Digest Number 418 - exaltations, Jack Contreras

[Guest guest]

Hi Jack,

 

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this message....

 

 

, " Jack S. Contreras "

<sidereal@c...> wrote:

 

JC>>>Now, what was the source of the Node being

> > >at 3 Sag and which zodiac?

> > >

EK> >If your definition of the exaltation is so strict,

> > >then how can the

> > >nodes, which are not planets and also invisible,

> > >have a heliacal rising in the first place?

> > >Did Fagan simply insert them on his own

> > >fiducial (0* Aries) because it was the first

> > >month of the calendar in 786 BC?

 

> > >If so, why is this in any way valid?

> > >

> > >We see the nodal exaltations as 3* of GEM/SAG in

> > >early medieval Arab

> > >texts, whereas such degrees are not listed by Ptolemy.

> > >It seems to have something to do with

> > >being 3* away from Luna's exaltation.

 

EK: I meant to say " 30* away from Luna's exaltation. "

 

As for the comments from Ken Bowser, there are many problems that I

would like to address:

 

 

> With regard to this question about the node, the answer is that

four

> of the exaltation positions are not heliacal phenomena but rather

> positions at 1st Nisan on April 3rd (Julian) -785 (786 B.C.) at

> Babylon at approximately Moonset.

 

On this I agree, but again it should be said that it is rather

impossible for an invisible object such as a node to have a heliacal

rising or setting. (This also goes for outer planets that are not

visible to the naked eye.) The Sun also cannot have a heliacal

rising for obvious reasons, and so these two items are given the " new

years day " position.

 

Venus can have a heliacal rising, and in 786 BC it had one at 18*

Virgo, but for some reason Venus, which was at that time more

important that Jupiter (Venus tables of Assyria), was given the non-

heliacal " new years eve " position as well.

 

> Venus was at 26 Pisces 34'

> which rounds to 27 Pisces;

 

Venus rises the next morning at 27*04' Pisces; the days began at

sunset in Babylonia, so Venus' first appearance in the new year makes

sense.

 

> The Sun at first Nisan was at

> 18 Aries 53' which rounds to 19 Aries;

 

Yes, but was there a " zodiac " at that time? Rather, it is this sun

position that defines the " sidereal " 0* Aries point, as I will

explain. The square root of 360 is ~18.973666, which translates into

18*58'25 " , and thus the reason why the Sun position of this

particular sunset, minus this value, was chosen by Fagan to be the

fiducial of the " Sidereal Zodiac. " It was Bradley who corrected this

fiducial the additional 5' of arc, apparently to give Aldebaran an

exact value of 15* Taurus(?), but this is a rather academic exercise

as the concept of the " ecliptic " was still unknown to the Babylonians.

 

 

> the north node of the Moon was at 1 Aries 30';

 

The " true " north node, yes.

 

 

> and the Moon at Moonset (about 7pm LMT) was at 29

> Aries 40' but the Moon had north latitude so it

> actually set in 0 Taurus. Parallax would have made

> the Moon set before 7:00 pm

> but it would have been seen in Taurus.

> I don't know the source for

> 3 Taurus as the Moon's exaltation degree but it may

> be that delta T is incorrect to the extent that

> the Moon could have been farther to

> the east than the currently accepted value of

> delta T will allow.

 

This paragraph has many problems, as indeed " moonset " would have been

rather impossible to see on this particular evening. The Babylonians

were able to calculate positions of the planets with precision even

at that date, and they could have calculated that the Moon was about

to " occult " Mercury as it set, albeit invisibly. The year 786 BC saw

the opening in Calah of the new temple of Nabu, the god associated

with the planet Mercury. So, while indeed the first crescent of the

new moon would have been visible on the next evening, April 4, the

April 3 values have been codified by Fagan.

 

As for the argument that the Moon position may have actually been 3*

Taurus given " delta T, " this argument is poor. My calculations say

that the Moon would have set with the value of 28*44' Aries. While

indeed it is difficult to predict Moon positions with accuracy beyond

2000 years, in no way would the measure have been off by 3*. Rather,

again we have to turn to the Moon's first visible crescent, which can

only become visible when the Moon is ~14* separated from the Sun, and

thus we see that 19 + 14 = 33, or 3* Taurus.

 

So, then, we can see that indeed there was no " sidereal zodiac " as

such in 786 BC; rather, as Babylonian astrology spread throughout the

Mediterranean in later centuries, the Nabu fiducial became a standard

that was applied to the new Greek innovation of a 12-signed zodiac,

via the value of the square root of 360.

 

The following info about the calendar is quite good, and the problems

he cites were still problems until well into the Medieval era of

Computists who needed to affix the proper date of Easter.

 

Best,

Ed K

 

 

> Incidentally, 1st Nisan is the first New Moon closest to the

> equinox, either before or after it. The two most important reasons

> for noting the equinox and making it the beginning of the civil

year

> are, 1) The Tigris and Euphrates both overflowed their banks in

> March and in an area where the average rainfall was only 150

> millimeters per year, it was critical to catch as much of the flood

as

> possible in dikes, cisterns and canals to irrigate the fields

because

> you could starve to death if you depended on rainfall alone to

bring

> in your crop. Much of Babylonia and Assyria (modern Iraq) are

> desert or semi-desert. Water is a precious resource. 2) The

> condition of equal day and night is a way to regulate what time of

> year it is and therefore to intercalate the calendar which requires

> the addition of a second intercalary Adarru about every three years.

> A lunar year is 354 days long so a lunar year gets out of sync with

> the solar year in three years. Their calendar was soli-lunar but

at

> what point it became so and departed from a purely lunar calendar,

> I don't know. So the equinox was a help with the calendar but it

> couldn't be used for celestial longitude because there's no

> combination of stars that points to it and says in effect: " Vernal

> Equinox here! " with an arrow pointing to it; moreover the equinox

is

> constantly changing with regard to the sky so a position during one

> era won't be where it was formerly described in the next era. You

> can't navigate around the sky unless you have fixed points of

> reference that don't change for practical purposes. The equinox

> can be used for purposes of geodesy, but it changes so fast that

> it's useless as a marker for astronomical purposes, unless you

> update it annually. Worse, use of the equinox makes a shambles

> of period relations which are the backbone of Babylonian

> ephemerides. If you say that the Moon was five degrees west of

> Antares you've got something meaningful that won't change from

> one period to another.

> I hope this is helpful.

 

> Best wishes,

> Ken Bowser