Grasshoff's Book

[Guest guest]

Julia, I just checked Amazon, and there is one copy of Grasshoff's book

(new) for only about $26. This is a very good deal, as even the used prices

of the book begin around $37. The other new copies are much more expensive,

up to one scalper who's asking $326.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Thank you so much, Therese! We've got it on the way now!

I have done some past testing of epoch -128 CE, which is

interesting in that it places Alrescha within the last

degree of Pisces, leaving Regulus still within the first

degree of Leo, for an ayanamsha of about 29.58 degrees at

2000.0. That's fairly radical, and very much at odds with

the claim that Hipparchos placed zero Aries quite near

Revati. It is true that such large ayanamshas appear to give

a better fit to the Constellations, though the Babylonians

appeared to differ in opinion and were mapping the stars so

much earlier. I'll really look forward to studying Grasshoff

and testing out what he has learned. Again thanks!!

 

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest wrote:

>

> Julia, I just checked Amazon, and there is one copy of

Grasshoff's book

> (new) for only about $26. This is a very good deal, as

even the used prices

> of the book begin around $37. The other new copies are

much more expensive,

> up to one scalper who's asking $326.

>

> Therese

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks very much for your summary of Grasshoff's work, Julia. I've printed

it out to keep with the book for the person who will eventually own my copy.

 

I hope that sometime you'll compile your studies in this area in an

extensive article or booklet. The ayanamsa problem is the biggest hurdle to

the spread and use of sidereal astrology.

 

I'm still having problems with forum posts making it to my mailbox. I

never saw your December 5 message since I hadn't checked the site for

several weeks.

 

Blessings,

Therese

 

Julia wrote:

I did enjoy the book, which mainly addressed the question of

whether Ptolemy actually made his own observations or simply

" pirated " a catalogue compiled by Hipparchos 265 years

earlier and merely finagled the longitudes. The author

points out the basic unfairness of modern critics in judging

Ptolemy's work according to standards that really didn't

exist before the 18th century. It's clear that Ptolemy

relied on the work of Hipparchos but expanded the data and

probably organized it more clearly; the Almagest effectively

preserved and superseded earlier works and was a valuable

resource for later explorers of the heavens.

 

It seems that Ptolemy was aiming to reference stellar

longitudes to the Vernal point, even with use of ecliptic

coordinates. The variance between the stated epoch of the

catalog and its intrinsic reference date seems to be caused

by difficulty in getting a good fix on the actual position

of the vernal point in his time. It's clear that he did

distinguish between constellations and signs, and MAY have

been responsible for effectively creating the notion of a

tropical zodiac, possibly suspecting that the vernal point

oscillated rather than moved steadily along the ecliptic.

 

The bottom line is that this catalogue, while it places 82-

Virginis at the 180-degree line, does not claim it or any

other as a special fiducial star defining sidereal

coordinates, and Psi3 Piscium, which he lists as zero

longitude, actually if far from consistent with the rest of

the catalogue, so there's nothing there indicated in the

manner of Spica, Revati, Shaula (as per Chandra Hari), or

Aldebaran. Most of the bright stars also have a hefty proper

motion, so they present some problems as reliable markers

over the span centuries. Antares is a bright star that has

not been considered much on its own, but its proper motion

is less than half that of Spica, owing to the star's greater

distance from us.