Just for a laugh, I posted on facebook to try see if any of my friends are Ophiuchans.
Then I decided to try and show how axial precession had lead to Ophiuchus becoming an 'unofficial' part of the zodiac.
I wound CDC back to 2999BC which is as far as it will go while still showing solar system bodies and the ecliptic.
And...there's not much difference there. I've overlaid the two maps as best I can (the orientation changes so I had to photoshop it as best I could thought you can still see a bit of a double image).
I had always thought the story was that the precession of the poles means that the sun now spends a lot more time in Ophiuchus, whereas it didn't before. But looking at this, it spent maybe an extra day or two in Scorpio 5,000 years ago, but it has *always spent much more time in Ophiuchus.
It's not axial precession, it's Astrological oversight.
The one thing that *has changed quite significantly is the position of the sun at that time (the right hand sun is the one from 2999BC) But that doesn't change the amount of time it spends in different constellations.
Have I gotten this wrong? I was expecting a much more striking result.
A bit more research shows that the sun has indeed always gone through Ophiuchus. That has nothing to do with axial precession, and everything to do with the ancients wanting a nice division into 12 constellations, and let's face it, Scorpio is way more recognisable. so while they knew about Ophiuchus, they simply left it out. The Axial precession only relates to the changed dates of when the sun is in each constellation, even though the actual path hasn't changed that much. it's a 26,000 year cycle, IIRC, so that's to be expected, I guess.
12 or 13 signs suffered from the same thing rainbows did... 7 was the number, 7 sins, 7 seas, 7 celestial bodies etc...6 was a bad number...so we added a colour...
13 wasn't a good number, and if your talking astrology that's not going to sell well... Its not like they didn't know.
Go back to the Greek's, mystery and math were interwoven and it took a longtime to ditch the habit.
the zodiac signs are divided up as per the real constellations, as you know some constellations are way bigger than others, all different sizes, but for astrology they are divided equally into 12.
Ancient Egypt's Dendra Zodiac had 13 signs. The 13th was the Sphinx, between LEO and Virgo -- Head of the Virgin, Body of the lion was the 13th sign the Sphinx.
Old Sumerian Zodiac said to be %000 BC is basically the same as ours today, with minor differences.
Gee, why the need to resurrect the continuing disconnect between astronomy & astrology? If we go back 1000 years, we find the two branches considered as one.
The biggest difference as far as I can tell is that astronomers use the heliocentric model & astrologers (mainly) the geocentric. Both are equally valid.
Having said that, I tend to the view that most modern day astrology is "pop psychology" & shouldn't be taken seriously.
Anyway, for those of you who are interested, the following link explains why Ophiuccus is not included as a zodiac sign: https://marklerner.wordpress.com/201...in-the-zodiac/
Gee, why the need to resurrect the continuing disconnect between astronomy & astrology? If we go back 1000 years, we find the two branches considered as one.
The biggest difference as far as I can tell is that astronomers use the heliocentric model & astrologers (mainly) the geocentric. Both are equally valid.
Having said that, I tend to the view that most modern day astrology is "pop psychology" & shouldn't be taken seriously.
Anyway, for those of you who are interested, the following link explains why Ophiuccus is not included as a zodiac sign: https://marklerner.wordpress.com/201...in-the-zodiac/
So Astrologers aren't *wrong per-se, they just don't actually mean Aries when they say 'Aries'? So...why say Aries, rather than something that actually says what it is, like the twelfth part of a circle?
In CDC I had to go back to about 3700BC before the date the sun actually entered Aries lined up with the horoscope times (March 21). But the wikipedia article says 2000 years is the time they were both aligned.
Even so, if people are going to claim that the stars, planets or magnetic field has an effect on human personality types, they're going to need to present a falsifiable hypothesis and prove it with decent data, like every other scientifically valid idea. Saying 'Oh, but we don't *mean 'Aries' when we say 'Aries'' is awkward because obviously it *used to mean Aries. That's why they used the name in the first place. But now it doesn't. Hmmm.
Firstly, I don't feel the need to prove or disprove anything. Whatever works for you, o.k. It's just a little bedtime ditty I sing to myself where the world isn't quite the mess it is today.
The significance of astrology in history is underestimated because of how we regard it today but in times past its importance was right up there
Many religions came directly from asyrology..think of a time when the Sun was viewed as god and you get clever humans claiming a link..and take on attributes of the Sun....the Sun (the God or usually son of god) having 12 followers, birth on 25th December/ death / resurrection mid winter (Sun appearing to stop, die, and move again after three days) and on the cross (Sun on the Southern cross apparently?) ...and there were many "human gods" around the Mediterranean all with the attributes taken from astrology..they are there but no one cares to look.
One author, Martin Sweatman, who talks a lot about Gobeki Tepie, offers plausible evidence to support his contention that the zodiac can be seen with cave art...and he makes a most compelling case...sounds a very scientific approach in any event.
I find it interesting but dont believe there is anything to predicting future etc...but its history is well worth study.
Alex
I guess it's a divergence between science and mysticism. I like the arcane nature of Astrology and Alchemy. The symbols and diagrams look cool and are an interesting window into the beliefs of yesterday. I guess it gets uncomfortable for me when people insert astrology into the conversation as part of their belief system with the expectation that their beliefs should be respected. I mean, you can believe whatever you want in your own head. I'm free to believe that Jupiter is made of fairy-floss if I want. But if I start expressing that belief to others, then demanding they remain silent in their criticism out of 'respect', then I think it would be *me being disrespectful, not them. In the end, the only ideas that are worthy of respect are the ones that can be proven. I have some ideas about astrophysics that I personally believe. Does current science back me up? No. Would I expect to be taken seriously if I aired them publicly? Also no.
I guess I don't really see why Astrology should be free from criticism when other ideas are not, that's all.
Don't get me wrong..I think it is nonsense and my point was merely that its role in religious history should be understood ..mainly so folk know where the various religious propositions came from.
For example you will sometimes see a circle on a cross..apparently it represents the zodiac..
I say to folk who are intent on pushing their barrow over my toes..."That is an extrodinary claim and an extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence" after their next statement they get "sorry I don't see faith as a virtue as that is simply saying your belief has no support...if you have no evidence be honest and say so"...it may not change an opinion but they tend to back off.
I have this lady I know and it's all astrology..Oh Mars is in Venus or something...I find her better to ignore...
Alex
