Path: typhoon.sonic.net!newsfeed2.skycache.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Odysseus Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi Subject: Re: The Age of Aquarius and its Timing Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:20:54 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 57 Message-ID: <8p59aa$5a5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <8ndf6e$b6m@bolt.sonic.net> <8nphh6$c2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.184.162.243 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Sep 06 11:20:54 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x56.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 161.184.162.243 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDodysseus_episk Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:25066 In article <8nphh6$c2l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, bradford@independence.net wrote: > In article <8ndf6e$b6m@bolt.sonic.net>, > spam@luckymojo.com wrote: > > > > > > coming upon the notion of the transitional periods > > of time, I was curious about the variety of speculation > > concerning the pinpointing of the 'start of the > > Aquarian Age'. > > > Hi- > I've puzzled long on this one too, and been most annoyed at > results of research. If I could find one who knew, I'd be more > inclined to trust an astronomer than a channeler. > I've heard this: Hipparchus of Nicaea discovered precession while > the Vernal equinox was in Aries, using our present wheel. In 129 BCE he > also mapped 850 fixed stars onto this wheel. The beginning of the > Aquarian Age cannot be more than 2156 years after his death based on an > Annus Magnum of 25,868 years. So any answers later than one age > after his death would have to be Hooey. That means we're somewhere > between close to it and long past it. > If it hasn't been done one might be able to find O degrees Aries > in 129 BCE by using an Average of the Hipparchus observations (since they > be moving every which way since then) and comparing to present locations. > Ptolemy (in Great Books series) preserves these fixed star placements. > Am interested in any theories which include discussions of > Hipparchus. Or any corrections to what I've found so far. > I believe that many "sidereal" astrologers define the vernal point indirectly by setting the position of Aldebaran (Alpha Tauri) at 45° sidereal ecliptic longitude, or 15° Taurus. (This also puts Antares (Alpha Scorpii) very near 195° long. or 15° Scorpio.) According to this system, the equinox is presently near 5° Pisces sidereal, and will enter Aquarius in about 350 years. (The sidereal and tropical zodiacs would have coincided around 200 e.v., and the vernal point would therefore have been in early Aries in Hipparchus' time.) One still has to ignore the actual positions of many of the zodiac constellations' stars, as they don't fit into neat 30° divisions -- in fact Aquarius and Capricornus as traditionally pictured overlap by several degrees. BTW the precession of the equinoxes is much more regular -- and easier to track -- than the motions of the stars, although among the brightest stars (as viewed from Earth) there are a few distant supergiants like Deneb (Alpha Cygni, which is a long way from the ecliptic, however) and Rigel (much closer -- Orion is just south of Gemini) whose proper motions are negligible over a time scale of mere centuries, so they could be suitable as "fixed" markers. But Sirius, for example, at just under eleven light-years away, appears to move much too fast to be used as a precise indicator of precession. __________ --Odysseus Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.