lengths due to the elliptic nature of our orbit, the Great Year cycle has 12 "Zodiac Ages/Great Months", each with varying lengths for similar reasons (see link above)

Anyway, I'm sure that whatever our individual perspectives may be, we can all agree on what a fantastic system the Zodiac is, and how useful it has been and will continue to be for us to explain "the view from our back yard", daily, monthly, seasonally, annually, and "great annually"!

All the best

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 1/28/20 8:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--
.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

13520.11.10 - Re: First Point of Aries

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

10♒13520 UCC

Walter

An interesting hypothetical alignment! :) (Although I know you prefer the Sag A*/Spica-ish version)

Yep, current rate of precession is 50.29 arc secs per year = 1 degree in 71.58 years

Cheers

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 1/29/20 11:08 AM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

Gamma Arietis was used as the First Point of Aries by Copernicus in his star catalogue, and the Wikipedia article on the First Point of Aries mentions Gamma Arietis as having been used as such by Western astronomers

It's interesting to note that the current ecliptic longitude of 33 degrees for Gamma Arietis implies that the Age of Aquarius is already well underway It would have started when Gamma Arietis was at the ecliptic degree of 30. If you use the rate of precession as 1 degree in 72 years, then that point would have been passed 216 years before 2000, which would have been around 1780 , around the time of the American and French Revolutions

Novos Ordo Seclorum?

WalterZiobro




On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

13520.11.10 - Re: First Point of Aries

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

13520.11.10 UCC

Walter

Good point!

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 1/29/20 11:43 AM, Walter J Ziobro wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

It is also interesting to mote that both Gamma Arietis and Zeta Piscium have been used as the First Point of Aries, not so much for themselves, but because both of them are about 180 degrees opposite to Spica, which has been recognized as the First Point of Libra by ancient astronomers in both the East and West. In fact Hipparchus used Spica to measure the rate of precession

However, it turns out that Sagittarius A* is almost exactly 60 ecliptic degrees from Spica, and if you designate the First Point of Aries as 120 degrees from Sagittarius A*, it is almost exactly 180 degrees opposite Spica, and nicely placed between Gamma Arietis and Zeta Piscium

Also Sagittarius A* is much further distant than any of the stars used to reference the First Point of Aries, and thus has a much smaller proper motion than any of them In fact, the apparent proper motion of Sagittarius A * is caused by the sun slowly orbiting around it

WalterZiobro




On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:

This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Sepp Rothwangl
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter,
Thank you so much for that hin!
Servus
Sepp

Am 29.01.2020 um 12:08 schrieb Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:

This email originated from outside ECU.

Gamma Arietis was used as the First Point of Aries by Copernicus in his star catalogue, and the Wikipedia article on the First Point of Aries mentions Gamma Arietis as having been used as such by Western astronomers

It's interesting to note that the current ecliptic longitude of 33 degrees for Gamma Arietis implies that the Age of Aquarius is already well underway It would have started when Gamma Arietis was at the ecliptic degree of 30. If you use the rate of precession as 1 degree in 72 years, then that point would have been passed 216 years before 2000, which would have been around 1780 , around the time of the American and French Revolutions

Novos Ordo Seclorum?

WalterZiobro


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 13520.11.10 - Re: First Point of Aries

Sepp Rothwangl
In reply to this post by Litmus A Freeman
This email originated from outside ECU.


> Am 29.01.2020 um 15:37 schrieb Litmus UCC Zone <[hidden email]>:
>
> The Age of Aquarius is a 'Great Month'
>
> So, what people call 'The Age of Aquarius' or the 'Age of Pisces' are merely Great Months within Great Seasons of the Great Year. Like the Year cycle of 12 "Zodiac Signs/Months", each having slightly different lengths due to the elliptic nature of our orbit, the Great Year cycle has 12 "Zodiac Ages/Great Months", each with varying lengths for similar reasons (see link above)
>
>

Sorry, but I must correct this:

We need to distinquish between Great Year (platonic Year)  and precessional year!

Plato never told of precession: He and many others were teaching the Doktrin of the Great Year:
After this, all stars, whose function it was to create time, arrived into each other's path... and had become living beings and they had noted, what was prescribed for them, there they began their cycle in the course of the ecliptic, which is diagonal, because it crosses the course of the equator... Nonetheless it is possible to realize the fact that the perfect number brings the perfect year then to the time of termination, when the mutual rates of all eight circulations arrive in complete agreement and again reach their starting point, based on the circle of the steadily turning equator. (Timaios 39 a-d)

Eidemos, Aristotle’s disciple at the Lykaion at Athens, illustrates this idea vividly: "There is a common multiple of all orbital times, the large year; at its expiration all planets are again in thesame place. If one believes the Pythagoreans, then I will return also in the future, as everything after its number returns, and I will tell you here again fairy tales, holding this stick in my hand, while you will sit likewise before me. Likewise everything else will repeat itself.“

They did not tell of precession, only doof teh period when the planets come to the common position and align as at beginn.

Some thing else is the change of the vernal equinox Konstellation due to precession caused be the wobble of Earth axis! This is NOT the Platonic year/month! But a precessional Year or Month

Please do not confuse this!

Servus Sepp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Ed Kohout-2
This email originated from outside ECU.

I'm not going to waste any more time replying to Ed Kohout's angry noises.

As of now I'm blocking his e-mail so that it won't use-up inbox-space.

6 W
Aquarius 10th
Januarius 29th, 2020

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 PM Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

Awe, poor little Mikey can't take the same shit he dishes out to everybody else. What a whiney, pissy little brat.

Jamison E. Painter, MA 

10 Pluviôse An CCXXVIII, Axe

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 2:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

I'm not going to waste any more time replying to Ed Kohout's angry noises.

As of now I'm blocking his e-mail so that it won't use-up inbox-space.

6 W
Aquarius 10th
Januarius 29th, 2020

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 PM Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First Point of Aries

Ed Kohout-2
This email originated from outside ECU.

Hi,

Yes, it's easier to just ignore criticism than to answer it, if you think you are above criticism.

Am I correct in surmising that Michael has devised a new calendar that is basically the same as an existing calendar, and that is his point of being here at all?

- Ed

*****************************************

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 9:16 PM, Jamison Painter
This email originated from outside ECU.

Awe, poor little Mikey can't take the same shit he dishes out to everybody else. What a whiney, pissy little brat.

Jamison E. Painter, MA 

10 Pluviôse An CCXXVIII, Axe

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 2:03 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

I'm not going to waste any more time replying to Ed Kohout's angry noises.

As of now I'm blocking his e-mail so that it won't use-up inbox-space.

6 W
Aquarius 10th
Januarius 29th, 2020

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:55 PM Ed Kohout <[hidden email]> wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.

  Ossipoff scribed:

"The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees."

No one cares about a 3.8 magnitude star, and if they did, it would have had a proper name.  No classical astrologer cares either.

No one outside of New Agey fluffery even cares about the silly Age of Aquarius.  

Ossipoff needs to read, and then re-read, " The Origin of the Zodiac" by Rupert Gleadow, and then come back to lecture us on all the topic, because he still is incapable of calling the sidereal zodiac he is using.

How tedious!

- Ed


*****************************************

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:13 PM, Michael Ossipoff
This email originated from outside ECU.

Walter--

.
First, before my reply to your post, let me just say that of course the astrologers' tropical and sidereal systems of ecliptic divisions are of interest and are astronomically-useful.
.
The tropical system is a good way of expressing ecliptic-longitudes, in terms of thirds of the astronomical quarters bounded by solstices and equinoxes.  ...and is the basis of a good system of ecliptic-months.
.
The sidereal system is a good way of expressing ecliptic positions on a star-map, with respect to the stars themselves, in a way named for the Zodiacal constellations that the divisions (roughly) coincide with.
.
Saying what degree of a certain sidereal-ecliptic-division a star is in tells you directly where it is with respect to constellations.
.
And, when an ecliptic-longitude is given, such a system tells you (at least roughly) where something is with respect to the constellations.
.
Of course the intrinsic, objective merit of such a system is a matter of how well its ecliptic-divisions match the Zodiacal constellations, and that's an individual matter. Of coure there's no reason why anyone couldn't use any sidereal 1st point of Aries they like, for their own sidereal system.
.
But of course communication requires standard terms and measures.
.
It's one thing to say, "It's at the 17th degree of Pisces in my favorite sidereal-system", but it's better to say, "It's in the 17th degree of Pisces".
.
A standard system makes it easier for us to know what eachother mean. That's why astrologers have a standard system. Evidently tropical and sidereal astrologers have different standard systems.
-------------------------------------------
The ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis is 33.55156 degrees.
.
The standard ecliptic-longiitude that I read of, for the sidereal 1st point of Aries, for tropical astrologers, is 25 degrees. I admit that I haven't yet found again the source where I intially found that information, but I'll post it when I find it.
.
But I did find a source that tells the standard for sidereal astrologers: It's close to 24 degrees ecliptic longitude.
.
I'll find that source (or some source) for the ecliptic-longitude for the standard sidereal 1st point of Aries for tropical astrologers. In the meantime, of course I admit that I can't cite a source.
.
Based on the sidereal 1st point of Aries having the ecliptic-longitude of 33.55156, the ecliptic-longitude of Gamma Arietis, the Northward-Equinox was there in 403 B.C.   ...and the Age of Aquarius started in 1763 A.D.
.
Directly below, I quote a source for the value of 24 degrees for the ecliptic-longitude of the standard sidereal first point-of Aries for sidereal astrologrers.  They give an SVP (Sidereal Vernal Point) of about 6 degrees in Pisces. SVP is the position of the Northward-Equinox in some particular sidereal system of ecliptic signs (ecliptic-intervals).  6 degrees SVP means that that system's sidereal 1st point of Aries is at an ecliptical longitude of 24 degrees. 

The tropical astrologers' standard 5 degree SVS means an ecliptic-longitude of 25 degrees for their sidereal first point of Aries.
.
Here's the pasted quote:

[quote]
Spica was therefore re-situated at 29VIRGO06’05” for the epoch 1950.0, placing the mean longitude of the Vernal point at 05 PISCES 57’28”.64 for the same point in time.
.
This is the basis of the Synetic Vernal Point (S.V.P.) utilized by Western Siderealists since 1957.
[/quote]
.
I point out that that standard ecliptic-longitude for the sidereal 1st point of Aries differs by only about 1 degree from the 25 degree value that I quoted for tropical astrologers' standard.  1 degree is a small distance in a constellation, and a small distance in the sky, which is 360 degrees around.  
.
I'll also point out that the starting-date of the Age of Aquarius (for which my date was what started this discusion) is only 72 degrees later by the sidereal astrologers' 24 degree value, compared to the date that I stated.  432 years instead of 360 years.  (The 360 was rounded from 361).
.
Here's the URL for that article by a sidereal astrologer:
.
https://westernsiderealastrology.wordpress.com/western-sidereal-astrology-is-real-astrology/
.
6 Tu
Aquarius 9th
January 28th, 2020




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

13520.11.11 - Re: 13520.11.10 - Re: First Point of Aries

Litmus A Freeman
In reply to this post by Sepp Rothwangl
This email originated from outside ECU.

11 Aquarius♒ 13520 UCC

Hey Sepp

Absolutely no need apologise! After all if we never have our errors corrected we never learn and grow...

Yes, my UCC 'Great Year' is the precessional cycle, as per Sri Yukteswar Giri from "The Holy Science".

I wrote the UCC Wiki a few years ago and wasn't aware that Plato was referring to a different cycle, as the sources I was using at the time all suggested the Platonic Year was the precessional cycle!

Luckily I only mentioned the name of Plato once so this is an easy amend to the Wiki!

Please could you send me a link for the Plato text you quoted? I would like to investigate further.

Regards

Litmus

-----------------------
Litmus A Freeman
Creator of the Universal Celestial Calendar
www.universalcelestialcalendar.com
On 1/29/20 4:00 PM, Sepp ROTHWANGL wrote:
This email originated from outside ECU.


Am 29.01.2020 um 15:37 schrieb Litmus UCC Zone [hidden email]:

The Age of Aquarius is a 'Great Month'

So, what people call 'The Age of Aquarius' or the 'Age of Pisces' are merely Great Months within Great Seasons of the Great Year. Like the Year cycle of 12 "Zodiac Signs/Months", each having slightly different lengths due to the elliptic nature of our orbit, the Great Year cycle has 12 "Zodiac Ages/Great Months", each with varying lengths for similar reasons (see link above)


Sorry, but I must correct this:

We need to distinquish between Great Year (platonic Year)  and precessional year!

Plato never told of precession: He and many others were teaching the Doktrin of the Great Year:
After this, all stars, whose function it was to create time, arrived into each other's path... and had become living beings and they had noted, what was prescribed for them, there they began their cycle in the course of the ecliptic, which is diagonal, because it crosses the course of the equator... Nonetheless it is possible to realize the fact that the perfect number brings the perfect year then to the time of termination, when the mutual rates of all eight circulations arrive in complete agreement and again reach their starting point, based on the circle of the steadily turning equator. (Timaios 39 a-d)

Eidemos, Aristotle’s disciple at the Lykaion at Athens, illustrates this idea vividly: "There is a common multiple of all orbital times, the large year; at its expiration all planets are again in thesame place. If one believes the Pythagoreans, then I will return also in the future, as everything after its number returns, and I will tell you here again fairy tales, holding this stick in my hand, while you will sit likewise before me. Likewise everything else will repeat itself.“

They did not tell of precession, only doof teh period when the planets come to the common position and align as at beginn.

Some thing else is the change of the vernal equinox Konstellation due to precession caused be the wobble of Earth axis! This is NOT the Platonic year/month! But a precessional Year or Month

Please do not confuse this!

Servus Sepp
12