The coming of an age of Aquarius? Perhaps not!

While reading the other thread about the crop circles and the fellow who spinned them digitally to reveal geometries embedded in them, I thought to follow a link from YouTube to his website.

Lo and behold, an interesting page came up and on it text and snapshots:

In 4713 BC, December 20th, the Sun was in Aquarius.

In 2005, December 20, the Sun is in Sagitarius instead of Aquarius

The website is: Horoscope Unlocked


So I thought to check it out myself and downloaded a free demo version of SkyMap star charting software found through Google.

SkyMap 11 Demo Version

Load it up and click on the Clock icon on the left hand side of the window below the Globe icon. Set the Date to 20 Dec 4713 BC, time does not matter.

In the horizontal panel at the head of the window, first empty drop down is the Find dialogue, type: Sun and press enter.

Big yellow circle shows up in the center of the screen, sitting in the Constellation of Aqr (Aquarius). Interesting...

In the horizontal panel at the head of the window, click on the two clock icons (Set Time Increments). The icon is right of the stop watch icon and next to the Time controls. Change the increments to 100 Year then click Ok.

In the status bar of the window on the bottom right verify you can see the date: 01 Jan 4713 BC. If you click on the single arrow/triangle pointing right at the top where Time controls are, it will advance the display by 100 years.

Keep clicking and watch the Sun go from Aqr (Aquarius), through Cap (Capricorn) into Sgr (Sagittarius). We are right now about half way into Sgr (Sagittarius).

I am not sure what conclusion to draw from this. It appears to me that all the celebrations, festivities, songs, stories, fairy tales and myths of the coming New Age of the "water pitcher" could be wrong?

Dawning of the Age of Aquarius? Yeah, perhaps 6,000 years ago, and maybe again in another 18,500 years.

I do not claim to be an expert on this topic, far from it actually, but my interest was tweaked many years ago by a friend of mine who is a tarot card reader. This is the wikipedia entry for the Age of Aquarius .....

The Age of Aquarius is one of the twelve astrological ages. Each astrological age is approximately 2,150 years long, on average, but there are various methods that can make ages much longer and shorter depending upon the technique used. Unlike sun-sign astrology where the first sign is Aries, followed by Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces whereupon following Pisces the cycle returns back to Aries and through the zodiacal signs again, the astrological ages proceed in the opposite direction or order. Therefore the age before the Age of Aquarius is the Age of Pisces. Following the Age of Aquarius will be the Age of Capricorn, then the Age of Sagittarius and so on.

Hope that helps. From what I can derive it may be that you are following the sun-sign astrology method. Of course I should reiterate that I am no expert and you may wish to wait for someone more knowledgeable in this area to help you with this.

reply to post by Kryties

how would this tie in with the fact that dec 9 (my bday) is actually in the sign of Ophiuchus instead of Sagitarious? because all my life i was told i was a Sag, now i see that i am really Ophiuchus. is this because of similar reasons?

Honestly, I don't put much stock into astrology. However, with that being said,I think that whatever "age" we enter, its factor will be determined by us... There's not going to be a quick fix to the problems of humanity.

reply to post by Enigma Publius


I have absolutely no idea Like I said above I am not an expert in this, in fact I wouldn't even say I am an amateur. I probably should not have even posted the above message but I thought it may have some relevance Perhaps it is better to wait and ask someone much more knowledgeable on this topic

The astrological "ages" are determined by which zodiacal constellation the sun lies in at the Spring Equinox. Because of precession this constellation changes in an approximately 26,000 year cycle (sound familiar?). Because there are twelve zodiacal constellations, each "age" lasts about 2,200 years. Because of precession, birthdates and the sun signs related to them gradually change over time.

Enigma Publius: Ophiuchus is not a zodiacal constellation. Therefore it cannot be a sun sign.

BTW, astrology is bunk.

reply to post by Phage

Phage, thanks for clearing that up, u prolly saved me from a blunder on future threads...can u tell me more about the difference? and to the OP...don't second guess yourself...denying ignorance means no stupid questions as long as they are honest and thought out! and yes phage, i don't buy into astrology. i remember reading that the nurse who helps deliver you into this world exerts a gravitational pull on you dozens of times greater than the celestial bodies claimed to make our personality traits, is this, absurd as it sounds, true in essence?

reply to post by Enigma Publius


The twelve zodiacal constellations are: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpius, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces.

These constellations all lie along the ecliptic, the path the sun follows across the sky (actually Earth's orbit). They don't really have much significance on their own, they're just a way to divide the celestial "year" into 12 parts.

You actually could argue that Ophiuchus is part of the zodiac because it lies partly across the ecliptic but I wouldn't recommend getting into that discussion with an astrologer.

Aquarius was already expected in 1904.
Now Aquarius is reintroduced due to the end of the Maya calender, which is december 21, 2012. This date is 199 days (mirror of 911) after the Venus eclipse with the Sun. Aquarius is all astrology

Astronomy can explain it better.
www.astro.uu.nl...

reply to post by hawk123


errrr.....

199 is not the mirror of 911 The mirror of 199 is 991.

Heh friends,

you have swayed off topic ...

The discussion is not about 13 month horoscope, but which Age we are in now. The fellow I linked to claims we are not approaching Age of Aquarius but are half way into Age of Sagittarius.

I have provided a link to a star charting program SkyMap, but you can use any other (Starry Night, etc), to see where the Sun is presently (which Constellation).

If all these programs are correct then everybody is mistaken about the Age of Aquarius and we are no-where near it, actually just passed it 6,000 years ago.

Or the programs are wrong, all of them, and the New Age preachers are right.

By the way, Astrology is huge with our "Overlords" and they do nothing without consulting the stars. Most of them have personal astrologers who make specific readings and charts for events, etc.

Naturally, they ridicule in public the whole field of Astrology and media gives it a marginal interest and importance. Of course we know better, don't we?

reply to post by amigo


You are basing your claim of the current "age" on the winter solstice. Astrologers base it on the vernal equinox. If you want to be strictly technical it could be argued that we already passed the age of Aquarius and are in the age of Pisces. Astrologers can't agree on it, some say it's passed, some say it won't begin for 500 years. There is really not point in arguing about it because it is all nonsense anyway. So I won't.

There. Happy now?

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Phage]

@Phage

If you don't like the Winter Solstice, just scroll back to Spring Equinox, it is only couple of months back or forth. They do not matter on a millennium scale (the 2,000+ years per Constellation) it takes Sun to cross one.

But who's arguing, I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion with other people who might find this intriguing, that's all...

reply to post by amigo


No, but it does matter on the annual scale. You've missed the point. You're confused about the basic idea.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
The astrological "ages" are determined by which zodiacal constellation the sun lies in at the Spring Equinox. Because of precession this constellation changes in an approximately 26,000 year cycle (sound familiar?). Because there are twelve zodiacal constellations, each "age" lasts about 2,200 years. Because of precession, birthdates and the sun signs related to them gradually change over time.

Enigma Publius: Ophiuchus is not a zodiacal constellation. Therefore it cannot be a sun sign.

BTW, astrology is bunk.

I am not so sure the ages are even. I think it's 2150 years if you divide them evenly, but they are all different sizes and such, and even our months are uneven.

I really don't know which way it is, but it makes sense to me that if the constellations are actually used on where they are, then they would be uneven.

Also, I was under the impression that the equinox is based on the earths wobble, and not the position of the sun. And that the sun goes through the constellations every year and that is what your sun sign is. So the position of the sun is irrelevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that, it's just what I thought it meant. I'm no expert.

I do not think the planets and things affect us directly. But I can see how they can be used on a greater scale as a measurement of time that would always be universal on the earth.

reply to post by badmedia


It is very uneven. For one thing, the precession cycle is not exactly 26,000 years (and it actually varies). And you are right about the size of the constellations, they do not cover the same amount of space. I used approximate numbers. The unevenness is one reason there is little agreement by astrologers about the exact timing of the "ages".

The equinoxes (spring and fall) occur when the sun, due to the tilt of the Earth's axis, crosses the equator. Where the wobble (precession) comes into the picture is a little tough to explain. At each equinox, when the sun is directly over the equator, a line drawn from the equator, through the sun, will point to one of the zodiacal constellations. Now, because of the wobble, that point changes over time, in that (roughly) 26,000 year cycle.

Try doing a search for "precession of the equinoxes" you'll find a bunch of different ways of explaining what's happening. There's bound to be one better than mine.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Phage]

I put little stock in astrology, but I dont discredit it either, especially when it is in league with other theories. I am, however, beginning to wonder about the future of astrology though. The universe is expanding. Many of the stars that light the night have burned out ages ago.
As the universe expands, that is going to distort the celestial alignments that have to be accounted for so that data will probably continue to change over time. Once the light from a distant star passes us, we will not see that light anymore and that is going to eventually change the star signs.

Its a choice between science and faith. Decide what you will believe.

reply to post by Phage


So you are talking about when the band of the milky way stars line up in the spot? If so, I think I understand what you mean.

I thought it was at the center when it was between sag and scorpio?

And can you explain why Ophiuchus isn't a sun sign? I've seen stuff that showed the sun went in the bottom part of it during certain times of the wobble, but not all the time.

I'm no astronomer, so I really don't know for sure. Thanks for any info.

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Phage

 

So you are talking about when the band of the milky way stars line up in the spot? If so, I think I understand what you mean.

No. The Milky Way is not the same as the line of the zodiac. The line of the zodiac (the ecliptic) is the path the sun follows across the sky and runs east-west. The Milky Way runs north-south (roughly, it depends on your latitude). The constellations of the zodiac all lie on the ecliptic and the ecliptic crosses the Milky Way but other than that there is no connection between the zodiac and the Milky Way.

I thought it was at the center when it was between sag and scorpio?

Not sure what you mean. The center of the Milky Way galaxy is in the direction of Saggitarius

And can you explain why Ophiuchus isn't a sun sign? I've seen stuff that showed the sun went in the bottom part of it during certain times of the wobble, but not all the time.

Because astrologers say it isn't. Ophiuchus lies on the ecliptic but as far as I know it is ignored in astrology.



[edit on 6-10-2008 by Phage]

In Decemeber of any year until infinity the sun WILL rise in Sag. Its the equinox lines that reside in Pisces at the moment and run backwards.