12 Zones of the Year and the Stars

[Guest guest]

Re: 12 Zones of the Year and the Stars

At 01:15 AM 1/10/03 EST, the somewhat befuddled writing of Starman noted...

 

 

*******Terese, you're one of the few 'grown-ups' I saw writing here since I

joined, when those people were quarreling so childishly. So now you're being

insulting, too? I've written astronomy columns and done planetarium shows for

over 25 years. Is having a different point of view than yours being

'befuddled' (translation: seeing things differently)? Others here had no

difficulty understanding me.

 

>>I have rarely seen the simple precession of the equinoxes and zodiacs

described in a more confusing way! The stars don't pass through anything...!

 

*******Oh yes they do----the sun at the equinox and solstice points will be

conjunct first one star and then another. The solar year is a reality, the

one that produces the seasons, caused by the inclination of the pole. The

pole also points to different pole stars in a great circle. Whether you say

the stars move relative to the pole or the pole moves relative to the stars,

the pole star is the reality one uses. So too with the solar year. It can't

simply be ignored.

The solar year has 12 zones regardless of what they're called, and it's

hot or 'fiery' in August in the Northern Hemisphere regardless of what stars

are there (which are different every 2,000 years). Perhaps that might have

had something to do with Leo being named 'fiery' 2,000 years ago, for

instance, if there was once a connection made in the Northern Hemisphere

between actual observed reality like the heat of summer and the position of

the Sun in the heavens, as is found in the writings of ancient astrologers.

 

 

>>>>The Stars and the Sidereal Zodiac stay in one place. It's the Tropical

signs that move against the backdrop of the stars...

 

******That's one way to picture it. But by that definition there is no

'year'. The solstices and equinoxes have no value, they are irrelevant. The

solar year cannot be considered a reality, in other words, when the Sun, for

instance, is at the Winter Solstice, but rather only when the Sun is aligned

with Aldebaran or Antares or whatever---which can't be seen directly but only

inferred afterwards (from the heliacal rising of a star, as the Egyptians did

with Sirius), and which occurs one day later every 72 years, so cannot be

used to have an accurate calendar.

But why then did ancient people pay so much attention to the solar year,

to the solstices and equinoxes? And why did you say:

 

>>>All the stars are constantly moving through the Tropical signs.

 

******You said it there the same way as I did.

 

>>>Historically, the sidereal zodiac was used before the tropical

astrological zodiac was invented...

 

 

******Then why are Stonehenge and the other ancient calendars oriented to the

equinoxes and solstices? Why is the earliest astronomical record that of the

execution of two Chinese astronomers for failing to predict an eclipse, a

phenomenon having nothing to do with the stars but only with the solar year

and its interaction with the moon's movements, which we think the 56 'Aubrey

holes' about Stonehenge also were used for? Clearly people were looking at

the movements north and south of the Sun and Moon as far back into time as we

can go, not only the stars, which have nothing to do with this.

 

 

>>>The time it takes for the vernal equinox to pass backwards through one

constellation is called an ASTROLOGICAL AGE.

 

*******Or, of course, one could also say that the stars of the constellation

move ahead into the next zone of the 12 zones of the year, or as you said

above, 'the stars move through the Tropical signs.'

 

 

>>The sidereal zodiac of 30 degrees for each sign is measured

from one or more fixed stars.

 

*******But the constellations are not 30 degrees wide, but rather are of

quite uneven widths, so if people are wishing to go back to the 'only real

thing, the stars', it's a bit ridiculous to pretend there's 12 equal-sized

groups of them, isn't it? Aries and Cancer are tiny while the Virgin is

enormous. I don't understand the position taken.

 

Dr. Starman

 

 

> DRStarman2001 wrote:

> >******* ... I don't believe either the 12 " Steps of the Sun " or seasonal

> >increase & decrease in the Sun's light that causes the 12 months of the

> year, or the various stars that move through those 12 zones over 25,000

> years, are the whole truth by themselves, much less that ONLY the

> understanding of them from Cyril Fagan or from the ancient Vedas, or from

> this person or that person, is the only correct one. I think that it's

> likely that both tropical astrology and sidereal astrology may be of use on

> different levels. I'd be just as interested in hearing about Ebertin's

> Cosmobiology or John Addey's harmonics or Gauquelin's work (which had no

> reference to EITHER tropical or sidereal astrology, only to the planets).

>

>

> >>>>Peace, can you please elaborate on the stars traveling 12 zones every

> 25,000 years. How would we see this in our daily lives and where can I

> learn more on this. I have never heard of this concept in astrology before

> but I saw something on the discovery Civilization channel about the

> pyramids and 25,000 years.

> >Thanks.

>

> *******Well, it's a little hard to describe without using diagrams, but one

>

> way to start might be with this time of year here in the Northern

> Hemisphere. About three weeks ago was the winter solstice, when the sun was

> at its southernmost point and the days were the shortest, only about 10

> hours of day and 14 hours night. Now the light's increasing and in about 70

> days it will be equal to the darkness, 12 hours day and 12 hours night, the

> vernal equinox. About 90 days later the sun will be at its highest point in

> the North and the days will be longest, the summer solstice; and then,

> about another 90 days and day and night will be equal again, the autumnal

> equinox. The two solstices and the two equinoxes are the four points that

> define the year, and it's about 90 days or three lunar 'months' between

> each point. This is the origin of the year of 12 months. Ancient people

> apparently had only a

> lunar calendar which does not stay in synch with the seasons;

> traditionally, the solar calendar was first worked out by the Egyptians,

> with the great help of the fact that the Nile flooded each year at the same

> time. This rising and falling of the sun every year was referred to by the

> ancients as the 12 'Steps of the Sun'; it's caused by the fact thatthe

> earth's axis in space is not perpendicular to the plane in which it travels

> about the sun, but is inclined to that plane about 23.5 degrees, which is

> what causes the seasons.

>

>   This reality of the year (which so many apparently wish to simply dismiss

> here as the " tropical zodiac " ), has nothing whatever to do with the stars,

> however. Right now the Sun's light is beginning to increase in the Northern

> Hemisphere, and the Sun (if you could see it) is against the background of

> the stars of the constellation Sagittarius. However, the pole of rotation

> of the earth (the North -South axis about which the earth revolves) does

> not always point to the same position in space, but does a slow rotation of

> its own which lasts about 25,000 years, causing there to be different pole

> stars every few millennia. This movement causes the four points from which

> the year

> is reckoned, the solstices and equinoxes, to move slowly backward against

> the background of the stars. So, the vernal equinox took place near the

> constellation we call Aries the Ram at the time that the classical Greeks

> compiled the first star catalogs we have copies of, and throughout the

> Christian era has been taking place in the constellation Pisces the Fishes.

> Currently it is taking place in the empty space between the constellation

> Pisces and the next one, Aquarius; that's what all this talk about the

> beginning of the 'Age of Aquarius' means.

>

>   But the vernal equinox is the beginning of spring in the Northern

> Hemisphere regardless of what stars are there, which changes one

> constellation about every 2000 years. Spring, summer, fall, and winter --

> --- all the seasonal year with its increase and decrease of light -- --

> --is a reality which occurs again and again, from which we have the twelve

> months of the year. The groups of stars we call constellations slowly move

> THROUGH the 12 zones which define the year, marked by the solstices and

> equinoxes. About 2000 B.C., what we call the constellation Taurus was at

> the point of the Vernal Equinox, while Scorpius was at the autumnal

> Equinox, Leo was at the summer solstice and Aquarius at the winter

> solstice. At the time of Christ,

> the constellation Aries was at the vernal equinox, Libra at the autumnal

> equinox, Cancer at the summer solstice and Capricorn at the winter

> solstice. Now Pisces is at the vernal equinox, Virgo at the autumnal

> equinox, Gemini at the summer solstice and Sagittarius at the winter

> solstice. 2000 years from now, or less, depending on how you reckon,

> Aquarius will be at the vernal equinox, Leo at the autumnal equinox, Taurus

> at the summer solstice and Scorpio at the winter solstice. (This means the

> CONSTELLATIONS, the actual groups of stars with those names.) 12,000 years

> ago when the great pyramid was built, according to the Edgar Cayce

> readings, it was aligned to Leo at

> the vernal equinox (hence the Lion-form Sphinx) and our pole Star was Vega.

>

>   People in the Western world mostly work with the 12 months of the year,

> which were given the names of the 12 groups of stars in them 2000 years ago

> and so are called the " tropical zodiac " from the " tropical " year, the year

> marked out by the solstices and equinoxes. I guess there would be no

> confusion if they had just kept the names " March " instead of Aries, " April "

> (or month of Aphrodite) instead of Taurus, etc., but they didn't. Western

> astrology says that people have characteristics based on the 12 months,

> while sidereal astrology says that it is the stars themselves which are the

> essential thing. Both systems look at the planets' movements relative to

> each other and to the earth (the planets rising and setting) and figure

> those the same, but one uses the 12 divisions of the Sun's path (marked out

> by the solstices & equinoxes) as a background while the other uses the 12

> constellations as the background.

>

>    If a group of stars is held to be ONLY what influences a person to be a

> certain way, however, such as the constellation Taurus, for instance, then

> a person will have to be born a month later every 2000 years to have that

> same influence: the star Aldebaran, the eye of the bull in Taurus, is now

> at about 10 degrees Gemini, for example, meaning the sun is near it about

> May 1st, while 2000 years from now a person would have to be born about

> June 1st to have the sun near that star, and 2000 years further on would

> have to be born in July, and so on. Apparently some people who work with

> the sidereal zodiac

> believe that there is no influence from being born in spring vs. fall, or

> summer vs. winter. I find that a little hard to believe, and am more

> inclined to believe that both the 12 divisions of the year and the actual

> stars have influences, but different ones; the former being solar influence

> while the latter is stellar.

>

> Dr. Starman

 

 

http://www.DrStarman.net