Research Studies: Tropical vs. Sidereal & Related

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Greetings,

Have we not an enormous tempest in a teapot?

If I have understood Mr Kolev's messages correctly, the standard deviation amongst the various positions of wandering Stars reported in ancient texts is greater than the difference between the Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley precession factors.

Might it not be more fruitful to devote the effort spent on such discussions about the 'length of the emperor's beard' to scientific research on the astrological effectiveness of various zodiacs?

Using a verified database of 250 vouchsafed correct results from horary astrology (ONLY 'yes or no' questions!) AND (quite difficult amongst astrologers who mostly seem to prefer indulgence in titillating speculation to coherence) the same underlying assumptions, e. g. Significatrix(or) based on sign of house cusp Lord OR on Victor of degree of house cusp using WHICH house system, test whether the most frequently used precession factors for fixed zodiacs, Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley, yield as good or better correctness of outcomes as the moving zodiac for the northern hemisphere.

Do astrologers' trine aspect to Symbolism and sextile aspects to Geometry and Trigonometry necessarily imply that there is aversion to Statistics?

Best regards,

Abd-Allah Meyers

[Rumen_Kolev]

Abdullah,

Knowledge has its place.
We should know what was the Babylonian Astrology in, say, 700 BC.
We should know what was the practice of the priests of Anu, Enlil and Ea then.

Do not forget that the Original Astrology was given to Enmeduranki in an illumination.
Hermes did not compute correlation coefficients.

However, the experimenta-practice should confirm the logical and the revelational.
If it does not then we should examine again our understanding of the revelational and the logical.

One experiment would be to look for microcycles in nature. Measure the temperature of a human for a full day, year or month, measure it, say, 1000 times in a second or once every 0.001 seconds. Write this in a database. In one day there would be 24*60*60*1000 records. Look for patterns in this data. Are there any or none? The mainstream science would answer there will be no patterns. But is this true?

[Rumen_Kolev]

If I have understood Mr Kolev's messages correctly, the standard deviation amongst the various positions of wandering Stars reported in ancient texts is greater than the difference between the Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley precession factors.

No !!!

the standard deviation amongst the various positions of wandering Stars reported in THE HOROSCOPES TEXTS is greater than the difference between the Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley precession factors.

This would be correct to say. St. deviation = around 3 degrees. Delta (Lahiri-Fagan) = 1 degree.

And also, it would be correct to say
that from other texts, we know exactly where did this fixed Babylonian ecliptic begin and where did it end.
Kugler, Huber, Fagan and a preserved Babylonian clay tablet (with positions of 6 stars) say the same thing.

I am sure there are tablets in museums now where we can find the other stars and their position in the fixed Babylonian ecliptic.
We have to find them and they will confirm what we already know: Aldebaran = 15 Tauri

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Greetings,

In the horoscope texts is of course precisely what i meant. Thank you.

You have, dear Dr. Kolev, in my humble opinion clearly confirmed my point. With a standard deviation of 3 degrees concerning the positions used to assess precession factors, discussing the correctness of two such factors with a difference of 1 degree between them seems to me a simple absurdity.

I participate in the ancient philo-Sophical school of Scepticism (ancient Greek skeptomai, to think, to look about, to consider) based on ataraxia, quietude of soul far from the conflicts of dogmas, astrological or others, and on acatalepsia, liberation from the possible pain that one might experience when one discovers the incoherence of one's apparent certitudes.

Best regards,

Abd-Allah Meyers

[Rumen_Kolev]

the general way of contemplation in the Hermetic tradition. In the beginning of CH 1.

***

[Rumen_Kolev]

From previous post of Dimityr Kojuharov:
========================================
a quote from Rupert Gleadow's book "The Origin of the Zodiac".When he comment the horoscope of Emperor Augustus on p.64 of his book he says:

The question is which of five possible zodiacs did Theogenes use? Eudoxus has put the equinox in 15°Aries, Cleostratos of Tenedos in 15°, Naburiannu in 10°, Kidinnu in 8°and Hipparchus in 0°!And all these systems were still current.

========================================

There were several mathematical schemes for computation of the rising times and time of daylight in Babylon. These schemes were several and they respectively placed the equinox in 15, 10 and 8 degree of fixed Aries.

Kugler was the first to discover the 10 and 8 degree of Aries schemes in 1900.

Recently Rochberg in her study on the Rising times in the dodekatemoroia texts (confirmed by my research of LBAT 1499) found another system that put the equinox in 15 fixed Aries.

Neugebauer writes that he does not know why is this! [discussing the 10 and 8 degree scemes]

And of course he better not know unless he wants to admit that they knew about precession!

All these different systems only show very clearly that the Babylonians adjusted their math schemes according to the actual movement of the equinox through the images.

***
Indeed, the Babylonian fixed zodiac was one and used en mass by everyone until several centuries after Ptolemy.
***

The Mesopotamians of course used also the tropical ecliptic divided in 12 (equinox= 15 degree of the First Division).
There are Akkadian texts from the Seleucids confirming this.

[Therese_Hamilton]

In attempting a summary of this discussion:

Rumen Kolev and disciples of the Fagan-Bradley sidereal school use Babylonian texts and the work of early 20th century scholars (Kugler and Huber) as evidence to place Antares and Aldebaran at precisely 15 degrees of Scorpio and Taurus in what is known as the "Babylonian fixed zodiac."

However, later scholars do not find this research convincing. Under "Norming of the Zodiac" (p. 131-133) in The Heavenly Writing (2004) Francesca Rochberg writes:

"Also the longitudes of the fixed stars were done so arbitrarily with the result that the zero degree of the ecliptic did not coincide with the vernal equinox...More precisely however, we still cannot establish the star that originally served as norming point for the ecliptic. Even were we to assume the vernal point was determined correctly when it was assigned to 10 degrees and then 8 degrees Aries, the corresponding dates for these zodiacal norming points cannot be pinpointed..." (p. 133) (Relevant references are noted in footnotes.)

Today's astrologers are likely to see this disagreement as "a tempest in a teapot" as Mr. Meyers stated. Astrologers are also likely to agree with Mr. Meyers' statement: "With a standard deviation of 3 degrees concerning the positions used to assess precession factors, discussing the correctness of two such factors with a difference of 1 degree between them seems to me a simple absurdity."

What matters to astrologers is the practical application of an ayanamsa: finding a way to demonstrate the exact beginnings and endings of zodiacal signs, most easily through the use of micro-zodiacs (navamsa, dwad, etc.) Not being research or statistically minded, such proof by astrologers is likely far in the future.

At any rate, the norming of the zodiac using one or more fixed stars, while a legacy from the past valuable for historical research, is less relevant today. As an astronomer friend wrote to me recently: "The equinox, (moving or fixed to a conventional date such as 2000) is still the zero longitude point common to equatorial and ecliptic systems, but is no longer considered the primary definition. Rather, the astronomers track the equatorial pole and the ecliptic pole in terms of a stationary coordinate system fixed to very distant quasars." Astronomy marches on in the 21st century!

As Mr. Meyers also pointed out, stars have proper motion, though it can take centuries for this motion to affect ecliptic longitude in a way that would matter to astrologers.

Scholars and students will continue in their arguments and demonstrations attempting to find support for their convictions. For the time being, sidereal astrologers will continue the use of their favorite zodiac based likewise on personal conviction.

Footnote: I did find Rumen Kolev's research in support of the Babylonian astrolabe dated to 5,500 BC interesting and convincing. http://cura.free.fr/09-10/912rumen.html
http://www.babylonianastrology.com/inde ... &Itemid=33

Therese Hamilton

[Abd-Allah Meyers]

Dear Ms Hamilton,

Thank you for your informative message.

Contemporary astrologers are still extending the already lengthy list of precession factors for fixed zodiacs by e. g. using the galactic centre and / or solar apex as points of reference.

Could you please point us to some links on the quasar reference systems currently used by astronomers and, if possible, to publications on results of research to determine fixed zodiacs using micro-zodiacs?

Study of some of the writings of Hellenistic and Mediaeval astrologers has led me to believe that significant differences of opinion, schools, etc. are not only a contemporary phenomenon. Although neither excluding the possibility of divine revelation nor minimising its importance, it seems quite unlikely to me that in times immemorial a forever valid astrological system was revealed to someone.

Dr Kolev has mentioned Rupert Gleadow's book The Origin of the Zodiac that has been back in print since November 2011:

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Zodiac-Dover-Occult/dp/0486419398/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323885123&sr=1-1

Cyril Fagan's original study on zodiacs, Zodiacs Old And New: A Probe Into Antiquity And What Was Found , rare for years, is also back in print:

http://www.amazon.com/Zodiacs-Old-New-Probe-Antiquity/dp/1258169819/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323885244&sr=1-6

The anglophonic astrological world was not alone in investigating questions of fixed and moving zodiacs. The 20th century French astrologer Jacques Dorsan's Retour au zodiaque des étoiles, 340 pages, is currently out of print but available used:

http://www.amazon.fr/Retour-zodiaque-%C3%A9toiles-Jacques-Dorsan/dp/2850761303/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323885610&sr=1-3

Jacques Dorsan was also a proponent of clockwise houses. His book on this subject, Le Véritable Sens des maisons astrologiques, 272 pages, is still in print in both the original French and in an English translation:

http://www.amazon.fr/V%C3%A9ritable-Sens-maisons-astrologiques/dp/2268009092/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323885610&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Jacques-Dorsan/e/B004EZNEW8/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

Best regards,

Abd-Allah Meyers

[Therese_Hamilton]

Abd-Allah Meyers wrote: Could you please point us to some links on the quasar reference systems currently used by astronomers and, if possible, to publications on results of research to determine fixed zodiacs using micro-zodiacs?

I don't have those references. This was a communication in an e-mail from a man in the field whom I'm no longer in contact with. Astronomy forums should be helpful in finding this information.

Study of some of the writings of Hellenistic and Medieval astrologers has led me to believe that significant differences of opinion, schools, etc. are not only a contemporary phenomenon. Although neither excluding the possibility of divine revelation nor minimizing its importance, it seems quite unlikely to me that in times immemorial a forever valid astrological system was revealed to someone.

I'm sure this is true. The world and astrology continue to evolve, and whereas a historical perspective is necessary and helpful, we have to build on that foundation. A major problem with astrologers today is that they lack the historical background for their subject. This is why Kepler College placed so much emphasis on history.

It's nice to know that Gleadow's and Cyril Fagan's books are back in print. I have Gleadow's book, but only a partial photocopy of Zodiacs. I'll order a copy from Amazon since that book is quoted so often by sidereal astrologers.

As for Mr. Dorsan....well, his work is for those proficient in French!

Therese Hamilton

[Therese_Hamilton]

"Abd-Allah Meyers wrote:

Could you please point us to some links on the quasar reference systems currently used by astronomers and, if possible, to publications on results of research to determine fixed zodiacs using micro-zodiacs?

I'm sorry, I read this too quickly and missed the part about research on micro-zodiacs. I've done a lot of that research myself. I'll look up some information on this. Some of the research involves the very close crossover of planets from the navamsa to the natal chart. One natal degree, about the difference between Krishnamurti and Fagan-Bradley ("Babylonian fixed zodiac"), is about 9 degrees in the navamsa chart.

Statistical studies can be done on certain planets in navamsa signs for various professions. There will be about a one third sign difference in the navamsa chart between the two zodiacs above. I haven't done these statistical studies because I don't believe that's the best way to research astrology. I do have a great deal of information in my files that has never been put into computer format. Maybe this will inspire me to organize my files!

Therese Hamilton