Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 49 of 49

Thread: Actual degree measurements of Zodiac Belt (using Sun as reference)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    MadamStar,

    I haven't seen anyone in this thread respond with a condescending tone. But, if you have a problem with someone's post, you should not respond in thread, but you should Report the post, using the black triangle with the ! in the bottom left of the particular post, and explain your concern, and then let the moderation team deal with it.

    As far as your comment about the stars have an effect on life - that sounds very much like you are advocating astrology, and astrology is a non-mainstream idea. If you wish to advocate such a thing, you may only do so in the ATM (Against The Mainstream) part of CQ. If you do so outside of there, such as in Q&A, you will be violating our rules.
    No, the point of this thread was not to prove astrology. So, it does not belong anywhere else. I have no use for the forum anymore, and all its egoism. Obviously you have all considered the 'larger picture' and understand everything there is to know about life on Earth and astronomy. Neap tides and spring tides are caused by the conjunction or opposition of the Sun and the Moon. This is common knowledge. Yet, astrology must be some 'crazy' idea that doesn't make sense scientifically. Sure. I will leave your lame forum.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    Well the milkyway itself has changed its position in relation to the constellations... And the shapes of the constellations have changed due to our own location/perspective around the Galactic Center. But sure, nothing has changed.
    It takes the sun more than 200 million years to travel around the galaxy. Proper motion of the stars since humans evolved has been small in terms of their apparent relative position in the sky. So given that constellations are human artifacts, your statement that the Milky Way has changed its position in relation to them is not really true. The galaxy appears to move one degree of arc per human life time in relation to the tropical astrological signs marked by the solstice and equinox positions, but the constellations appear to move with the galaxy.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    38
    More like 230 million years, and this motion is not linear so it would oscillate in a shorter time span. And, yes the star locations change, greatly. Not all the objects in the night sky are part of the Milkyway Galaxy. Some are distant galaxies that would not move relative to the motion of our own. Things are quite dynamic in space. Just as you would notice if you sped up the growth of a plant, you would see that the stars are not a static objects in spacetime.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    in astrology, the year started with Aries 0 degrees. This was the ancient location of the spring equinox. During the Council of Nicaea it was marked and changed to a date in March which at the time, displayed the Sun in Pisces (not Aries). Right now it is on the edge of the boundary of Pisces close to Aquarius. Thus, if we are to calculate astrology in the same way as the ancients, we would have to start at this exact location in Pisces where the spring equinox is found then count the 30 degree slots (traditional constellations) from that point. That was the point of using 0 degrees Aries as the year starter, because that was the location of the equinox. But, since you probably know nothing about astrology, I guess it wouldn't make sense to you.
    Thank you. I do actually know something about astrology, and have previously discussed its relation to science here on CQ. The thirty degree slots of astrological signs are not equal to traditional constellations, as the discussion in this thread of the unequal length of the constellations explains. So I am still not clear how getting the ecliptic arc length of the constellations in the IAU map helps you. And the shift with the Council of Nicaea was a natural result of precession, not a change of the date of the equinox.

    It remains the case in astronomy as well as astrology that the "first point of Aries" marked by where the ecliptic crosses the equator is the basis of the degree system of right ascension.

    Distant stars do not have a significant effect on anything on the earth. That is a magical primitive theory with no plausible mechanism. Tropical astrology suggests that the division of the year into twelve signs marked by the equinoxes and solstices reflects an actual rhythm of the earth, but again, science has found no statistical corroboration of any claimed astrological sign theory.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    38
    Dude you are just repeating things back to me that I already know. Yes the IAU boundaries are not the same as the 30 degree Tropical Zodiac. Great Job! And I just said that the Sun was in Pisces not Aries during the spring equinox during the time of the Council of Nicaea. Do you even know what the spring equinox is? It is the date when the sun is passing over the equator. So, the equinox marks the point when the ecliptic is aligned with the equator. It has obviously changed over thousands of years. It is no longer at 0 degrees Aries.

    Yes distant stars don't have a direct effect on Earth. But consider how the climate of Earth has the ability to effect one human being. This can also be applied on a larger scale to the Earth within the solar system and the galaxy itself. Do you think that scientists have actually figured out how everything works? Do they have all the answers? No. They actually fail to notice that empirical evidence does not satisfy human thought. Consciousness itself. Where is the cause and effect in a thought? You cannot find it, because it does not exist. Therefore, a thought has the power to create everything that has ever been invented by humans on this planet, yet science has no way of adding thought into the mix that 'supposedly' explains everything that exists and the reason for its existence.

    Astrology is not about a bunch of horoscopes and lame personality traits. It has to do with the motion of all planets and objects in the solar system and how these aspects or interactions induce a very real effect on life here on Earth. In weather, in the tides, in animal behavior. It does not have as much to do with the seasons as it does the interaction between planets and the 'gravity' like effect it causes. What is gravity though? The inverse of another universal constant. The opposite of expansion! If the movement of planets has an effect on the Sun, you can bet that it will effect Earth including all things that exist here. Because without the Sun, there would be no life. But keep kidding yourself into thinking you have all the answers.
    Last edited by MadamStar; 2013-Sep-12 at 05:12 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    the equinox is no longer at 0 degrees Aries.
    Yes it is - by definition. Wiki Right Ascension states "Right ascension is measured from the vernal equinox or the first point of Aries." A purely sidereal definition of 0 degrees Aries is not used.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    a thought has the power to create everything that has ever been invented by humans on this planet
    Hyperbolically speaking ...
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    Astrology is not about a bunch of horoscopes and lame personality traits. It has to do with the motion of all planets and objects in the solar system and how these aspects or interactions induce a very real effect on life here on Earth.
    Unfortunately, extensive effort to measure this claimed "very real effect" have found nothing that meets credible scientific standards of evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    In weather, in the tides, in animal behavior.
    No astrological claims in these areas provide any measurable data of statistical significance. Did you notice the advice above about the Against The Mainstream Forum?
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    It does not have as much to do with the seasons as it does the interaction between planets and the 'gravity' like effect it causes.
    Tropical astrology is based on the seasons, because the sidereal positions of the signs shift together with the equinoxes.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    What is gravity though? The inverse of another universal constant. The opposite of expansion!
    No comment.
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    If the movement of planets has an effect on the Sun, you can bet that it will effect Earth including all things that exist here. Because without the Sun, there would be no life. But keep kidding yourself into thinking you have all the answers.
    I don't imagine I have all the answers. I am here to learn. Yes there is a small effect of planets on the position of the sun vis a vis the solar system centre of mass, but you cannot extrapolate from that to any measurable effect on the Earth in the terms that you describe such as weather and behaviour.
    Last edited by Robert Tulip; 2013-Sep-12 at 07:02 AM. Reason: typos

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,142
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    But, the point of having the fixed star boundaries and locations is to show how the constellations themselves have been warped with time due to the location of the sun around the Galactic Center (the same thing that causes precession according to Newton).
    Position around the galactic centre has nothing to do with the 26 Ky axial precession of the Earth, if that is the precession you mean. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession#Astronomy

    It is due to the Sun, Moon, Jupiter - all local effects. There may be a very, very slow effect due to galactic effects but we would see that in the Sun precesing. Very very slowly. It might be easier if you specified what precession you meant!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    MadamStar,

    You are underestimating Robert Tulip's understanding of what
    is needed to answer the question you asked, underestimating
    the capabilities of science in general, and at the same time
    greatly overestimating the claims made by science. In general,
    science has an extremely good ability to distinguish between
    what it does understand and what it does not understand.

    There is a vast range of knowledge that science does not have.
    Science does not say anything about things for which it does
    not have supporting evidence. When it does have knowledge,
    that knowledge is supported by evidence. All science can say
    about astrology right now is that no form of astrology yet put
    forward has been supported by evidence. It consists entirely
    of unsupported assertions. If and when evidence supporting
    any form of astrology is ever provided, science will consider
    it seriously.

    An enormous quantity of data is available for analysis, and a
    great deal of analysis has been done, but so far no evidence
    which supports the many and varied claims of astrologers has
    been found. The evidence instead tends to show a lack of
    support for the claims.

    Answers to your question are easily within reach, but they
    are complicated by several factors, most of which have been
    raised in this thread. One broad category of complicating
    factors is the use of constellation boundaries. The ancients
    did not put boundaries on their constellations. So it may not
    be useful to measure changes in the positions of constellations
    over time by referencing modern constellation boundaries.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    38
    There is a non-torque precession outlined by Newton. That was not the point of the thread, so why would I specify? Also its funny that you just proved that the Sun, Moon and Jupiter do indeed have an effect on Earth. Next time, maybe you should not do the opposite thing that you were hoping to do.
    Last edited by MadamStar; 2013-Sep-12 at 12:10 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    MadamStar,

    You are underestimating Robert Tulip's understanding of what
    is needed to answer the question you asked, underestimating
    the capabilities of science in general, and at the same time
    greatly overestimating the claims made by science. In general,
    science has an extremely good ability to distinguish between
    what it does understand and what it does not understand.

    There is a vast range of knowledge that science does not have.
    Science does not say anything about things for which it does
    not have supporting evidence. When it does have knowledge,
    that knowledge is supported by evidence. All science can say
    about astrology right now is that no form of astrology yet put
    forward has been supported by evidence. It consists entirely
    of unsupported assertions. If and when evidence supporting
    any form of astrology is ever provided, science will consider
    it seriously.

    An enormous quantity of data is available for analysis, and a
    great deal of analysis has been done, but so far no evidence
    which supports the many and varied claims of astrologers has
    been found. The evidence instead tends to show a lack of
    support for the claims.

    Answers to your question are easily within reach, but they
    are complicated by several factors, most of which have been
    raised in this thread. One broad category of complicating
    factors is the use of constellation boundaries. The ancients
    did not put boundaries on their constellations. So it may not
    be useful to measure changes in the positions of constellations
    over time by referencing modern constellation boundaries.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Actually they did.. they were 30 degrees with 10 degree decanates in ancient Babylon and Egypt.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    38
    Science is becoming the next religion faster than the speed of light.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    38
    Yes Robert, because the sun has no effect on the release of melatonin in the body, the moon has no effect on the feminine cycle, Neap tides and Spring Tides are not caused by the location of the Sun and the Moon, sunspots are not caused by the position of the the outer planets, storms are not more common when the ecliptic is passing over a certain latitude and whatever else you want to delude yourself into thinking. Worms actually are more active during the full moon, and there is scientific evidence to back up this claim. Maybe you should start asking yourself, why would someone not want me to know this? Why would anyone ever want to deceive? Because all people out there speak the truth right? And science is so narrowed and contained for good reason. Yes, that's it. I have no more to say. Goodbye peeps. Hope you have fun with dearest science, the newest religion, a construct of tradition and ritual, a product of the egoistic mind.
    Last edited by MadamStar; 2013-Sep-12 at 12:11 PM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    Yet, astrology must be some 'crazy' idea that doesn't make sense scientifically. Sure. I will leave your lame forum.
    I've never seen astrology as a crazy idea, but I've never seen astrology treated in a scientific manner (making rigorous and constistant predictions).
    I view astrology in a way similar to religion. It's more of a belief system and if it gives you solace, then so be it.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    ... sun has no effect on the release of melatonin.... moon has no effect on the feminine cycle... Neap tides and Spring Tides ..., sunspots are not caused by the position of the the outer planets... storms are not more common when the ecliptic is passing over a certain latitude...Worms actually are more active during the full moon.
    All examples of items that we can consistently measure and consistently predict that has no anomolous data. (although, one or two items on that list I'm not sure have not been shown to be true).

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,142
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    There is a non-torque precession outlined by Newton. That was not the point of the thread, so why would I specify? Also its funny that you just proved that the Sun, Moon and Jupiter do indeed have an effect on Earth. Next time, maybe you should not do the opposite thing that you were hoping to do.
    Given that that was my first post to this thread just perhaps you should think before you reply. Where in any of the non-existent posts did I make any claims at all about the effects of the Sun, Moon and Jupiter on the Earth beyond saying that they were responsible for the measured axial precession of the Earth?

    This reflexive aggression is not a good or helpful way to have a discussion. And pretending all your enemies are of one monolithic mindset and attacking you is dishonest and intellectually lazy. I suggest you dial back a bit, read what people are actually posting. Then maybe there can be a grown up discussion.

    What I was hoping to do was clarify your points so that we could agree on the concepts under discussion. Just usng the word precession like this, after people have clearly been talking about axial precession before, is not clear. so can you provide a link or reference for what you mean by non-torque precession that is due to the Sun's position in the galactic plane? Googling that reveals nothing very scientific. Where does it come from?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,689
    It is hard to tell what MadamStar meant by appearance changes being explained by precession. The general appearance does not change enough in a human lifetime or even several centuries to be noticed by a casual observer. A few stars with large proper motions have moved a visible amount from their positions on Ptolemy's charts, but not by enough to change the constellation patterns beyond recognition. Precession changes the dates at which the constellations make their first appearances at nightfall by a month every 2200 years, and in addition changes their declinations over a range of 47 degrees over the 26,000 year cycle. Like proper motion, this motion is too slow to be seen by a casual observer in a lifetime. Given enough tens of thousands of years the constellations will change beyond easy recognition, but we have no reliable ancient records going back more than a small fraction of that much time.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,689
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    Yes Robert, because the sun has no effect on the release of melatonin in the body, the moon has no effect on the feminine cycle, Neap tides and Spring Tides are not caused by the location of the Sun and the Moon, sunspots are not caused by the position of the the outer planets, storms are not more common when the ecliptic is passing over a certain latitude and whatever else you want to delude yourself into thinking. Worms actually are more active during the full moon, and there is scientific evidence to back up this claim. Maybe you should start asking yourself, why would someone not want me to know this? Why would anyone ever want to deceive? Because all people out there speak the truth right? And science is so narrowed and contained for good reason. Yes, that's it. I have no more to say. Goodbye peeps. Hope you have fun with dearest science, the newest religion, a construct of tradition and ritual, a product of the egoistic mind.
    My bold. My educated guess is that wild creatures can see the Moon and/or detect the occurrence of spring and neap tides in coastal waters. I would want to see what they do in a laboratory without those natural sources of information.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,060
    Quote Originally Posted by MadamStar View Post
    Yes Robert, because the sun has no effect on the release of melatonin in the body, the moon has no effect on the feminine cycle, Neap tides and Spring Tides are not caused by the location of the Sun and the Moon, sunspots are not caused by the position of the the outer planets, storms are not more common when the ecliptic is passing over a certain latitude and whatever else you want to delude yourself into thinking. Worms actually are more active during the full moon, and there is scientific evidence to back up this claim. Maybe you should start asking yourself, why would someone not want me to know this? Why would anyone ever want to deceive? Because all people out there speak the truth right? And science is so narrowed and contained for good reason. Yes, that's it. I have no more to say. Goodbye peeps. Hope you have fun with dearest science, the newest religion, a construct of tradition and ritual, a product of the egoistic mind.
    MadamStar,

    I've already explained that this thread is not the place to argue in favor of astrology, yet you ignore my instructions. You also are consistently rude in response to people politely answering your questions. This combination will earn you an infraction.

    I would be happy to hear your evidence supporting astrology, but you will do so by our rule and in the ATM forum. I will leave this thread open for now, but that may chance.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    My educated guess is that wild creatures can see the Moon and/or detect the occurrence of spring and neap tides in coastal waters. I would want to see what they do in a laboratory without those natural sources of information.
    A very good book on this topic is The Cosmic Clocks by Michel Gauquelin. Although Gauquelin failed to prove his claimed planetary astrological effects to the satisfaction of critical scientific peer review, and killed himself and burnt all his papers as a result, he nonetheless did some superb research.

    The Cosmic Clocks documents the work of Biology Professor Frank Brown in Illinois, who apparently proved in rigorous laboratory tests that animals have a gravitational sense, with oysters able to "know" when the moon was overhead even after being moved from the Atlantic to Chicago with no sensory stimulus, rats seemingly able to tell when the moon was above the horizon after long periods removed from natural light, and hamsters oscillating between the 24 hour solar day and the 25 hour lunar day in a similar artificial constant light. I am not sure if Brown's experiments have been replicated, but they present one interesting scientific avenue for testing planetary effects. Gauquelin notes that Brown's work was not well received, so it seems there is limited opportunity to pursue such study topics.

    The research of Gauquelin and Brown goes nowhere near validating the folk beliefs of horoscope traditions. In fact, Gauquelin did extensive statistical analysis and found no consistent patterns matching sun sign birth dates. It is quite wrong, as MadamStar does in this thread, to claim that observation of real effects such as tides and seasons validates claims of other effects for which there is no statistical support.
    Last edited by Robert Tulip; 2013-Sep-13 at 09:50 PM.

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
  •