Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Sun and Barycentre Period

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    You are acknowledging that the ratio is merely a transient coincidence. This is after years of posting in a manner which led me to infer that you really believed that there was a dynamic resonance. I think I can safely conclude that your line of thought is based primarily in mythology and has no credible basis in physics.
    I am describing empirical physical planetary patterns which have not been previously recognised. Yes I am interested in how mythology fits within these physical patterns, but that does not at all mean that my thinking is "based" in mythology.

    A dynamic resonance is often temporary, for example when Jupiter and Saturn travelled through their 1:2 resonance during the early solar system. Over the last million years, the spin wobble of the earth has had a structure whereby the zodiac ages are physically divided in twelve by the SSB wave like the face of a clock. That is an empirical statement, not mythology. While a temporary artefact on astronomical timeframes, this physical pattern encompasses the whole of homo sapien evolution, presenting a stable harmonious structure of time for our planet in its current phase, linking our planetary orbital cycle with the overall structure of the solar system. Any resonance from that harmonious relationship would be extremely weak, but could be hypothesised as structuring the complex temporal system of life on earth. A way to explore this further is to use these physical "houses of the age" as a way to develop a systematic theory of history divided into 179 year periods, grounded in the terrestrial cosmology of how our planet nests within the solar system.

    As I explain in my essay, the primary role of precession in driving natural climate change presents a further main empirical structure that gives shape and direction to this terrestrial cosmology, strongly reflected in mythological patterns. Again, that observation is based in physics, addressing mythology as something that can be explained by physics.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Thank you very much Reality Check and Hornblower. I appreciate your replies. I understand that astronomers hold a natural disdain for discussion of astrology, in view of its anti-scientific popular forms. ...
    Astrology is not astronomy or science, e.g. astrological ages. When you write "Zodiac Ages" or "Age of Pisces" you are referring to astrologic theology. Even if some physical cycles get close to what astrologers have made up, that is a merely a coincidence. An issue is that there is no agreement about these astrologic ages: "Astrologers do not agree upon exact dates for the beginning or ending of the ages, with given dates varying hundreds of years". Is it 25,860 years divided by 12 signs? Are there portents between the ages? Is it exactly 2000 years (which is what you use) which cuts their ages off from the precession of the equinoxes?

    My "The solar system has a barycentre ... " point was that what you have given is a numeric coincidence. On the one side is astronomy which gives a period X. On the other side there is the imagination of astrologers who made up a period Y. X happens to be close to Y. That is called a coincidence or an accident. That the astrologers were even more wrong because you say that the astronomical period Y changes is moot. Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune conjunction speculation is definitely moot when yiu do not give a reference to the astrologic theology that include JSN conjunctions.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Again, that observation is based in physics, addressing mythology as something that can be explained by physics.
    "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Sigmund Freud.

    And sometimes a myth is just a myth.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    I am describing empirical physical planetary patterns which have not been previously recognised. ...
    That seems unlikely, Robert Tulip. Astronomers have been studying the orbits of the planets for many centuries. They should have covered the vast majority of the possible patterns and periodicity that the planets can take.
    You cited the HORIZONS Web-Interface from which you get your 179 period for the distance of the Sun from the SSB which of course comes from "empirical physical planetary patterns". Astronomers recognize that.
    Astronomers know about planetary conjunctions so Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune conjunctions are recognized.

    The rest of the post is mostly theology of zodiac ages with some fantasy on resonances, "terrestrial cosmology", etc. and human history.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Astrology is not astronomy or science, e.g. astrological ages. When you write "Zodiac Ages" or "Age of Pisces" you are referring to astrologic theology.
    I understand your assertion here but it is incorrect. A Zodiac Age is an astronomical period, defined as the average time taken for the equinox to precess through one zodiac constellation. There is a conventional estimate of 2160 years, and a more accurate astronomical period of 2147.6 years, based on division of the 25,771 year precession period by twelve. It stands in the same way the hour and month relate to the day and year, and we donít call those periods theological.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Even if some physical cycles get close to what astrologers have made up, that is a merely a coincidence.
    I am not talking about what astrologers have made up, I am talking about the falsifiable physical periods measured by astronomy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    An issue is that there is no agreement about these astrologic ages: "Astrologers do not agree upon exact dates for the beginning or ending of the ages, with given dates varying hundreds of years". Is it 25,860 years divided by 12 signs? Are there portents between the ages? Is it exactly 2000 years (which is what you use) which cuts their ages off from the precession of the equinoxes?
    These points are discussed in my paper. I recognise this problem you describe of the inaccuracy and confusion among astrologers. Sticking strictly to astronomical data gives the age period in rounded figures as 2148 years, but many astrologers being ignorant of astronomy continue to use 2160 years.

    Regarding your question of how to define beginning and end dates, my approach is to look at the physical system. The exact nesting of the age period within the wave function of the solar system means that a simple answer to this problem of dating ages is given by dividing each Zodiac Age period into twelve shorter periods marked by successive triple conjunctions of Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. For the Age of Pisces, this harmonic pattern gives a start date of 53 AD, when the JSN conjunction occurred at the beginning of Aries, and an end date of 2201 AD, the end of the twelfth 179 year period that begins in 2022.

    Conventionally of course, this nesting within the solar system was not understood, and my claims on it are original research. The dawn of the Age has conventionally been considered in visual terms against the background stars. There really should be much less controversy on this point, as the Age of Pisces can most coherently be defined visually as beginning when the equinox crossed the orthogonal line of stars known as the first fish, which occurred in 21 AD. Astronomers could have estimated the timing of this event for centuries before it occurred, but ancient texts that may have discussed this problem, such as by Hipparchus and Babylonian astronomers, are lost. An interesting piece of possible evidence is the direct symbolic match between the Chi Rho cross and the observation of the movement of the Platonic Chi in the sky across the first fish.

    There certainly are a number of conflicting suggestions out there for the dawn of the Age of Pisces, such as when the equinox entered the modern constellation boundary, but that makes no sense given that this boundary is only a modern invention. I consider my suggestion makes sense, partly because it coheres with the Christian dating of the new age as beginning with the life of Jesus Christ, symbolized with the Chi Rho cross. It is likely that ancient writings on this topic did not survive the sieve of orthodoxy because they would have been deemed heretical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    My "The solar system has a barycentre ... " point was that what you have given is a numeric coincidence. On the one side is astronomy which gives a period X. On the other side there is the imagination of astrologers who made up a period Y. X happens to be close to Y. That is called a coincidence or an accident. That the astrologers were even more wrong because you say that the astronomical period Y changes is moot. Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune conjunction speculation is definitely moot when yiu do not give a reference to the astrologic theology that include JSN conjunctions.
    I am entirely ignoring any astrological imagination by simply defining the Zodiac Age as one twelfth of the precession period. Changes of the astronomical periods for precession and the wave function of the solar system are not relevant on human time scales, where they have been stable.

    There is no astrologic theology that includes JSN conjunctions. I am introducing this as a new astronomical topic to illustrate how the clock pattern of division of time into twelve periods operates at the Zodiac Age scale, with the triple conjunctions occurring in turn at each hour of the clock. This is a descriptive model.

    While I am interested in cultural interpretation, such matters are largely outside the parameters of interest at CosmoQuest, except in cases like the above discussion of dating the Age of Pisces where the cultural symbolism supports the astronomical claim.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    I understand your assertion here but it is incorrect. A Zodiac Age is an astronomical period,...
    No citation to astronomy literature suggests that you are wrong, Robert Tulip. Searching for 'Zodiac Age astronomy' gives the usual astrological theology. Things get worse with 'Zodiac Age astronomy 2160 2147.6' (Final Fantasy game and then your PDF). Ditto for 'the average time taken for the equinox to precess through one zodiac constellation astronomy' - same astrology theology. It could be hidden away on later pages of the search. I hope that you can cite and quote the definition from astronomy textbook(s).

    Astronomers obviously know about precession of the equinoxes. No evidence yet of astronomers splitting its period of 25,772 years up by up by zodiac constellations. To astronomers, the physical zodiac constellations are convenient names for parts of the sky. If astronomers did split up the period into passages through zodiac constellations, they would use the physical constellations and have varying passages (Virgo takes up 5 times as much ecliptic longitude as Scorpius). An average passage thru the physical zodiac constellations would be fairly useless. I suspect that an astronomer, some time, somewhere for some purpose has done that but is it textbook astronomy?

    It is astrologers who ignore the physical zodiac constellations and use zodiac signs with equal sizes and thus divide by 12 to get equal Zodiac Ages. But not all of them: An issue is that there is no agreement about these astrologic ages says that this is an ongoing theological debate. Selecting one of these (splitting into 12 equal "ages" matching the signs and ignoring the physical constellations) is agreeing with astrological theology unless you show that it is used in astronomy.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2020-Feb-27 at 08:22 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,003
    Some general remarks: The observed rate of change of the equinox point's sidereal ecliptic longitude is an observed astronomical fact. Likewise with the average interval between JSN triple conjunctions. The traditional constellations are inventions coming from cultural motives which are not necessarily purely astronomical in nature, in today's sense of the word astronomical. Likewise with the various choices of definitions of astrological signs and ages.

    The number 2160, the traditional number of years in a Great Month, is a nice round number that is a multiple of both 12 and 60, so I can imagine why some astrologers still use it. My educated guess is that it was well within the uncertainty in our knowledge of the precession rate when the phenomenon of precession came into vogue in astrological lines of thought. The mean interval between JSN triple conjunctions was unknowable before 1846, when Neptune was discovered.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That seems unlikely, Robert Tulip. Astronomers have been studying the orbits of the planets for many centuries. They should have covered the vast majority of the possible patterns and periodicity that the planets can take.
    Yes, astronomers should have found this pattern, but they have not. In this case, describing how the earth fits against the overall wave function of the solar system, I have not found any research except for the paper from 1965 by Jose, and the discussion of the 179 year wave function by Carl Smith. My paper seeks to build on Jose’s work, by showing the relation between the barycenter wave function and the planets in more scientific detail, and showing its fit with the earth wobble.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You cited the HORIZONS Web-Interface from which you get your 179 period for the distance of the Sun from the SSB which of course comes from "empirical physical planetary patterns". Astronomers recognize that.
    Astronomers know about planetary conjunctions so Jupiter-Saturn-Neptune conjunctions are recognized.
    A point that is not generally recognized is that this triple conjunction cycle drives the primary wave function of the sun against the barycenter, as I explain. If you believe my work has been done before by others please let me know of any relevant papers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The rest of the post is mostly theology of zodiac ages with some fantasy on resonances, "terrestrial cosmology", etc. and human history.
    I introduce the concept of terrestrial cosmology as a way to discuss how our planet connects to the cosmos. While some may reject that paradigm on emotional grounds, it is readily provable that the nesting of the spin wobble within the barycenter wave function presents a cosmology at terrestrial scale that generates a readily demonstrable astronomical definition of the zodiac age.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Yes, astronomers should have found this pattern, but they have not. ..
    Astronomers have noticed the 179 year period and you have cited astronomers noting the 179 period before and now! They may have not seen the connection to astrology because they are not astrologers.
    Astronomers know about textbook astronomy. They know that the solar barycenter is "driven" by the positions of the major planets which are Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune (though the last might be neglected due to distance). Anyone who even knows what a barycenter expects a maximum movement from the average position when the mass of the planets is unbalanced, e.g. in a JSN conjunction.

    You are using an incoherent tem of "terrestrial cosmology " and invalid physics. The definition of cosmology is the study of the entire universe. Earth is not the entire universe or even a significant part! We know the physics of how the Earth connects to the cosmos - basically none. Earth contributes a infinitesimal amount of gravitation and light to the cosmos that is massively less than the Sun's contribution. This is nothing to do with the solar barycenter, etc. It is more like an inverse astrology (star influence use inverted to we influence stars). Most people will reject your paradigm on physical grounds.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,003
    Robert, to put it figuratively, I think you are flogging a dead horse. I don't think anyone here is denying the astronomical fact that the Great Year is approximately 144 times the average interval between these JSN alignments. If not much is being written about it, my hunch is that it is because astronomers see it as merely a coincidental numerical curiosity. As for a possible use of one of these alignments as a marker for the beginning of a new zodiacal age, perhaps you should ask some astrologers what they think about it. If you ask ten astrologers you might get 12 answers. I don't think you will find them in this forum.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •