Guest guest Posted January 9, 2003 Report Share Posted January 9, 2003 I am not nearly as intelligent as you are so is there anyway you could explain that so a retard such as myself could understand what you just wrote, Starman? I think the writing is fascinating though and the research looks impeccable. I am just not catching on that fast. DRStarman2001 wrote: > >>>... astrologers, who attend this sidereal list, have thrown overboard > the tropical zodiac long before they joined sidereal list... > > > ******* ... 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 that the 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 At 07:56 AM 1/9/03 -0800, Damon wrote (re: Starman's long post): >I am not nearly as intelligent as you are so is there anyway you could explain that so a retard such as myself could understand what you just wrote, Starman? I think the writing is fascinating though and the research looks impeccable. I am just not catching on that fast. The writing wasn't all that clear...I'm not quite sure what he was saying either. Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 > Re: 12 Zones of the Year and the Stars > > >>I am not nearly as intelligent as you are so is there anyway you could > explain that so a retard such as myself could understand what you just > wrote, Starman? I think the writing is fascinating though and the research > looks impeccable. I am just not catching on that fast. *******Not sure what you're not catching on to. It IS hard to communicate about without diagrams---I could maybe draw some and put them in the Files section. (I've taught it in planetarium shows, which is the best---three-dimensional.) It's straight astronomy, the astronomy that underlies the 'tropical vs. sidereal zodiac' debate, so I thought it would be familiar to most. Right now the day is increasing in light here in the Northern Hemisphere. It always is right after the Winter Solsticie regardless of whether the solar disk is apparently in front of the stars of Sagittarius, Capricornus, or what have you. The solar year with its 12 zones is what the stars pass thru in a 25,000 year cycle. That's what we call the zodiac ages, 12 of approximately 2,000 years. So there's the 12 zones (the months) and then there's the groups of stars of unequal sizes passing thru these. 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 that the 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 , The Game <sher_e_khan> wrote: > > I am not nearly as intelligent as you are so is there anyway you could explain that so a retard such as myself could understand what you just wrote, Starman? I think the writing is fascinating though and the research looks impeccable. I am just not catching on that fast. << Let me get this straight.... You were confused by what your read, yet you were able to comment on the high quality of the writing, and then call the research impeccable? How would you know? Up here in Chicago, we call this " blowing smoke outta your ass. " Anyhow, Ken Gillman posted an article on CURA about how the 12 months and their names came about in the Roman realm. This may help the good DR understand why " March " is not called " Aries. " It should be read by anyone who dares call themself a " siderealist. " http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html Best, Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 I was being polite. I have what most males don't have and that is called " intution " that is how " I know " without knowing. Some also call it " animal instinct " and I am sure that is a phrase you would rather attach to me. It comes from Mercury in retrograde I do believe. I often have to go back and explain how I arrived at my conclusions. " Ed Kohout <crumpo " <crumpo wrote: You were confused by what your read, yet you were able to comment on the high quality of the writing, and then call the research impeccable? How would you know? , The Game <sher_e_khan> wrote: > > I am not nearly as intelligent as you are so is there anyway you could explain that so a retard such as myself could understand what you just wrote, Starman? I think the writing is fascinating though and the research looks impeccable. I am just not catching on that fast. << Let me get this straight.... You were confused by what your read, yet you were able to comment on the high quality of the writing, and then call the research impeccable? How would you know? Up here in Chicago, we call this " blowing smoke outta your ass. " Anyhow, Ken Gillman posted an article on CURA about how the 12 months and their names came about in the Roman realm. This may help the good DR understand why " March " is not called " Aries. " It should be read by anyone who dares call themself a " siderealist. " http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html Best, Ed K " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 DRStarman2001 wrote: *******Not sure what you're not catching on to. It IS hard to communicate about without diagrams---I could maybe draw some and put them in the Files section. Thanks, Starman that is all I wanted. I am with you now(metaphorically speaking) *****/////Damon > Re: 12 Zones of the Year and the Stars > > >>I am not nearly as intelligent as you are so is there anyway you could > explain that so a retard such as myself could understand what you just > wrote, Starman? I think the writing is fascinating though and the research > looks impeccable. I am just not catching on that fast. (I've taught it in planetarium shows, which is the best---three-dimensional.) It's straight astronomy, the astronomy that underlies the 'tropical vs. sidereal zodiac' debate, so I thought it would be familiar to most. Right now the day is increasing in light here in the Northern Hemisphere. It always is right after the Winter Solsticie regardless of whether the solar disk is apparently in front of the stars of Sagittarius, Capricornus, or what have you. The solar year with its 12 zones is what the stars pass thru in a 25,000 year cycle. That's what we call the zodiac ages, 12 of approximately 2,000 years. So there's the 12 zones (the months) and then there's the groups of stars of unequal sizes passing thru these. 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 that the 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 The Game.... For being polite.... I commend you.... For being patient enough to read all of the dr.'s rhetoric.... I sit here amazed... As for the dr.'s opinion of Siderealists... His perspective is too black and white... For instance... The SVP(Synetic Vernal Point)(known to Tropicalists as 0 degrees Aires) is considered a very important position in charting. As do the square and opposition positions to the SVP. I(We siderealists?) recognize that at these points we(on earth)encounter solar/earth relationship transitions. For a point of reference I'm gonna refer to these " points " (especially the SVP as " sensitive points " . These points invoke a personality much as profound stars do. ie. Algol, Aldebaron... For definition I recognize these positions as the physical seasonal change points that they are. In some respects a " tropical " concept but in essence a " shift " in direction. Does the the SVP have an Airean quality or a Librean quality? A concept to consider. Since I view constellations(ecliptic) as the " backdrop " to the planets I don't find the " tropical zodiac " relative in my perspective of " signs " . Does a cycle begin/end at solstices points? I believe that a cycle does. Could I choose to associate " signs " ? I suppose I could but I find this pattern inconsistent and confusing. The original concept of signs was developed by ancients who created them by visual observation and identified them within a groups of stars. When I stick to that process I enjoy looking at the stars at night and recognizing planets within constellations just as the ancients saw them. Everyone has their own path. So.. At times we get more light(from the Sun) then at other times but what does that mean? We get more light at the equator on a consistent basis but so what? Does one think or live better at the equator than at the arctic circle? If I was on the moon and casting charts would I prefer a system of charting simply because there is more light on one side of the earth then the other or more apparent at different latitudes? Would I use the moon and develop an ephmeris surrounding its movement instead of the earths? I think astrology is flawed... I don't care what school of thought you embrace. For me its about discovery... Whether your world embraces the bija rate or progressed neo-quotidian return its'(astrology) incomplete. Discovery is a challenge and imperfect and today you can learn more about how astrophysics and " ancient " astrology enjoin in commonality. Check this article out on solar spitwads and consider how the " magnetism " of the Sun works within the lineage of astrology. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/08jan_spitwads.htm?list779176 jivio --- The Game <sher_e_khan wrote: > > I was being polite. > I have what most males don't have and that is > called " intution " that is how " I know " without > knowing. Some also call it " animal instinct " and I > am sure that is a phrase you would rather attach to > me. It comes from Mercury in retrograde I do > believe. I often have to go back and explain how I > arrived at my conclusions. > " Ed Kohout <crumpo " > <crumpo wrote: > You were confused by what your read, yet you were > able to comment on > the high quality of the writing, and then call the > research > impeccable? How would you know?--- In > , The Game > <sher_e_khan> wrote: > > > > I am not nearly as intelligent as you are so is > there anyway you > could explain that so a retard such as myself could > understand what > you just wrote, Starman? I think the writing is > fascinating though > and the research looks impeccable. I am just not > catching on that > fast. << > > > Let me get this straight.... > > You were confused by what your read, yet you were > able to comment on > the high quality of the writing, and then call the > research > impeccable? How would you know? > > Up here in Chicago, we call this " blowing smoke > outta your ass. " > > Anyhow, Ken Gillman posted an article on CURA about > how the 12 months > and their names came about in the Roman realm. This > may help the > good DR understand why " March " is not called > " Aries. " It should be > read by anyone who dares call themself a > " siderealist. " > > http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html > > Best, > Ed K > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 At 04:52 PM 1/11/03 EST, Starman wrote: >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 don't mean to insult you or any other human being. But to me the writing sounded confusing. To be honest I don't give paragraphs longer than four or five lines a lot of attention because I work on a small notebook computer...the Eyes don't have it. >I've written astronomy columns and done planetarium shows for >over 25 years. Teaching and lecturing come under Jupiter. Good for the big picture, not so good getting the details clear...that is, being able to explain concepts in a concise manner. It's also possible that the planetarium audiences and astrologers need two different kinds of explanation. (Remember, you didn't catch the transposition of the ages in your Yuga diagram, a detail.) Please understand that I've seen many Ph.D's who appear to me to be utterly befuddled. They use way too many words...lost in the woods of words they are. I checked out of academia when I saw the writing on the wall. Quit with an M.A. ---------------------------- > >>>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? ---------------------------- The soltices and equinoxes don't necessarily have anything at all to do with astrology in the sense that there is a 'horoscope' (ascending sign), houses, aspects, etc. >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. I've been studying the constellations and drawing diagrams for many years. The major star groups line up fairly well with the lunar mansions of India. Yes, Libra fits very nicely into a 13 degree mansion. You'll find in David Pingree's writings (and others) that the 30 degree equal sidereal signs came into being in Mesopotamia and were adopted into Hellenistic astrology. Then there was a time of confusion. What zodiac(s) were astrologers using? Who knew? They were almost perfectly aligned with each other. Finally the fixed sidereal zodiac was adopted in India and the Tropical zodiac became the western standard. The lunar mansions were definitely sidereal. It's really interesting to study the Project Hindsight and Arhat translations to see how the ancient astrologers used the signs. The earliest record we have of a 12 equal sign zodiac is 650-450 C.E., and it was sidereal. [At the same time I believe that the 12 signs and/or constellations probably go much futher back into pre-recorded history, but we have no record of any astrology in that time period.] But I've lost track of the point of this discussion. I'm willing to bet that your Moon (liking for attention and public recognition and a preference for round-about thinking) is stronger than your Mercury (scholarly study, mathematical precision and details). Between two people the Moon frustrates the precise Mercury, but the Moon is more accepting of everyone. That's why the Moon is one of the political planets. Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2003 Report Share Posted January 12, 2003 >>>To be honest I don't give paragraphs longer than four or five lines a lot of attention because I work on a small notebook computer...the Eyes don't have it. *******That's understandable then. It was not that what I wrote was confusing, but how you were reading it-- as I said, astronomy is a difficult subject to communicate without diagrams anyway. > ---------------------------- > >>>>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? > > >>The soltices and equinoxes don't necessarily have anything at all to do > with astrology in the sense that there is a 'horoscope' (ascending sign), > houses, aspects, etc. *******Well, we can certainly agree on that, because there apparently was no such thing before about the first millennium B.C., as far as we can tell. Astrology was not a matter of individual horoscopes until then, and then at first, only for the King or Pharoah. Heaven only knows what ancient astrology was really like. But it definitely DID involve the solar year or what we are now calling the " tropical zodiac " , and not just the stars. > > >>>... 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. > > I've been studying the constellations and drawing diagrams for many years. > The major star groups line up fairly well with the lunar mansions of India. > Yes, Libra fits very nicely into a 13 degree mansion. > You'll find in David Pingree's writings (and others) that the 30 degree > equal sidereal signs came into being in Mesopotamia and were adopted into > Hellenistic astrology. Then there was a time of confusion. What zodiac(s) > were astrologers using? Who knew? They were almost perfectly aligned with > each other. Finally the fixed sidereal zodiac was adopted in India and the > Tropical zodiac became the western standard. The lunar mansions were > definitely sidereal. > It's really interesting to study the Project Hindsight and Arhat > translations to see how the ancient astrologers used the signs. > The earliest record we have of a 12 equal sign zodiac is 650-450 C.E., and > it was sidereal. [At the same time I believe that the 12 signs and/or > constellations probably go much futher back into pre-recorded history, but > we have no record of any astrology in that time period.] > But I've lost track of the point of this discussion.... *****MY point was that, when people say only the sidereal zodiac is to be used for astrology and not what we now call in the Western world the 'tropical zodiac' which means the 12 zones of the year, they're saying that there is no meaning in being born, say, at the time of the vernal equinox or the winter solstice or any other time of the solar year. I find that a little hard to believe, so I would have to say that I think there is a reality to both tropical astrology and sidereal astrology. The 12 equal zones of 30 degrees each clearly come from the solar year, I'd say; because, as I wrote, the year is defined by those four points, and there are three full moons or " months " of about 30 days between each point and the next. There's nothing uniform about the constellations. Now, this secondary question which has arisen is about an 'equal' sidereal zodiac. When people say they want to base themselves on the planets' positions in the actual groups of stars, I can understand that-- -- -- but that has nothing to do with 12 equal-sized constellations. Virgo is about 45 degrees wide. Libra (as you note) less than 15. So, do people here not practice the conjunctions of the planets with the actual constellations? Or is there some difference of opinion between different practitioners of sidereal astrology? Do some use the actual stars, while others use a sort of idealized sidereal zodiac of 12 equal constellations? Dr. Starman <A HREF= " http://www.DrStarman.net " >http://www.DrStarman.net</A> >> > >>>>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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 --- DRStarman2001 wrote: > >>>To be honest I don't give paragraphs longer than > four or > five lines a lot of attention because I work on a > small notebook > computer...the Eyes don't have it. > > *******That's understandable then. It was not that > what I wrote was > confusing, but how you were reading it-- as I said, > astronomy is a difficult > subject to communicate without diagrams anyway. > No.... What you wrote was very confusing. I felt the same as Teresa but she was willing to spend the time and effort to tell you. I suggest you look at it again instead of walking away thinking your written words (in this particular thread) lucid. I think you could learn much from her response in reference to her explanation of the Mercury difference to Moon influence. > > ---------------------------- > > >>>>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? > > > > >>The soltices and equinoxes don't necessarily > have anything at all to do > > with astrology in the sense that there is a > 'horoscope' (ascending sign), > > houses, aspects, etc. > > *******Well, we can certainly agree on that, because > there apparently was no > such thing before about the first millennium B.C., > as far as we can tell. > Astrology was not a matter of individual horoscopes > until then, and then at > first, only for the King or Pharoah. Heaven only > knows what ancient astrology > was really like. > If you stop your explanation at this point saying that " Heaven only knows what ancient astrology was really like " > But it definitely DID involve the solar year or > what we are now calling > the " tropical zodiac " , and not just the stars. > how can you continue to make a statement that you know anything about what astrology was really like? > > > > >>>... 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. > > > > I've been studying the constellations and drawing > diagrams for many years. > > The major star groups line up fairly well with the > lunar mansions of India. > > Yes, Libra fits very nicely into a 13 degree > mansion. > > You'll find in David Pingree's writings (and > others) that the 30 degree > > equal sidereal signs came into being in > Mesopotamia and were adopted into > > Hellenistic astrology. Then there was a time of > confusion. What zodiac(s) > > were astrologers using? Who knew? They were almost > perfectly aligned with > > each other. Finally the fixed sidereal zodiac was > adopted in India and the > > Tropical zodiac became the western standard. The > lunar mansions were > > definitely sidereal. > > It's really interesting to study the Project > Hindsight and Arhat > > translations to see how the ancient astrologers > used the signs. > > The earliest record we have of a 12 equal sign > zodiac is 650-450 C.E., and > > it was sidereal. [At the same time I believe that > the 12 signs and/or > > constellations probably go much futher back into > pre-recorded history, but > > we have no record of any astrology in that time > period.] > > But I've lost track of the point of this > discussion.... > > *****MY point was that, when people say only the > sidereal zodiac is to be > used for astrology You can use tea leaves as long as it works.... You don't even need to cast charts unless you're mathmatically fixated.... and not what we now call in the > Western world the > 'tropical zodiac' which means the 12 zones of the > year, they're saying that > there is no meaning in being born, say, at the time > of the vernal equinox or > the winter solstice or any other time of the solar > year. Siderealists believe there is meaning in being born any time during the Solar year. Who are these siderealists you are referring to? I find that a little > hard to believe, so I would have to say that I think > there is a reality to > both tropical astrology and sidereal astrology. ya think..... There is a reality alright and may i ask you what your reality of sidereal is? I read a lot of bashing. The > 12 equal zones of 30 > degrees each clearly come from the solar year, I'd > say; because, as I wrote, > the year is defined by those four points, and there > are three full moons or > " months " of about 30 days between each point and the > next. Your idea's presented within sentence structure is illogical or I don't grasp what your definitions mean. Some Siderealists utilize 12 equal zones of 30 degrees each. Some tropicalists calculate using a " Solar " day and some calculate utilizing a " Sidereal " day. Are you claiming that " Solar Year " calculations are strictly Tropical? There's nothing > uniform about the constellations. > I outgrew uniforms long ago because truths are allowed variations. (Bob, you agree?)It matters not how you cut the pie but how it tastes. > Now, this secondary question which has arisen is > about an 'equal' > sidereal zodiac. When people say they want to base > themselves on the planets' > positions in the actual groups of stars, I can > understand that-- -- -- but > that has nothing to do with 12 equal-sized > constellations. Or 12 equal sized signs if I follow your rationale. What I don't understand though again is what you mean by " base themselves " in reference to " equal sidereal zodiac " ? Virgo is about 45 > degrees wide. Libra (as you note) less than 15. So, > do people here not > practice the conjunctions of the planets with the > actual constellations? Or > is there some difference of opinion between > different practitioners of > sidereal astrology? Do some use the actual stars, > while others use a sort of > idealized sidereal zodiac of 12 equal > constellations? > > Dr. Starman > <A > Doc... suggest you read Sidereal.zip or material written by " Western " Siderealists. I suggest you research Vedic or Indian(India)Astrology as well as other Astrologies which utilize " sidereal timing " techniques. Think of us(Sidereallists) as all being black. Some of us are California Blacks and others are London Blacks. Then you have the Blacks from India and Blacks from Haiti and that doesn't include all of the different Blacks from Africa. HREF= " http://www.DrStarman.net " >http://www.DrStarman.net</A> > > >> > > >>>>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. And what does this have to do with stars traveling 25,000 years? Ancient people > > apparently had only a > > lunar calendar which does not stay in synch with > the seasons; so what? I use a lunar calendar as well as a solar calendar. > > 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'; Are you saying this was Tropical? Are you saying that flood calendars are more relative than lunar calendars or are you suggesting that the egyptians figured out a way to stage rising and falling suns? Did the egyptians think the earth was flat? 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, Its(earth) axis may not be perpendicular but earth follows a path called the ecliptic and at night you can see the same constellations year after year. 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 " ), Please name names instead of postulating inuendos. 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 > Here at the end after reading your writings I am reminded of the beginning of this thread. Terese wasn't pulling your leg... and check out the following link. http://www.stargazers.com/kepler1.html Jivio > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > I dunno..... can anbody answer that question? > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Juan Oliver <jivio wrote: .... I outgrew uniforms long ago because truths are allowed variations. (Bob, you agree?)It matters not how you cut the pie but how it tastes. .... Jivio .... Truths such as dowsing, psychic ability, and progressed lunars. And of course, the very idea of astrology itself. Bob Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Bob.... Grab your bags and head on down here to Texas where we dowse for oil and gas. Water too but.... which brings me around to Cayce and Dr. Starman... The Starman lives in Virginia Beach(home of Cayce Institute) and I sent him an e-mail sometime back because I thought he might be interested in locating the largest pool of oil ever found in Texas. Well I dunno about it being the " largest " pool but Cayce did. He belived the largest oil pool was located in San Saba County... Well oil has never been found in San Saba County yet.... But it's possible... Have leases... will drill! Jivio cayce came to texas --- Robert Nicewander <jan61108 wrote: > > > Juan Oliver <jivio wrote: > > ... > > I outgrew uniforms long ago because truths are > allowed > variations. (Bob, you agree?)It matters not how you > cut the pie but how it tastes. > > ... > > Jivio > > ... > > Truths such as dowsing, psychic ability, and > progressed lunars. And of course, the very idea of > astrology itself. > > Bob > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > > --- DRStarman2001@a... wrote: > > >>>It was not that what I wrote was > > confusing, but how you were reading it-- as I said, > > astronomy is a difficult > > subject to communicate without diagrams anyway. > > > No.... What you wrote was very confusing. I felt the > same as Teresa but she was willing to spend the time > and effort to tell you. I suggest you look at it again > instead of walking away thinking your written words > (in this particular thread) lucid. I think you could > learn much from her response in reference to her > explanation of the Mercury difference to Moon > influence. Starman, I have to agree with Teresa and Juan here. I am amused at your confidence that you can enter other people's minds and see how they were mis-comprehending you! Precession is discussed at sites in many places on the Internet, so I suggest that anyone still in the haze do a Google. - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 At 04:18 AM 1/13/03 -0000, Ed K wrote: > , Juan Oliver <jivio> >wrote: >> No.... What you wrote was very confusing. I felt the >> same as Teresa but she was willing to spend the time >> and effort to tell you. I suggest you look at it again >> instead of walking away thinking your written words >> (in this particular thread) lucid. I think you could >> learn much from her response in reference to her >> explanation of the Mercury difference to Moon >> influence. > >Starman, > >I have to agree with Teresa and Juan here. > >I am amused at your confidence that you can enter other people's >minds and see how they were mis-comprehending you! Thanks Ed and Juan! I do believe we have a majority vote here. (Don't get your feelings hurt, Starman. This is a sidereal board and those boards always have sharp edges. That's why Tropical astrologers like to avoid them.) Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: This is a sidereal board and those boards always have sharp edges. That's why Tropical astrologers like to avoid them.) --\ LOL. Good one Terese. I may have to quote you on that somewhere in the future. -----------oDamono----------------At 04:18 AM 1/13/03 -0000, Ed K wrote: > , Juan Oliver <jivio> >wrote: >> No.... What you wrote was very confusing. I felt the >> same as Teresa but she was willing to spend the time >> and effort to tell you. I suggest you look at it again >> instead of walking away thinking your written words >> (in this particular thread) lucid. I think you could >> learn much from her response in reference to her >> explanation of the Mercury difference to Moon >> influence. > >Starman, > >I have to agree with Teresa and Juan here. > >I am amused at your confidence that you can enter other people's >minds and see how they were mis-comprehending you! Thanks Ed and Juan! I do believe we have a majority vote here. (Don't get your feelings hurt, Starman. This is a sidereal board and those boards always have sharp edges. That's why Tropical astrologers like to avoid them.) Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2003 Report Share Posted January 13, 2003 Re: 12 Zones of the Year and the Stars > > ******* astronomy is a difficult subject to communicate without diagrams anyway. > >>No.... What you wrote was very confusing. I felt the same as Teresa but she was willing to spend the time and effort to tell you. I suggest you look at it again instead of walking away thinking your written words (in this particular thread) lucid. I think you could learn much from her response in reference to her explanation of the Mercury difference to Moon influence. *******Why not try quoting a line and asking about it, instead of psycho-analyzing someone to " prove " their writing is " unclear " because you might have trouble understanding it? I'd say it's clear to anyone who hopefully knows a bit of astronomy and who's reading with an open mind. > ***** Heaven only knows what ancient astrology was really like. >>If you stop your explanation at this point saying that " Heaven only knows what ancient astrology was really like... " > ... But it definitely DID involve the solar year or what we are now calling > the " tropical zodiac " , and not just the stars. >>...how can you continue to make a statement that you know anything about what astrology was really like? *****The physical evidence down here on Earth: i.e., Stonehenge and the many other structures oriented to the solstices and equinoxes, not to just individual stars. They show clearly that the " tropical zodiac " or solar year was known, and very carefully so. *******... when people say only the sidereal zodiac is to be used for astrology.. >>You can use tea leaves as long as it works.... ******Well, when I joined here tropical astrologers were being damned as " false prophets " ---not your accepting attitude exactly! *******....and not what we now call in the Western world the 'tropical zodiac' which means the 12 zones of the year, they're saying that there is no meaning in being born, say, at the time of the vernal equinox or the winter solstice or any other time of the solar year. >>>Siderealists believe there is meaning in being born any time during the Solar year. Who are these siderealists you are referring to? *******If you believe there's ONLY a sidereal zodiac, then a person born at the vernal equinox or the thirty days right afterwards, cannot have any constant characteristics from being born at that time: because the Sun is in a different group of stars in that month every 2,000 years, and only THAT creates characteristics. Right? A person born at the vernal equinox now must be completely different than one born at that time 2,000 years ago. ******* I think there is a reality to both tropical and sidereal astrology. >>>ya think..... may iask you what your reality of sidereal is? *******I suspect that the 12 zones of the year have to do with what's called the 'etheric body' of habits and temperament, while the stars themselves have to do with what's called the 'astral body'. Then, which planets are rising and culminating ----as Gauquelin found, which has no reference to the background, tropical OR sidereal---- has to do with the physical body. *******The 12 equal zones of 30 degrees each clearly come from the solar year, I'd say; because, as I wrote, the year is defined by those four points, and there are three full moons or " months " of about 30 days between each point and the > next. >>>Your idea's presented within sentence structure is illogical or I don't grasp what your definitions mean. ******There's nothing whatever wrong with the sentence structure (as there is with putting an apostrophe in the plural " ideas " ), so it's undoubtedly the definitions. Here's the passage I referred to, what ancient astronomers observed and which we can also see: [ 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.] *****If that's not clear, ask a question. >>>Some Siderealists utilize 12 equal zones of 30 degrees each. Some tropicalists calculate using a " Solar " day and some calculate utilizing a " Sidereal " day. Are you claiming that " Solar Year " calculations are strictly Tropical? ******Now THIS is confusion! No one uses solar time to cast horoscopes but instead converts " solar mean time " (our ordinary clock time) into the " sidereal time " for the day, calculated from Greenwich, so as to be accurate as to the exact degree of longtitude which was rising in the East, the exact position of the sun, etc. This " sidereal time " , however, is based not at all on any sidereal ZODIAC, but on the VERNAL EQUINOX---when it passes overhead at Greenwich being zero hour. That's one of the 4 points of the solar year, so definitely, tropical zodiac astrologers use the solar year, NOT the stars. *****>> When people say they want to base themselves on the planets' > positions in the actual groups of stars, I can understand that-- -- -- but > that has nothing to do with 12 equal-sized constellations. >>Or 12 equal sized signs if I follow your rationale. What I don't understand though again is what you mean by " base themselves " in reference to " equal sidereal zodiac " ? ******I mean I can understand wanting to work with what your eyes actually see-- -- -- Mars being amongst the stars of Sagittarius, for instance (saw it before sunrise this AM). But when the planets are actually in the constellations has nothing to do with an imaginary " 12 equal constellations " ---because they're nothing of the kind. So then, aren't you right back to not working with what your eyes actually see? > > > >>>>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... >>>And what does this have to do with stars traveling 25,000 years? ******I had to start out describing WHAT they pass through---if you'd have read further, it would have become apparent. You can't understand precession of the equinoxes without first knowing what an equinox is! *******...Ancient people apparently had only a lunar calendar which does not stay in synch with the seasons... >>so what? I use a lunar calendar as well as a solar calendar. *******If you have months called " January " , " February " etc., you do NOT use a " lunar calendar " . A lunar calendar has no solar year. Apparently you think using a solar calendar that has the New and Full Moons also marked on it is what is meant by " lunar calendar " . It's not. > > 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'... Are you saying this was Tropical? Are you saying that flood calendars are more relative than lunar calendars or are you suggesting that the egyptians figured out a way to stage rising and falling suns? ******I was hoping for a little familiarity with astronomy and the " tropical " vs. " sidereal " zodiacs here, but as long as somebody doesn't tell me it's " all too unclear " , I'll put the time into explaining, because you clearly don't know what a lunar calendar is. The simplest way to mark time periods longer than one day is by noting each full moon, easy to do because its bright and high up in the sky. If you noted a full moon today, and you lived somewhere where it was cold because it's winter, you might call that the " mid-winter moon " or some similar name. Thirteen full moons from now, you would see the Moon full again and it would be cold again, but it would actually only be 354 days from now, not 365. Not a great difference to note in one year---- but it would add up to a full month error in just three years, and in just nine years, your 13th " midwinter moon " would be occurring in the fall, long before it got cold. In other words, this simple keeping track of time by the full moon gets out of synchronization with the seasons and the actual year very fast. It's still a calendar used in China and in the Middle East, but the priests have to insert an extra month every so often to keep it from getting wildly out of line with the seasons. What I was referring to before is that the tradition says it was the ancient Egyptians who first discovered the actual solar year of 365 days, because the Nile flooded annually on the same day, which had nothing to do with the Moon. They defined the solar or tropical year because this annual flooding showed them what the actual year was, which is different than the lunar months. QED Dr. Starman http://www.DrStarman.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 At 03:57 PM 1/13/03 EST, Starman wrote: > Re: 12 Zones of the Year and the Stars >A person born at the vernal equinox now must >be completely different than one born at that time 2,000 years ago. Yes, that would be correct. >When people say they want to base themselves on the planets' >> positions in the actual groups of stars, I can understand that-- -- -- but >> that has nothing to do with 12 equal-sized constellations. The actual influence within a sidereal sign probably comes from actual star groups or asterisms. As I've mentioned twice on this board--as an example, the lunar mansion of Viskhaka (20 degrees of Libra to 3 deg of Scorpio) has attributes very different from the rest of sidereal Libra. John Addey's 'wave' harmonic theory explains the regularities of the signs...what the Tropical astrologers call the elements. No one knows for sure if these waves are tied to the Tropical zodiac or to certain stars. We just don't know. They ARE tied to the ecliptic. That is something both Tropical and sidereal astrolgoers agree on: The constellations and signs lie along the apparent path of the sun around the earth, called the ecliptic. What we need are people born near the end of the Tropical signs or the beginning of sidereal signs to try to zero on on their basic characteristics. There was something in here about the Akashic records, I thought, but I can't find it. Edgar Cayce read the Akashic records. Did you know, Starman, that he said to place the signs in the Persian (i.e. sidereal) zodiac rather than the Egyptian (Tropoical) zodiac? I have just about everything published on old Persian astrology and earlier. Yes, the zodiac used was Sidereal. Terese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 >>>There was something in here about the Akashic records, I thought, but I can't find it. Edgar Cayce read the Akashic records. Did you know, Starman,that he said to place the signs in the Persian (i.e. sidereal) zodiacrather than the Egyptian (Tropoical) zodiac? *******Sorry to take so long to respond, but the recent bad atmosphere on this list has made me rather loath to participate much. That's not exactly what Cayce said: it was in the confusing language of the readings, which can be interpreted several ways, but what was said approximately was that the Persian 'version' of astrology was the most accurate in some respects, more than the Indian OR Egyptian, which he said were the three main ones handed down. I can put the actual quotes here if desired. But as to flat out saying it was because the Egyptians were tropical while the Persian was sidereal, I KNOW that was NOT what he said at all. He said it was better than the Indian, which is also sidereal, so that wasn't the reason why it was allegedly better. It was implied and sometimes clearly stated that in some ways the formulas or interpretations were more accurate than the Vedic OR the Egyptian(whatever the Egyptian is, since we have nothing left from that either)---- but he wasn't asked about and didn't go into details The Readings used both sidereal AND tropical signs, sometimes speaking of the planets in the constellations, but most of the time (as can be verified by casting the horoscopes for people whose charts he interpreted, as I've done) using the 12 tropical signs. It's odd this is so because, when he first was asked about astrology, the source of the information said we would consider Cayce himself a Pisces but that we are actually " two signs off " in our reckoning; but then, THAT makes no sense tropically OR sidereally, as he was born March 18th, when the Sun is by no stretch of reckoning in Capricorn or in Taurus. It's just another mixed-up thing from the Readings, which were often unreliable. >>>I have just about everything published on old Persian astrology and earlier. Yes, the zodiac used was Sidereal. ******Such as? I know A.R.E. people who have been searching for this 'Persian astrology' for 25 years and say there isn't anything known to study. Could you refer us to any existing texts? Dr. Starman http://www.DrStarman.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.