Astronomers? Question on Sun entering Orion..., page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 10:02 PM by LeoVirgo
Originally posted by Phage
As I'm sure you are aware, the "wobble" of the Earth's axis causes what is known as the precession of the equinoxes. The change in the length of the day is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis, at the equinox the day and night are of the same length. But because the axis "wobbles" in a circular path the Earth's position in its orbit when the equinox occurs changes over time, so the Sun appears in a slightly different location at each equinox. As time goes by the Sun "moves" into a different zodiacal constellation at the time of the equinoxes (precession).

The path of the ecliptic is determined by the orbital plane of the Earth around the Sun. That doesn't change (well, not much and not in the period of a measly 26,000 years anyway). So, no, the Sun will not appear in Orion or anywhere else but one of the zodiacal constellations. Not unless something very bad happens but then we would have a lot more to worry about than fixing our charts.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by Phage]


Thanks for your time Phage...

So as I try to understand and picture the earth going through a 'great year' to me it seems that Ophiuchus has just recently (a couple thousand years) dipped into the zodiacal path of the Sun (mabey though it has always dipped into the path of the Sun but was just ignored all of this time)??

So my thinking falls on this idea...that with our wobble, the earth tilts to a position that from our perspective the Sun rises in Ophiuchus during the first half of December. My idea of thinking then says 'what is opposite of Ophiuchus' which is Orion...and then wonders if in another 12,000 years or so we will see our tilt make this same 'wonder' of a sign seeming to enter the zodiacal path.

If the Sun has always rose in Ophiuchus...then my idea would not be suffice. But if Ophiuchus has only recently entered the path of the Sun and Earths tilt and wobble is the cause of this...then could the same thing not happen in another 12,000 years? But instead of the 'sign' seeming to dip down...a sign would seemingly 'rise up'.

Im trying to accept your answer...can you offer me a bit more thoughts on this...do you see where Im coming from with this idea at all?

The Sun borders the cusp of Orion...it would not take much tilt at all for it to actually spend a few days there at some point if we had the right tilt.

I appreciate your time and I hope this doesnt sound like I just pulled it out of a hat. It seems like I can picture this in my mind happening (but as I said, my picture is based on certain assumptions).





[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeoVirgo]


reply posted on 31-7-2010 @ 11:10 PM by Phage
reply to post by LeoVirgo

I think I do understand what you are asking. I think your confusion lies in understanding the different effects of the Earth's tilt and its orbit on what we see in the sky.

The ecliptic is really nothing less than the path the Earth follows around the Sun. It is the inclination of the Earth's orbit which determines which constellations the Sun passes through. That inclination is very stable. The Sun will continue to move through the constellations of the zodiac as we know it today for a very, very long time.

The tilt of the Earth's rotational axis determines where the whole sky is seen. Even a great change in that would not change the path of the ecliptic. The Sun would still follow the same path through the stars each year. What would change would be where the Sun and stars rise and set on the horizon but they would all be displaced by the same amount. The ecliptic would move north or south, but so would the Sun. And this is exactly what occurs due to precession, the zodiac and the Sun move a bit each year. But so does Orion, so the the Sun will never reach it. Not in 12 thousand, not in 12 million years. Unless something very bad happens.

Since Ophiuchus does overlie the ecliptic that is why the Sun can appear in it. I guess it was sort of a toss up to choose Scorpio or Opi since both just barely cross the line (I think Scorpio is prettier. I like what the Hawaiians called it, Maui's Fishook). But the closest stars of Orion to the ecliptic are still about 3º away from the ecliptic.


reply posted on 1-8-2010 @ 12:17 AM by LeoVirgo
reply to post by Phage


I thought that Ptolemy was the first to give recognition to the fact the Ophiuchus was in the path of the Sun. So is it a possibility that the reason others did not acknowledge it is because a) it wasnt always in the path of the Sun or b) the fixed zodiac of signs and seasons was more convenient with 12 equal sings(it is such a HUGE constellation, and Serpens within it cant be missed).

Can we prove that Ophiuchus has always dips down into the other 12 signs?

Do you trust that Stellarium has accurate data when going back 10,000 years or so....or 10,000 years ahead? Can we be sure of our wobble the last 12,000 years and our tilt? Could the tilt vary back and forth over time...even just a couple degrees here and there...would we be able to know this if it did in the past?

Im not trying to debate or whatever..Im trying to learn and appreciate the help in anyway.

I thought I once heard there was evidence that our earth may of had a tilt of 24-25degrees...and if we use the astronomical borders the sun already rides just a few degrees from Orion.

On your Scorpio note...it has also been thought of as a bird, sometimes a phoenix.

If we use the astronomical unions borders of the signs then the Sun is in Ophiuchus double the time its in Scorpio.

My best
LV


reply posted on 1-8-2010 @ 01:13 AM by Phage
reply to post by LeoVirgo

It's "acknowledged" that Ophiuchus lies on the ecliptic and it always has. I don't know if anyone has ever denied it. None of the constellations change their relationship to the ecliptic.

Calling Ophiuchus part of the zodiac is another thing altogether. That is not a matter of astronomy. It is a matter of astrology and I have no doubt that you have greater knowledge of that than I. But I do know that in order to make the zodiac fit the year, only 12 constellations can be included (12 months). Apparently Ophiuchus lost the coin toss. I don't know why.

You can trust Stellarium to model precession as accurately as the current formulas allow and they are good for at least 10,000 years or so (you can see that in the future Polaris will no longer be the north star, but the ecliptic still passes through the same constellations).

Precession does not change the tilt (obliquity) of Earth's axis, it changes the direction of the tilt. Obliquity does change a bit as well (between 22.1º and 24.5º), over a period of 41,000 years. But, once again, the tilt of the Earth's axis has nothing to do with which constellations the Sun passes through.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by Phage]


reply posted on 1-8-2010 @ 01:31 AM by LeoVirgo
reply to post by Phage


Thanks for all of your explanations...appreciate it all.

Ya know, on a lunar calendar the 13 signs would fit.

I think the choosing of the 12 signs was for simplicity really. Plus astrology does not acknowledge that the signs have different amounts of space. I think at one time astrology followed the true positions and not a fixed wheel that did not follow the changes over time. There are arguments for example when the age of Pisces will start...the 'fixed' time for a 'age' has been fulfilled for Pisces...but astronomically, one can see clearly that the Sun still is in Pisces at Spring equinox. So the more I do learn of astrology, the more bunk I think it is for not following the changes (if your going to put any weight or validity to it that is, in my opinion, of the cosmos influencing people). Why say the Sun is in such and such sign to people....when its clearly not there? That is my question, to astrologist.

I think astrology should use true observations of the cosmos.

But anywho....you answered many of my wonders, so thanks again!



reply posted on 1-8-2010 @ 01:56 AM by Phage
reply to post by LeoVirgo

You're right, though the current sun sign is Leo, the Sun is right in the middle of the constellation Cancer. The sun signs aren't based on the constellations which bear their names, they are based on the equinoxes. It doesn't make much sense if you try to apply any causation to any of it.

You mentioned using a lunar year to allow 13 signs. If you think the current state of astrology is bad, that would be a nightmare.


reply posted on 1-8-2010 @ 09:33 AM by LeoVirgo
reply to post by Phage


About the 13 number....didnt the Mayans, although Im not aware of them using 'constellations' but didnt they use a 13 month calendar or a divided circle of time that was broke down into 13 parts? It seems I read that...`

If a great year is 26,000 years, well 13 fits nicely into that for 'ages'.


reply posted on 24-9-2010 @ 10:52 AM by Julie Washington
Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by Phage


About the 13 number....didnt the Mayans, although Im not aware of them using 'constellations' but didnt they use a 13 month calendar or a divided circle of time that was broke down into 13 parts? It seems I read that...`

If a great year is 26,000 years, well 13 fits nicely into that for 'ages'.



Great thread. In my opinion:

1. Yes, 13 plays a very important role in Maya
2. Ophiuchus plays an important role and this knowledge has been lost
3 It's all tied together,the constellations, the precession, the pyramids, the stars, as above so below...

WHAT ARE THE ANSWERS!!!??

I also believe that there were 13 constellations and for modern astrology 13 just didn't fit so they dropped Ophiuchus because it was in the sign the smallest amount of time?

Isn't it in the sun in December 2012? I'll have to go back and check Solarium.

Is there a good website to go to to put in dates and have it display where the sun is in the constellations from a distance? I use Solarium as well, but it would be nice to see the Earth from afar with the band of constellations around it, is there such a website?

I think your line of thought and questions on this subject are spot on.

I think Manly P. Hall has some talks on this... hmm.. I'll have to check those out again.

Would love more discussion on this topic. Perhaps a new thread on Ophiuchus is in order?


reply posted on 24-9-2010 @ 11:06 AM by LeoVirgo
reply to post by Julie Washington



I thought these curiosities of mine would die in this thread....thank you for looking it up.

As much as I trust and love Phage's thoughts ( really I do)....I think its impossible to know for SURE that the sun, in its opposite position to Ophiuchus...that Orion would not be tipped into the path of the Sun fora short time.

Im really not sure that any program or software could truly depict the Earths tilt and position to the stars 12,000-13,000 years from now. We can come pretty close, but there are assumptions that the speed of Earth and the tilt change somewhat over time, they are pretty consistent, but not absolutely consistent. We do know this, we know that the tilt has been 1 degree aside from the 23.5 degree tilt at times, being 22.5-24.5 degrees in our tilt. Its small things like this that could make the difference, being that the Sun ALREADY rides the cusp of Orion 3 days out of every year. All it would need is just another degree. Some have said that throughout our great year that the spin of Earth may slow a bit here and there...this also I think would cause some changes to our perspective from Earth.

Im so glad this sparked you, for its really not a thought that I can just disregard.

The implications of such could even play a part in our ancient beliefs and observations that were important to our ancestors, like the watching of Sirius and calendars revolving around its path of rising and descending (a 13,000 years rising, 13,000 years descending+the 26,000 years of a great year, a full circle).

My Stellarium does not show (when you go back in time or forward) that the Sun enters Orion...but like I said, it could be that without calculating a change in tilt and spin, we cant truly calculate it. But I can show you, that the opposite of Ophiuchus on a Astronomical clock on the sky, is Orion. Some say Scorpio and Orion are absolute opposites, they really are not. Astrology leads the belief that Scorpio and Orion are absolute opposites and this is a deception in the mind view astronomically (true observation).

I have some things to add for you, Ill be back soon to do that...

My best, and thanks for the interests and reviving

LV
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



WWIII - USS Enterprise, a dying Legend to be the FALSE FLAG !! ??
  Posted 15 days ago with 64 member flags
A Gigantic Pyramid on Ocean Sea Floor in Bermuda Triangle?
  Posted 9 days ago with 45 member flags
"The Internal Working Components of One type of UFO".
  Posted 13 days ago with 37 member flags
A new find, is hollow Earth real?
  Posted 17 days ago with 34 member flags
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)
  Posted 19 days ago with 19 member flags