Astrological Time/Date
-
Does anyone have any information, book or other references for learning to determine the astrological time and date? (ie. Sun in Scorpio.)
I wish to completely understand this so I can utilize it for Magickal ritual.
I've the days and hours in the Appendix of Liber 777 as to planets of days like Wednesday is Mercury listed above the Angels of the Hours; I also know the current sign we are in, and the wheel of the ruling planets of zodiac signs.
I do not however have any material, (I think), on determining current astrological time and date. Is this something I can start with current information on from a trusted source, (Like if I tell you today is Thursday and it actually is,) and continue myself, (like knowing the next day is Friday?)
Or is this information one gets from a professional who looks at the stars and planets and has all their current and future locations mapped out?I do thank you for your time, and for reading this. Any help is greatly appreciated.
93
93/93
Frank -
I'm confused. Do you mean you want to know that today is April 5th with the Sun in Pisces and the Moon in Virgo? Or are you meaning something else. By the way, I'm using Sidereal astrology for my planetary placements, you could use the Tropical I guess if you prefer.
The method I use is software. I have Solar Fire Astrology Software. Or you could get an Ephemeris, which is a book that lists all the planetary locations on any given date.
-
YES, Takamba, that is exactly what I was looking for.
As to your comments on Signs, Takamba, I think that there is a point where time resets itself, and is connected to Egypt and the time of the old Kingdom, where the Sun signs are originally from, and is supposedly "incorrect" now due to different positions of stars and the sun and everything that has moved up there.
There is a direct connection to this energy if you tap into it, and I find it VERY hard to believe that the source of Life that left us here let us go on believing fake sun signs for 7000 years. "Divine Rhyming is Everywhere", paraphrasing something intelligent I read somewhere.
It's almost as if some power has been extending the original, humanly-sane, old ways, powers, and signs across time almost as if to protect us from the truth that lay beyond our sky. I mean, most stars that we see are already burned out when we get to look at them anyways, keep that in mind when reading this.
So now, and JUST now, like only a few years ago, Astrologists and Astronomers put forth the notion that stars are not where they used to be, so the first recognition and attempt is made to further explain exactly where we are. I think it is all very interesting.
93
93/93
Frank -
@ThelemicMage said
"YES, Takamba, that is exactly what I was looking for.
As to your comments on Signs, Takamba, I think that there is a point where time resets itself, and is connected to Egypt and the time of the old Kingdom, where the Sun signs are originally from, and is supposedly "incorrect" now due to different positions of stars and the sun and everything that has moved up there.
There is a direct connection to this energy if you tap into it, and I find it VERY hard to believe that the source of Life that left us here let us go on believing fake sun signs for 7000 years. "Divine Rhyming is Everywhere", paraphrasing something intelligent I read somewhere.
It's almost as if some power has been extending the original, humanly-sane, old ways, powers, and signs across time almost as if to protect us from the truth that lay beyond our sky. I mean, most stars that we see are already burned out when we get to look at them anyways, keep that in mind when reading this.
So now, and JUST now, like only a few years ago, Astrologists and Astronomers put forth the notion that stars are not where they used to be, so the first recognition and attempt is made to further explain exactly where we are. I think it is all very interesting.
93
93/93
Frank"You're stating the argument (weakly, uninformed) between Sidereal vs Tropical. Of course I agree with you, the Tropical (mathematically convoluted method of discerning the locations of stars and planets) is a lie. Sidereal, in my simplistic explanation, is where the planets and Zodiac are if you use your eyes.
-
The confusion about the stars is 2,000 years old, not 7,000 years old. It's not about the stars moving, it's about the earth wobbling. The error was the mistake of fixing the 0 degrees Aries to the spring equinox, when they only happened to align perfectly for a brief period every 26,000 years.
Astronomers knew where the stars were, it's just that western astronomers didn't begin to fix their error until this century.
Also, the vast majority of the stars we see with our naked eyes are probably still alive. The ones that we see through deep space telescopes are much farther away, and therefore much older and more likely to be dead.
But that has no effect on astrology. It's not about the stars, but the portion of the sky that those stars appear to be a part of.
-
I think, mathematically speaking, that if you have an instrument that enlarges an object's relative size to the size of other objects closer to you, you are in fact seeing that object as it would be, far closer to it, and more like looking at an object closer to you.
So, mathematically speaking, if you've got a star that looks the same size as Zeta reticuli because of a telescope, then you are looking at the same time-frame.. given that the stars are close in size...
It's about time not advancing in space. We all know that if you send someone way out in space that time slows down drastically, stopping at some point.
So, stars seen through a telescope are just as likely to be alive than the ones closer to us.
-
It's not the act of looking through the telescope that causes a difference. It's just the stars one can look through using a deep space telescope happen to be much farther away--stars that would be invisible to the naked eye, and regular telescopes.
-
I see what you mean.
However, time is relative throughout in a perfect vacuum. But our universe even in the deepest part of space is NOT a perfect vacuum.
I stand corrected, Benyamin.
Can you think of anything that would be a perfect vacuum? Black hole maybe.
-
@ThelemicMage said
"Can you think of anything that would be a perfect vacuum? Black hole maybe."
Quite the opposite. A black hole is likely saturated with hyper-dense matter.
-
@ThelemicMage said
"Can you think of anything that would be a perfect vacuum? Black hole maybe."
I think the jury is still out on whether a vacuum can even exist. I refer you to The Book of Nothing by physicist John Barrow.