Digest Number 492

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:17 AM

Digest Number 492

 

 

> " 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:

>/

>------

>

>There are 2 messages in this issue.

>

>Topics in this digest:

>

> 1. Re: Welcome to

> " Brian Higgins " <brianrhiggins

> 2. Re: Welcome to

> " Ed Kohout " <crumpo

>

>

>______________________

>______________________

>

>Message: 1

> Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:32:05 -0500

> " Brian Higgins " <brianrhiggins

>Re: Welcome to

>

>> Now that you're here, why not take a moment to introduce yourself to

>everyone?

>

>I am looking at the position of the sun at March 21, 0 time UT, on a sky

map

>on my computer. The sun is on the intersection of the ecliptic and the

>equator at 0. Mercury is conjunct the sun. It is beautiful. I am also

>looking at two charts for the event. The sidereal chart gives the position

>of the sun as 5-Pisces-11. The tropical chart gives the position of the sun

>as 29-Pisces-58. The skymap, again, projects the event as occurring in

>Pisces, but it appears to be closer to the head than the tail. Are we on

the

>same page?

>

>

>

>

>

>______________________

>______________________

>

>Message: 2

> Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:01:20 -0000

> " Ed Kohout " <crumpo

>Re: Welcome to

>

>Hi Brian,

>

>Yes, you are correct. The Sidereal Zodiac, by definition, has a

>fiducial point ( " 0* Aries " ) that is some distance separated from the

>vernal point of the Tropical Zodiac. That differnce, or " delta, " is

>defined as the " Annual general precession, " which is currently

>measured as: p = 50 " .2564 + 0 " .0222 T; " T " is = Time measured in

>Julian centuries from 1900.0.

>

>http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~baa/computing/handbo~2.htm

>

>And, as I tried to explain here two or three months ago -- only to be

>met with attacks by members who completely missed the point -- the

>Sidereal Zodiac is therefore a secondary measurement system because

>it can only be plotted in relation to the Tropical Zodiac -- not the

>other way around. This is why NASA and all of astronomy uses the

>Tropical measuring systems.

>

>Not that this fact negates the astrological validity of the Sidereal

>Zodiac, but it does show that the best way to map the sky is with the

>node of the equatorial grid and the ecliptic, or the Tropical

>Zodiacal " 0* Aries " point.

>

>Best regards,

>Ed K

 

Ed is wrong.

The term fiducial point is in reference to Spica, Alpha Virgo, at 29 Virgo

08' 05 " sidereal longitude, epoch 1950, Fagan-Allen or Fagan-Bradley

Synetic Vernal Point (SVP).

The Fagan-Allen sidereal zodiac is based on Spica and not a zero aries

calculation.

Suggested reading: Cyril Fagan's, Astrological Origins, Solunars Handbook or

Zodiacs Old and New.

 

Jack Sirildo Contreras

Western Sidereal Astrologer

[Guest guest]

, " Jack S. Contreras "

<sidereal@c...> wrote:

 

> Ed is wrong.

> The term fiducial point is in reference to Spica, Alpha Virgo, at

29 Virgo

> 08' 05 " sidereal longitude, epoch 1950, Fagan-Allen or Fagan-

Bradley

> Synetic Vernal Point (SVP).

> The Fagan-Allen sidereal zodiac is based on Spica and not a zero

aries

> calculation.

> Suggested reading: Cyril Fagan's, Astrological Origins, Solunars

Handbook or

> Zodiacs Old and New.

>

> Jack Sirildo Contreras

> Western Sidereal Astrologer

 

Hi Jack,

 

Then why, when I go to Astrolog, does the " sidereal " value for Spica

change every year?

 

Just becuase Fagan, Allen and Bradley all wanted to have Aldebaran on

the mid-quarter point does not mean that their methods of calculation

were relevant to more sophisticated astrology.

 

All fixed stars move around. Proper motion.

 

- Ed K