About Ophiuchus the 13th sign

ravenest

oh yeah, and thanks to that tutorial link, I printed it and took it home to do the tutorial ... it even has a test at the back ...!

Minderwiz

Cheers ravenest!!

Glad we have established communication.

Just to help you get your head round your friend's explanation, Consider the following.

A Football suspended on a string from the ceiling with an equator marked on it at right angles to the line of the string. This is the Sun. Now consider an orange with a knitting needle through it suspended with the knitting needle pointing to the ceiling and an 'equator' drawn on the orange at right angles to the knitting needle. The orange is suspended so that the football's equator and the orange's equator lie on the same plane parallel to the ceiling.

Now fix them in this position with a round skewer passing through the centres and equators of both football and orange. The knitting needle is perpendicular to the football's equator. This is the 'hypothetical' situation referred to on the website.

Now release the knitting needle and rotate the orange around the skewer till it reaches an angle of 23.5 degrees in respect of the football's equator. In one dimension the knitting needle is not perpendicular but the skewer is still at right angles to the knitting needle - in that dimension it is perpendicular and will remain perpendicular whatever the angle or rotation on the skewer.

Incidentally, in the extract from the website I quoted it says that the polar axis 'still points at the North Star' As the Earth goes round it's orbit that relationship does not change, causing the orientation of the axis to the Sun to change (North pole pointing toward Sun, Polar axis square on, South pole pointing towards Sun, Polar axis square on). I think this is what Dave was trying to get you to model, using the triangle, in his post.

Now, If we lived closer together I'd say we share a pint on the discussion in a local hostelry. Pity we can't!

And please drop in at any time - Your discussions do liven the place up and they do make me think!

Bernice

Minderwiz: Your discussions do liven the place up and they do make me think!

Me too!

I've been popping in and out of this thread - a silent stalker....
I've really enjoyed Ravenests' posts about the constellation names/qualities.
But the 3-D celestial mechanics threw me for a bit!

Rather like someone applying quantum math to a basic arithmetic equation.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that the mechanics and application of Astrology is relative, just like every other form of existence throughout the 'universe' (as we are pleased to call it). When we speak of planets being in a certain sector of the sky (constellation or zodiac), these 'positions' are only relative to us on Earth. So applying a broader relative model (beyond the Solar System) has no bearing on the 'local-art/science' of astrology. (Just in case Ravenest goes wandering off into Deep Sky...

)

MaggieMay: I've been reading about the 13th sign and I like the idea of it.
However, I read that most astrologers do not use it. Why is that?
After all, if it's a real constellation, shouldn't it be taken into consideration?

Could someone clue me in?
Thanks, Maggie

Back to the thread.

I actually tried charts with this 13th sign, some years ago. After dickering with them for a while I returned to the standard 12.

Realistically speaking, there are enough 'constellations' out there - that can be seen from Earth - for someone to incorporate them into yet another branch of astrology

However it would be a monumental task, probably taking years to assess the 'qualities/influences' let alone the math, and the resulting chart arrangement - not to mention it's interpretation! - would likely be over-complicated, and maybe not have any 'human' application that we are currently aware of. (Or perhaps, not likely to attain....)

But there's no immutable Law to prevent someone trying.....

Bee

ravenest

Thanks guys. It's a relief to know that I'm not ONLY just annoying you. :laugh:

Boy have I been nutting this out, and trying to see why I still have some blocks to it. I might have higher expectations of myself than i am capible of ... i want to understand all the celestial movements and how they happen and be able to visualize them all moving together ... all at once.

And this process is helping imensly. I'll re-quote the following, not to dispute it but to show where my difficulties lie. It took me a while to re read through the posts and track my thought processes to see why I was getting confused in my 'unconscious logic'.

Minderwiz said:
...Looking at it from a Geocentric point of view (and I make no apology for that)

The declination of the Sun appears to change throughout the year, moving in a cycle from maximum 23.5 degrees North to maximum 23’5 degrees South. in respect of the equator.

Easy, I can deal with that as I can visualise standing on the earth watching the sun go back and forwards over the equator.

Minderwiz said:
Now from a heliocentric point of view, this reflects the constant angle of the axis of Earth in respect of the ecliptic, if you take a heliocentric view.

Problem. I'm standing on the Sun, or being the sun, looking out at the earth, as the earth rotates around me it's axis angle of direction changes (relative to my viewpoint), as mentioned before, left to right, straight up and down, right to left, straight up and down and so on ... like the video link you posted. And in the heliocentric viewpoint I mentioned previously. Seeing this vertical viewpoint was triggered me finally to understand what I thougth you meant. But it is confusing to me to think this heliocentric viewpoint shows one the constant angle of the axis at 23 degrees.

Minderwiz said:
The change in declination in relation to the equator can be meaured through observation on Earth.

However my point was a geocentric one and I will continue it. as the Sun appears to move around the Earth, it’s declination must change from North to South and vice versa. The change over points, are on the equatorial plane (extended out into space) and for a moment, as the Sun touches this plane ...

Okay, as I said above, I am now on the earth watching the Sun (geocentric now) and watching the sun cross the equator, I can easily imagine the the change over point on the equatorial plane and its extension in a plane out to space that has the sun on it.

Minderwiz said:
... earth’s poles are perpendicular to it.

Okay I will visulase the earths poles, in relation to this plane. How caan I see them from earth. I cant, it was too hard for me ... I treid but got all confused ... one is up there behind me on that angle and the other is down there in front at that angle and .... nah! To see the axial relationship I have to get off the earth and look at what you are saying. But what do I do?
I track my heliocentric view from sun to earth path backwards to the sun and turn around and look and the axis is 23 deg. The 90 degree relationship of the earths axis is not apparent from either angle. I have to look at it sideways and see both sun and earth and instantly I realise, of course, it is perpendicular because it ALWAYS IS perpendicular in that dimension and never changes, its the viewpoint that changes. So to understand it I have to see it from NEITHER a helio or geo centric viewpoint. I have to get outside and become an objective observer to the system. Like in Dave's triangle model - that is neither from the sun's or earth's perspective its a 'comocentric' view?

I have to function through the cosmocentric view.

Minderwiz said:
From a Geocentric point of view the Sun’s declination varies,

Ahhh ... good!

Minderwiz said:
From a heliocentric point of view the Earth’s axis maintains a constant angle to the ecliptic.

ARRRGH! but I THINK I know what you mean. (I like the refrence that it is always pointing at the north star.)

A lot of this is me trying to nut out what others mean. eg. the tutorial said the earth's axis is always parrallel to itself. WHAT! That's impossible, it does not make sense ( and my astrologer / astronomer friend agrees -) But I think that means that if the angle of directional pointing of the axis is marked with a line at various points in its orbit, THOSE lines are parrallel. (My friend then got it when I explained further).

Minderwiz said:
Th At the Equinoxes the angle of incidence is 90 degrees and the circle of illumination passes through the poles. The poles are perpendicular to the Sun’s rays.

Ahhhh. For me, with this way of explaining it, I can more easily comprehend what you mean and start to see the other axis where it IS at 90 deg.

ravenest

Bernice said:
Me too!

I've been popping in and out of this thread - a silent stalker....
I've really enjoyed Ravenests' posts about the constellation names/qualities.
But the 3-D celestial mechanics threw me for a bit!
Rather like someone applying quantum math to a basic arithmetic equation.

Oh yeah!

Here I was thinking I had to understand celestial mechanics

and it is the BASEST of sphereical geometry. The angle IS always 90 deg. in that direction throughout its whole rotation.

The definition of celestial mechanics I found related to astronomy and that directed me to the 3d view. Thats why I see lines instead of dots or points ( 3 points make a surface but 3 intersecting lines make space). But, by focusing on the points, one gets specifics about one point of view that might not be apparent in the 3-D view.

Now I think the best approach is the 3-d view, then pull each view apart and examine it from that direction, then put them all back together and add the next direction of time/motion. So it makes your earlier comment;

Bernice said:
As Astrology is the 'Mother of Astronomy' it's worth coming at it from the astrological viewpoint.

Rather interesting.

ravenest

Bernice said:
I think it's worth keeping in mind that the mechanics and application of Astrology is relative, just like every other form of existence throughout the 'universe' (as we are pleased to call it). When we speak of planets being in a certain sector of the sky (constellation or zodiac), these 'positions' are only relative to us on Earth. So applying a broader relative model (beyond the Solar System) has no bearing on the 'local-art/science' of astrology. (Just in case Ravenest goes wandering off into Deep Sky... )

But I LOVE wandering in Deep Sky!

Bernice said:
Back to the thread.

Oh yeah!

I forgot about that!

Bernice said:
I actually tried charts with this 13th sign, some years ago. After dickering with them for a while I returned to the standard 12.

I dont consider it a sign (I can hear Dave rumbling off in the background) My very first original point (years ago :laugh:

) was to explore a system using the constellations without considering them as signs.

Bernice said:
Realistically speaking, there are enough 'constellations' out there - that can be seen from Earth - for someone to incorporate them into yet another branch of astrology However it would be a monumental task, probably taking years to assess the 'qualities/influences' let alone the math, and the resulting chart arrangement - not to mention it's interpretation! - would likely be over-complicated, and maybe not have any 'human' application that we are currently aware of. (Or perhaps, not likely to attain....)

Not astrology as most see it here. I am looking at a different application where a 12 neat balanced system may not apply. I checked the definition of astrology from several sources but I think the deffinition is a lot narrower here. But that's okay, so to avoid confusion I will call what I am interested in ' Star Lore'

And I am rather surprised that many could not make the connections I have pointing out, dont you guys over there in the 'States or Canada or sth America have native traditions that are like astrology that can give you an idea of this more natural and not necassarily complecated mathmatical approach. I assumed you did, but maybe that part of the indingeneous culture is lost or more secret over there?

Bernice said:
But there's no immutable Law to prevent someone trying.....

Trying ???? Some have been using it quiet well for over 40,000 years 'down' here.

ravenest

Minderwiz said:
Now, If we lived closer together I'd say we share a pint on the discussion in a local hostelry. Pity we can't!

Sorry, dont touch the stuff. However, would love to have same discussion under the winter sky here beneath a zillion bright twinkling stars (like it is at present).

ravenest

Here is a link to the practice I have been trying ( for a looooooong time now, it's difficult.

http://www.winternet.com/~blister/GEMS/lib_0536.txt

Minderwiz

ravenest said:
I checked the definition of astrology from several sources but I think the deffinition is a lot narrower here. But that's okay, so to avoid confusion I will call what I am interested in ' Star Lore'

You make an interesting point there ravenest.

Interesting because there seem to be those who would argue that such 'Star Lore' is NOT Astrology but Astronomy:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/gtosiris/page1.html

Now before you get too hot under the collar, I AGREE with you, I think it IS Astrology and certainly Nick Campion counts it as Astrology in his 'Dawn of Astrology'.

I think the author there takes too narrow a view of Astrology, though I don't dispute his history. He also is guilty of using a modern 'compartmental' or 'subject' view. I doubt that 5,000 years ago humans distinguished between religion and Astronomy, viewing the latter as entirely secular. Indeed I would have thought that a distinction between religion and secularity was not in their frame of reference. So perhaps we should have a thread on 'What is Astrology'.

Minderwiz

Bernice said:
Back to the thread

We should remember that the 88 recognised constellations were not always 'recognised' LOL

Ptolemy only listed 48 constellations (c150 AD) long after Mesopotamian and Greek Astrology was established. Most of the later additions are of course Southern Hemisphere ones.

About 500 years before Ptolemy, it seems the list was around 30 constellations, the 12 which gave their names to the zodiac plus another 18. The existence of what I have seen refered to as Parazodiacal constellations (ones which touch the zodiac) was certainly known to the Babylonians, who listed Orion, Perseus, Auriga and Andromeda as such,in the Mul Apin. So Astrologers clearly have known for as long as the 12 sign zodiac has existed, that it was an abstraction and those Astronomers who use Ophiuchhus as evidence of Astrologer's ignorance of the zodiac either don't understand their own co-ordinate system and it's origin (the Astronomical co-ordinate system used to be the 12, 30 degree segments) or are simply trying to make an attack on Astrology for the sake of it, in the hope that the public don't have enough knowledge to realise the attack is bogus.

Oh, the reason why the zodiac 'passes' through Ophiuchus is the redrawn constellation bounderies published in 1930 by the IAU. One might ask Astronomers why they didn't change THEIR co-ordinate system as a consequence.

Incidentally, Astronomers also base their co-ordinate system on the equinox (Vernal in Northern Hemisphere/Autumnal in Southern Hemisphere) AND they also 'confusingly' call it the Aries Point, So next time an Astronomer asks you why you insist on saying that the Sun is in Aries, when it's really in Pisces, tell them it's because you are using the same co-ordinate system as they are and they should not ask such silly questions. You might divide your map into 12, 30 degree segments, each with a name, they might divide their's into 24 15 degree segments on maps, but both are measured from the same point. And that system was set up by people who did not distinguish between Astrology and Astronomy but believed both disciplines were inseparable.

Note for ravenest

I'm quite sure the Aborigines in Australia also recognised constellations that were not on Ptolemy's list, at the time he compiled it. So I am referring to a Northern Hemisphere knowledge base. I'm also sure that the 30 or so Constellations recognised by classical Greek Astrologers did not comprise the sum total of human knowledge in the Northern Hemisphere. My point was that the constellations did not all spring into human consciousness at the same time.