Regrettably... not the Solar Apex

[Jim Eshelman]

There is a topic of some importance to Sidereal astrology that is either not discussed anywhere on this forum, or the discussion is buried deeply somewhere. On being reminded lately that a serious error was repeated in the last edition of Primer of Sidereal Astrology, it occurred to me that I should say something about it.

We know exactly - probably to the second of arc - where the boundaries of the Sidereal zodiac lie. There is no doubt about it. For example, we know, probably to within a second of arc, where 0°00'00" Capricorn lies. Today, it is that point on the ecliptic 24°58'47" farther in the zodiac than the northern hemisphere's winter solstice point. But I mention that only as reference, since it has nothing to do with the solstice point and, in a few days, will be 24°58'48" from it.

In fact, unlike the Tropical zodiac, which is defined so that 0°Aries is permanently hitched to a retrogressing (northern hemisphere) vernal equinoctial point, we don't know what determines a starting point of the Sidereal zodiac (i.e., of the zodiac). We only know its parameters from observation. I can demonstrate that its boundaries, measured against the totality of space, likely haven't shifted even 0°00'01" of arc in the last couple of millennia, which is sufficient to confirm that it isn't linked to any specific star being in a specific place; and, in fact, it wouldn't make sense that any one star could have such a role, such a power to align the whole fabric of space (as witnessed from Earth), unless that star were somehow of immeasurably vast, singular, and uniquely distinctive significance to us.

Like, say, our Sun.

For a brief while, we thought we knew what probably marked the segmenting of the zodiac. I say "we" in the sense of the Sidereal community, since I, personally, didn't know about such things until over a decade after they had been dismissed.

In the August 1960 issue of American Astrology, Garth Allen reported on some exciting findings published by Alexander N. Vyssoytsky and Peter van de Kamp, who had been studying the apparent motions of thousands of stars for years. I recently found reference to a 1935 report on their work:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/analysis- ... lc/7728179
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.21.7.419

The implication in the Sidereal literature has always been that this was new information. However, it appears the work was done in 1935. I don't know the publication history. Perhaps English translations only existed, or only came to Bradley's attention in 1959 or 1960.

This allowed them to estimate the location of the solar apex, which is the point in space (in the eastern edge of the constellation Hercules) towards which our Sun is moving in its journey through the Milky Way galaxy. Vyssotsky ad van de Kamp said the solar apex (for the epoch 1950.0) was at RA 19h 00m, declination 36N, both figures plus-minus 1.5°. That would place it at approimately Sidereal 29°24' Sagittarius - plus or minus a couple of degrees.

The implications of this were awesome! The more I think about it (which I have been doing this week), the more they stun me. The point we call 0°00'00" Capricorn, established decisively by mundane astrology research as the "master point" of the zodiac, might actually be the defining point of the zodiac because - perhaps a bit more astronomical research would disclose - it is actually the specific direction in space toward which our Sun - and, thus, our entire solar system - is moving.

This makes enormous sense! It satisfies the ignored hunger for an "origin spot," or fiducial, of the zodiac. It makes sense in terms of physics, and sense in terms of the only possible marker being not a particular star, but something seemingly invariable in the course of human history, hooked to the astrophysical structures of our space. Uncovering this, one could argue, was nearly as big a contribution to astrology as rectifying the zodiac in the first place, or at least an encore to the same show.

Except it was wrong. Entirely wrong.

What a let down. Shortly after the 1960 publication in American Astrology (I thought Ken Irving told me it was the next month, but I might have that wrong), the work was retracted. There had been errors, either in the reporting or the preparation of the publication. It was wrong.

As users of Solar Fire can easily determine on their own, the solar apex is at 7°21' Sagittarius. The best current precise figures I can find is that its radio astronomy position (epoch not stated) is 18:03:50.2 RA, 30N00'16.8" declination, which is stated pretty dang precisely. This is close to the historic "classical" position of about 18:00 RA, later amended for years to 18:04.

Wow, what a let down - and a reminder that, no matter how right some things seem, sometimes they are wrong.

Regrettably, the information made its way into the first chapter, "Our City-Universe," of the authoritative Primer of Sidereal Astrology by Fagan and Firebrace, and remained there through many rewrites including the final edition in 1971. Just over a year after Bradley's death, American Astrology even reprinted the article, in the August 1975 issue, for reasons that are beyond me. Because students are so likely to run into it, I thought I should make a clear statement that, nope, sorry, hate to spoil the party, but... it ain't so.

PS - One thing of interest (an idea spawned by a Fagan-Firebrace remark, and adjusted here for the correct calculations)... the current declination of the solar apex is 30N01. In 1000 BC it was in a quite similar declination, 30N20. I find this interesting because the geographic latitude of Cairo is 30N03. Every day, from the dawn of human civilization, the entire Nile Valley, astrology's cradle, rotates to be directly underneath the solar apex.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

Every day, from the dawn of human civilization, the entire Nile Valley, astrology's cradle, rotates to be directly underneath the solar apex.

Hum…, probably not a coincidence, particularly when we considered Cairo’s ancient monuments from a symbolic standpoint-- which just so happens to be sitting directly under the solar apex. Do you have any “intuitive perceptions” as to any possibilities for Giza conveying some type of arcane esoteric astrological knowledge to the Sidereal Astrologer? IMO, if there is an actual zero point of the Sidereal Zodiac it would be found by understanding the ancient symbolic structures at Giza from an astronomical standpoint. Suppose we did discover a true zero point of the Sidereal Zodiac, does your mind see how this possible zero point could possibly convey important mundane astrological knowledge to the Sidereal Astrologer? I really don't see/understand how mundane astrology can get better than SMA, but it is obvious to me, relative to my studies, Giza is symbolically saying something astronomically about our planet as a whole---pertaining to TIME.

[Jim Eshelman]

Do you have any “intuitive perceptions” as to any possibilities for Giza conveying some type of arcane esoteric astrological knowledge to the Sidereal Astrologer?

Nothing I want to trust. The whole image always struck me as a series of pointers saying, "Go thataway!' I was very taken with it in my youth, and then (other than a persistent interest in esoteric geometry in general) mostly set it aside - far more interested in what we can do with astrology today than in how it got here.

But I mentioned it partly because I knew it would intrigue you, and partly because it has the feeling of being a sign-post, a big something-or-other jumping up and down while screaming, "Don't you see it?! Don't you see it??" But we don't see it, because it takes brains that are patterned to some different template.

Steve, have you seen the movie "Arrival"? If not, I strongly recommend it as one of the best movies I've seen in decades. I think all who have seen it need to respect the virginity of those who haven't, so I limit myself to saying that the movie will have the best effect if you watch it patiently while closely tracking Amy Adams' character's mind, trying to live inside her head and see things as she's seeing it. Marion and I were blown away when we saw it in the theater, and just recently watched the DVD; it's different when you know the whole story (still quite enjoyable), but better when you don't.

IMO, if there is an actual zero point of the Sidereal Zodiac it would be found by understanding the ancient symbolic structures at Giza from an astronomical standpoint.

Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me. I don't think they knew it. But they might have observed enough to have captured some pattern that encodes it.

Suppose we did discover a true zero point of the Sidereal Zodiac, does your mind see how this possible zero point could possibly convey important mundane astrological knowledge to the Sidereal Astrologer? I really don't see/understand how mundane astrology can get better than SMA, but it is obvious to me, relative to my studies, Giza is symbolically saying something astronomically about our planet as a whole---pertaining to TIME.

Don't know. "That depends." If, for example, it marked 0° Capricorn as once briefly thought, then it would just be confirming what we know. There could, of course, be something else we haven't suspected.

The solar apex is so compelling intellectually that I wondered, for a time, if maybe it was reflected into some other measuring circle, e.g., if its position in the Galactic Plane or Invariable Plane were reflected onto the ecliptic somehow and the particular arc through it ended up defining 0° Capricorn after all. (The geometric analogy is that if you draw a great circle through the zenith at right angles to the horizon and through the north & south celestial poles you get the meridian, and it intersects the ecliptic to define the Midheaven; but if you draw a great circle through the zenith at right angles to the ecliptic and through the north & south ecliptical poles, it intersects at the upper square to Ascendant. These can be quite far apart, and yet they are different mappings of the same point onto the ecliptic. Could this be happening with the SA? But no, it can't. One thing the work with SMA has shown is that the point we call 0° probably hasn't shifted even 0°00'01" in the last 2,200 years, and if some sensitive point like the SA were really measured first in a different plane and then projected to the ecliptic, this would have moved it - at least minutely,

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

But they might have observed enough to have captured some pattern that encodes it.

I think, if a possible zero point of SZ exists which does indeed convey esoteric mundane astrological knowledge, it may have been channeled through ‘a high degree of clairvoyance.’ Fagan writes from Primer:

Garth Allen is of the opinion that the ancient star-gazers discovered the “cardinal” points of the zodiac only after many years of patient observation, that is, empirically; and this might well be the case. On the other hand, it is claimed that these Magi were also great magicians versed in all the lore of hypnotism and the like, and capable of inducing and directing a high degree of clairvoyance and clairaudience in the vestal virgins and young boys entranced in the inner sanctum of the temple. Arguing from personal experience, the writer has no doubt but that knowledge, otherwise unobtainable, can be derived by such arcane means. Said Gotama, the Enlightened One:
In this fathom-long mortal body the Universe lies hid…

I can also side with Fagan’s above ‘argument’ from my own personal experience. I no longer have access to a high-grade psychic who I closely worked with for a couple of years. I allow good probability, part of what was placed on Giza from an astronomical symbolic point of view was done through high grade clairvoyance. I do know this: the astronomical symbolism placed on Giza is vast and only an enlighten Sidereal Astrologer has good chances for discovering arcane astronomical/astrological truths ‘encoded’ at Giza, because Sidereal Astrology demands astronomical understanding

…truth cannot be probed by conventional academic means, only know, intuitively, or by revelation…

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

But I mentioned it partly because I knew it would intrigue you, and partly because it has the feeling of being a sign-post, a big something-or-other jumping up and down while screaming, "Don't you see it?! Don't you see it??" But we don't see it, because it takes brains that are patterned to some different template.

I understand Jim. When I started understanding certain fundamental building details about Giza, my mind was left with a big WTF! And then my mind kelp posing the question WHY did the ancients plan-out and construct these Giza monuments. As more & more time elapsed through my life the WHY became much more important than the building details. I know this for my long mental exploration of Giza: Bradley’s SVP became a huge key for me, allowing my mind to confirm certain known precessional astronomical truths about Giza represented by her monuments. But still the WHY….?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim asked:

Steve, have you seen the movie "Arrival"? If not, I strongly recommend it as one of the best movies I've seen in decades.

No, have not seen this movie, will be sure to rent or stream.

[Jim Eshelman]

In R.T. Rundle Clark’s book, ‘Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (1959),’ I was always very intrigued with his final conclusions. One of Clark’s conclusion reads:

The basic principles of life, nature, and society were determined by the gods long ago, before the establishment of the kingship. This epoch—‘Tep zepi’—‘the First Time’…All proper myths relate events or manifestations to this epoch…

This smacks to me some type of possible world astrological scope, but maybe not in the conventional sense we astrologers think in terms of a horoscope. Then in late 80’s early 90’s Robert Bauval, an engineer by trade, who had been studying Giza as a hobby, had a Revelation one early morning looking in the dawn skies. The 3 Pyramids of Giza were sky representations of Orion’s belt, and later he proved this revelation with Precessional Astronomy. I have intently studied Bauval’s precessional astronomy work with Giza, and cannot disagree (because of Bradley’s SVP) with Bauval’s final conclusion:

Giza is a symbolic representation of ‘Tep zepi’—‘the First Time’ set to the cyclical motion of the Precession of the Equinoxes.

I highly recommend Bauval’s work to anyone interested in the WTF of Egypt, but I don’t necessarily agree with Bauval’s as to the WHY for Giza. But, if Bauval’s WHY for Giza is correct, then Giza’s primary function is for us to learn how how to navigate the best TIME’s in the afterlife through the eternal cycle of Precession.

The precession was considered the basic mechanism of the universe by the ancient Egyptians…Santillana, ‘Hamlet’s Mill’

[Arena]

In R.T. Rundle Clark’s book, ‘Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (1959),’ I was always very intrigued with his final conclusions. One of Clark’s conclusion reads:

The basic principles of life, nature, and society were determined by the gods long ago, before the establishment of the kingship. This epoch—‘Tep zepi’—‘the First Time’…All proper myths relate events or manifestations to this epoch…

This smacks to me some type of possible world astrological scope, but maybe not in the conventional sense we astrologers think in terms of a horoscope. Then in late 80’s early 90’s Robert Bauval, an engineer by trade, who had been studying Giza as a hobby, had a Revelation one early morning looking in the dawn skies. The 3 Pyramids of Giza were sky representations of Orion’s belt, and later he proved this revelation with Precessional Astronomy. I have intently studied Bauval’s precessional astronomy work with Giza, and cannot disagree (because of Bradley’s SVP) with Bauval’s final conclusion:

Giza is a symbolic representation of ‘Tep zepi’—‘the First Time’ set to the cyclical motion of the Precession of the Equinoxes.

I highly recommend Bauval’s work to anyone interested in the WTF of Egypt, but I don’t necessarily agree with Bauval’s as to the WHY for Giza. But, if Bauval’s WHY for Giza is correct, then Giza’s primary function is for us to learn how how to navigate the best TIME’s in the afterlife through the eternal cycle of Precession.

The precession was considered the basic mechanism of the universe by the ancient Egyptians…Santillana, ‘Hamlet’s Mill’

Take a look at this documentary, especially after min 40.
Egypt Exposed: The True Origins of Civilization 2010
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/video/detail/B01K0EPX1Q/

He says something like:
"The Sphinx likely dates back to 10500BC and was facing the constellation of LEO"
"The pyramids are exactly like Orion's belt"
"They were doing precession at that time"

[SteveS]

Arena wrote:

He says something like:
"The Sphinx likely dates back to 10500BC and was facing the constellation of LEO"
"The pyramids are exactly like Orion's belt"
"They were doing precession at that time"

Exactly!!! When it comes to Bauval's precessional astronomy with Giza, there is no doubt in my mind his work is accurate. But, as to what the ancients are trying to tell us with Giza becomes a speculative quagmire. IMO, Giza is some type of Precessional Cycle Horoscope, probably having to do with consciousness with the human race, but as to its exact symbolic meaning???

[Arena]

There is a chapter missing in our history:
https://www.facebook.com/theuijunkie/vi ... 740916248/

[SteveS]

Excellent link Arena, and great food for serious reflective thought about our history of the planet. Anyone interested in further serious reflective study on ancient Egypt, I strongly recommend what I think are the two best researched books on the issues about Hancock's above link. First, The ‘Orion Mystery’ by Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert, and second ‘The Message of the Sphinx’ by Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock. Chapter 4, ‘Stars and Time’ in the second book, explains in detail the precise precessional astronomical plan at Giza, and I guarantee anyone who can come to a clear understanding of Chapter 4 with its precessional astronomical Giza truths will be amazed. And, what is even more interesting, the precessional astronomical truths at Giza has only been allowed with our recent modern technological tool—the computer with mathematical accurate precessional software. The Monuments at Giza only become truly alive in our minds by understanding the Precessional Cycle.

All this ties up another major source of orthodox academia error that comes from the underestimation of the thinkers of the far past. We instinctively dismiss the idea that thousands of years ago there may very well have been thinkers of the order of Kepler, Gauss, or Einstein, working with the means at hand. P. 72, ‘Hamlet’s Mill.’ (with Hamlet’s Mill being the Precessional Cycle itself).

[Arena]

Thanks Steve. It is indeed so very interesting to look into all this.

I just thought of something as I read through Jim's first post in this topic.

PS - One thing of interest (an idea spawned by a Fagan-Firebrace remark, and adjusted here for the correct calculations)... the current declination of the solar apex is 30N01. In 1000 BC it was in a quite similar declination, 30N20. I find this interesting because the geographic latitude of Cairo is 30N03. Every day, from the dawn of human civilization, the entire Nile Valley, astrology's cradle, rotates to be directly underneath the solar apex.

Astrology's cradle made me think of this thought I've had for some time now about the astrological ages possibly being measured by heliacal rising, meaning that the Age of Aquarius has started some time ago measured by heliacal rising (what would be seen in the sky about one hour before the Sun is up at spring eq/VP). Jim thought that somewhat illogical - but my thinking was that this was possibly from one particular point on Earth, possibly the equator - possibly "Astrology's cradle".

[SteveS]

With my understanding, the Solar apex has nothing to do with Bauval's precessional work on the Giza plateau.

[Jim Eshelman]

At least one scholar, who surveyed literature on the solar apex' location from 1933 to 1941 (that may have included the important Vyssotsky & Van de Kamp work in 1935) makes no reference in his synopsis of anythingother than positions centered around 18:00:00 RA.
https://www.nature.com/articles/162920a0
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1946MNRAS.106..274W

[SteveS]

Jim, I am not sure I understand the two above links. Is this anything new to what the early Siderealists knew about the Solar Apex?

[Jim Eshelman]

No, probably not. Just dicumenting more of what they did know and a little broadening the background. Bottom line, the slar apex is NOT at 0° Capricorn.

[SteveS]

Got it Jim, thanks.

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm adding this note here - for lack of a better place to store it.

Years ago I gave up the idea that the Solar Apex marked 0° Capricorn after learning that the Vyssotsky & Van De Kamp determination about which Bradley reported was amended by them shortly after, apparently reporting it as a mistake. (I have a secondhand report from Ken Irving on this, I didn't see the retraction myself.)

Looking around today, I find that though there is a standard consensual position, it isn't all that certain. For one thing, two separate positions are now given - several degrees apart. Based on radio telescopy, the value published for years has been RA 18:03:50, Dec 30N00'17". But there is another value, circulated a little more often these days, based on visual observations that is 18:28:00, 30N00. These convert to longitudes about 8° apart (the latter at approximately 15° Sagittarius).

What strikes me from these is that there is less certainty than the hard figure we're usually given for the apex' position.

Then today I found a 2003 paper from Cairo University which was modelling a new way of measuring the apex against stars of different spectral classes. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_velocity

The main take-away is that they found quite a range of positions and only on averaging did it land near the conventional position. Depending on the spectral class of star used for comparison, the earliest location was RA 254.2°, Dec 24.3N; the latest was 288.1° x 35.1°. Just look at the RA numbers and you'll see that these are over 30° difference. While they did all swarm around the conventional location, they cover locations likely near the conventional location (7-16° Sagittarius), but possibly as early as 14° Scorpio or as late as 3° Capricorn.

[Jim Eshelman]

Just to build a record, here is a 1927 article from the leading astronomical journal of the day relying on early Peter Van De Kamp measurements, resulting in a position of 281° RA, +29° Dec. Both are considered wrong today, but they do give a position in the wider reference area of the last article. It's later than the others, about 23° Sagittarius!
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//fu ... 2.000.html

And here is a jewel - quite early (1935), but of importance to a full record on this topic, I think. This 1935 article is by Peter Van De Kamp and A.N. Vyssotsky. It may be the original one Bradley found (which is a little awkward because he didn't mention that his "new discovery" was based on 25+ year old data - or there may have been a later one.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/21/7/419.full.pdf

Yes! This is the actual article (it must be!) - at least, it reports the same conclusions. On page 422, we read in part. I add emphasis with bold below:

Discussion of General Solution. - (a). The position of the apex differs considerably from the one derived from the proper motions of bright stars. In equatorial coordinates the position of the apex derived here is R.A. = 19.0h, Decl. = +36°, while the apex with respect to the bright stars is at R. A. = 18.0, Decl. = +30° which makes a difference of 15°. In order to have an independent check on the R.A. of the apex, two additional solutions were made for the solar motion, using proper motions in R.A. of faint stars determined in the process of parallax determinations. The corresponding values of the R.A. of the apex are 18.8h (Allegheny and Yale-Johannesburg) and 18.6h (McCormick). A higher percentage of high velocity stars among the apparently faint stars may be the explanation of this well pronounced difference...

There is more - if you want to read the article yourself. I'm not sure I yet understand it all myself, but at least now we have the source document (it seems) on which Bradley relied.

[mikestar13]

Solar Apex = 0 Cp is one of those wish it were true things. I see that it's position is far too vague even now to be a reference point for anything--the Egyptians and Babylonians could not possibly have used it. Now a sidereal matrix approximated by Aldebaran = 15 Ta and Antares = 15 Sc is extremely probable. The stars have undergone proper motion and are no longer in exact opposition though close. I wonder if they were closer in ancient times.

[Jim Eshelman]

The best I can do: Picking (for convenience) 786 BC spring equinox, Aldebaran 15°00' Taurus, Antares 15°02' Scorpio.

[SteveS]

So, the bottom line: The experts still don’t know the exact position of the Solar Apex in the Sidereal Zodiac. It could be at 0 Cap, but probably not. Is this a fair statement?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

So, the bottom line: The experts still don’t know the exact position of the Solar Apex in the Sidereal Zodiac. It could be at 0 Cap, but probably not. Is this a fair statement?

Bottom line: The experts still don't know the exact position of the Solar Apex.
Not in any zodiac, and not in space.

[SteveS]

JSAD wrote:

Bottom line: The experts still don't know the exact position of the Solar Apex.
Not in any zodiac, and not in space.

Could the soon to be Webb Telescope help solve this matter?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

I don't know. Maybe. But the Webb Telescope will see what already is, and the Solar Apex is where the Sun et alia is moving toward, so it doesn't seem likely.

[Jim Eshelman]

Webb will surely be a tool that could be applied to the question. I always knew it was a complicated issue but, having read several technical articles, I now see that it's far more complicated than I thought for astronomers and, especially, that they are far less certain about the thing. I'm going to stop including the Solar Apex on my personal list of fixed stars (and similar objects) because it's only accurate to, oh, the nearest sign or so <g>.

They do know it's off in the direction of Hercules, more or less, but that's a pretty big swath of space.

It's still the most engaging, interesting possibility of a single fiducial. I'm not convinced there IS a single fiducial, but it's the most intuitively gratifying fantasy about the matter.

[SteveS]

Well stated Jim.

[mikestar13]

I'm convinced there is no fiducial. The boundaries of the constellations are well established to sub 1" accuracy. But that is an empirical fact with no explanation for it. For that matter, the vernal equinox as the fiducial for the tropical zodiac makes no sense, why not the autumnal equinox or one of the solstices?

[SteveS]

Mike wrote:

I'm convinced there is no fiducial.

I understand Mike. What I can't understand: why is the Cap Ingress the Master Sidereal Mundane Chart for the Year?

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm convinced there is no fiducial.

I understand Mike. What I can't understand: why is the Cap Ingress the Master Sidereal Mundane Chart for the Year?

Or... why not? - What I mean is: Something (conscious or unconscious) in your mind makes you think it should be otherwise. What are those considerations? (I have theories, but they're only theories. I'm more interested at the moment in why you think it might be otherwise.)

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

I'm more interested at the moment in why you think it might be otherwise.)

I defintely don't think it might be otherwise. The Capsolar IS the Master Chart of the Year if non-dormant. I just don't understand why it is the Master Chart of the year. Something seems to be missing?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

I'm more interested at the moment in why you think it might be otherwise.)

I defintely don't think it might be otherwise. The Capsolar IS the Master Chart of the Year if non-dormant. I just don't understand why it is the Master Chart of the year. Something seems to be missing?

Continuing my interrogation: What kind of thing do you think is missing?

Let me help a little. The more it seems that Taurus is the proper "first sign of the zodiac" not just symbolically and historically but in ways that matter to the structure of the zodiac (e.g., Noviens counting from 0° Taurus, not Navamsas counting from 0° Aries), it stirs the question of why Rim constellations should be the pivotal ingresses. (Why not Hub? And yet, having run Hub and Spoke ingresses for categories of event with nothing to show for it, we know it is not the Hub constellations but, rather, the Rims.)

Over time, I've settled into the idea that this is because the Rim constellations are (at least in some small way) like angles: Their nature of action and, especially, the Rim is the outermost part of the wheel. Tre starting point or origin may indeed (as it seems to be) be Hubs, and it makes way more sense for the constellations to go Hub, then Spoke, then Rim - from the inmost point of the wheel to the outermost - so the pattern of expression, action, movement is naturally Rim.

Of course, this is all a theory. It's all interpretive symbolism, so there's no way to prove it IS a real thing. But I'm comfortable with it and, in particular, it explains to me why Rims are the basis of the ingress model. It also does a jiffy job moving us from the old "Aries is first" idea because Rims are obviously the LAST of the three groups in the sense of being the outcome, the outermost, of that impulse which started at the inmost center of the Hub.

Ah... and there is another spin on the old metaphors. It's not just that the hub is the center of the wheel, but the impulse has to begin at the very center of the hub; and it is at the inmost center of the hub - the bull's-eye - that the zodiac was first marked. Not just any old place ibn the hub but the inmost center of it, at 15°00' Taurus.

I think this is important to the current question in another sense: A 9th harmonic wave, the foundation of the Novien and something that increasingly seems important, may be part of the mathematical structure defining the zodiac because a 40° wave, though going nine times around the zodiac, catches up with itself - laps itself - not every 40° but every 45°. An origin not at 0° Taurus but at 15° Taurus - the inmost center of the Hub - spikes at every 15° Hub AND every 0° Rim.

All of that said... I already know that you are convinced that these ingress points are rightly 0° Rim, and perhaps the foregoing gives something to anchor that.

But I bet you still have a question in your mind.. perhaps wondering why, of four possible Rims, Capricorn is the one that seems to come out in the lead. Yes?

[SteveS]

Jim, I have no idea what is missing. The Solar Apex at 0 Cap sure would have cleared this issue up for me. Obviously, at one time it had cleared the issue up for Bradley & Fagan. All I know for sure is the Cap Ingress is a reliable mundane chart.

[mikestar13]

I have a question about ingress charts. Has any work been done with noviles in or enneads of the Capsolar? It is possible the novien (calculated from 0 Ta but but any 0 Hub starting point is equivalent, or for that matter 15 Spoke) is correct for natal astrology but the navamsa (Calculated for 0 Ar or any 0 Rim or 15 Hub including 15 Ta) is correct for mundane astrology? The two branches of astrology have different angularity curves and the difference between the troughs is 15 degrees. Why not different 9H definitions?

So if my speculation is correct and we take Aldebaran at 15 Tau as our fiducial, the key points of the zodiac from a navamsa perspective are 15 Hub and 0 Rim and only 0 Rim is also a sign ingress. Why the Capsolar is the loudest voice (when not dormant) remains unanswered.

[Jim Eshelman]

I have a question about ingress charts. Has any work been done with noviles in or enneads of the Capsolar?

I ran a short series of charts - I forget which ones, but it was probably something that usually shows very cleanly like my fires or quakes samples - and got nothing.

Among other things tested btw were Anlunars of the Capsolars. Again, nada. I had high expectations for this because I kept noticing that a LOT of events (or maybe it just seemed that way) occurred when transiting Moon was in the sign (or just after) the Capsolar Moon or its opposite. But actual charts for those were meaningless.

It is possible the novien (calculated from 0 Ta but any is correct in natal astrology but any 0 Hub starting point is equivalent, or for that matter 15 Spoke) is correct for natal astrology but the navamsa (Calculated for 0 Ar or any 0 Rim or 15 Hub including 15 Ta) is correct for mundane astrology?

Anything is possible of course <g>. I'd be really surprised if this were the case (this kind of irregularity), but anything is possible. - BTW, having the zodiac measured from 0° would complete the picture on why 0°Capricorn is the Master Point IF we had proof that the Nakshatras are important - which, however, we don't have (yet? ever?). The Nakshatra and Novien/Navamsa models are part of the same structure (four Navamsas/Noviens = one Nakshatra), and a 'mansion' structure originating from 0° Taurus would complete its 120° pattern at 0° Virgo and... 0° Capricorn. In that speculative universe, Rimness in the 'solar zodiac' and the structural wave of the 'lunar zodiac' would converge at 0° Capricorn.

The two branches of astrology have different angularity curves and the difference between the troughs is 15 degrees. Why not different 9H definitions?

That's (theoretically, of course) most simply explained by the human personality having a repressive function (not hard to imagine) which overlaps the expression function. Earthquakes etc. wouldn't have this. That would mean it's not a wholly different function, but merely the absence of the repression wave showing through (something more like the failure of trines and sextiles to have a voice in ingresses). - If this is the correct reading, the picture may be slightly more complicated btw in the sense that mundane events that were natural phenomena (fires, rain, quakes, tornadoes) would have the simpler mid-quadrant pattern, while those that involved human behavior (wars, president deaths, riots) would have the same pattern as natal charts.

[mikestar13]

When calculating noviens there are eight degrees of the zodiac that are the own noviens: 0 Hub and 15 Spoke. There are nine degrees which have a novien of 0 Ta: 0 Ta itself, 10 Gem, 20 Cn, 0 Vir, 10 Li, 20 Sc , 0 Cp, 10 Aq, and 20 Pi, and again 0 Cp is the only Rim ingress in the group. I suspect the primacy of the Capricorn Ingress is related to 9H, and take note that since Ta is the first sign, Cp is the ninth.

[SteveS]

Mike wrote:

When calculating noviens there are eight degrees of the zodiac that are the own noviens: 0 Hub and 15 Spoke. There are nine degrees which have a novien of 0 Ta: 0 Ta itself, 10 Gem, 20 Cn, 0 Vir, 10 Li, 20 Sc , 0 Cp, 10 Aq, and 20 Pi, and again 0 Cp is the only Rim ingress in the group. I suspect the primacy of the Capricorn Ingress is related to 9H, and take note that since Ta is the first sign, Cp is the ninth.

Mike if I understand correctly where you are coming from, I think you are on to something here that could be a revelation as to why the Capricorn Ingress is the Master Mundane Chart of the Year for any particular location. I will try to explain relative to learning experiences with my life.
1: I strongly believe “myth is the means of expression by sages who teach the esoterism of natural facts inexpressible in words”. Much of the mythological language is coded with numbers.
2: I am reminded through my studies just how profound the number 9 is embedded/entwined in the sacred myths and legends of the world related to prophecy. In this sense the 9TH Harmonic of the Zodiac beginning with 0 Taurus being 0 Cap tells us Siderealists much about the mundane picture to be painted.

Mike, until someone or something can offer me a better explanation for WHY 0 Cap is the Master Mundane Chart of the Year, I think you may indeed have hit on the truth of this matter. Thanks for your insight.

[Jim Eshelman]

Another thought on the Capricorn fiducial - not one with high mathematical precision, but one a bit more suggestive:

A bit of Fagan astro-archaeology review: Many Egyptian tombs of lists of 36 sections of the sky that Egyptologists have long regarded as decans. Fagan made the brilliant realization that they were pentades - and they only cover half the sky. Furthermore, they are the specific half of the sky that is above the horizon at the heliacal rising of Sirius, with Sirius on Asc, Altair setting, and Hamal at MC.

Because they were in tombs, they were intended to contain only the good things of the world (that the deceased could take into the next world). Since the Egyptians considered half the year lucky and half unlucky, only the lucky half was included - and that half of the sky was quite remarkable.

Here's my current point: These pentades ran from the first 5° of Capricorn to the first 5° of Cancer - that is, from the start of Capricorn to the start of Cancer.

I'd never noticed how importantly the ancient Egyptians divided the sky along this axis. I find it... at least interesting.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

I find it... at least interesting.

Indeed Jim, there are many things most interesting what the ancient Egyptian Adepts were doing with the Sidereal Z and its contents.

[mikestar13]

Very suggestive indeed, Jim. I had remembered the pentades across half the sky on the tomb diagrams from reading Fagan, but had forgotten the exact starting point. It may be the several pieces of evidence all point in the same direction: 0 Cp as the master ingress. Bradley's discover of the Capricorn ingress as primary was empirical. Tropical astrologers who used equinox/solstice charts tended to weight them equally or treat the vernal equinox chart as primary (no doubt some did give primacy to the winter solstice as nearest Jan. 1--but I don't recall reading any.) Do you happen to recall Carter's practice with equinox/solstice charts?

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes, Charles Carter treated the Winter Solstice chart as the primary chart of the year. Bradley called this the Lame Duck Amendment on Tropical mundane charts.

In fact, in The Principles of Astrology, in the prognostication chapter, he wrote (about personal forecasting):

The map for each winter ingress, year by year, is of great value as a general indication, so fgar as a single map can be such, of the events of the ensuing twelve months, regard being had to the transits shown in the map to the geniture in question... In the same way the entry of the SUn into the other signs (especially the three other cardinals) may yield interesting results. The Capricorn ingress, however, is of paramount importance.

[Jim Eshelman]

Updating this slightly: I decided today to ask an AI searchbot, "What are the latest determinations of the position of the solar apex? Something definitive from the 21st Century please."

The primary answer I got was:

The latest determination of the position of the solar apex can be found in many studies that have been performed recently to determine the velocity vector of the Sun, mainly using the latest data on proper motions and parallaxes given by the Hipparcos satellite. One such study was conducted by Klimentová et al in 2017. They determined the solar apex position to be at RA = 18h 28m 0s and dec = 30° N in galactic coordinates.

This is the galactic coordinates position given in the Wikipedia "Solar Apex" study except the above answer says it's in galactic coordinates while Wikipedia says it's in RA (equatorial coordinates). Big difference!

These AI search engines are getting better. I then asked, "What you quoted from Klimentova as galactic coordinates is given by Wikipedia as equatorial coordinates. Can you confirm one or he other to clarify?" The answer I got was:

You are correct! I apologize for the confusion. The coordinates I mentioned earlier are actually equatorial coordinates. I hope this clears things up!

So this might be the most recent determination. What's interesting is that there is quite a range of the determination. I'm trying to find whether this has all settled into very close, agreeing positions.

[Jim Eshelman]

I want to put the original report on more complete record here, though. I found the article at https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.21.7.419 as follows:

"Analysis of 18,000 Proper Motions Derived at the Leander McCormick Observatory"
by P. van de Kampo and A.N. Vyssotsky
Leander McCormick Observatory, University of Virginia
Read before the Academy, Monday, April 22, 1935

On page 4, I find:

Discussion of General Solution. - (a). The position of the apex differs considerably from the one derived from the proper motions of bright stars. In equatorial coordinates the position of the apex derived here is R.A. = 19.0h, Decl. = +36°, while the apex with respect to the bright stars is at R.A. = 18.0, Decl. = +30° which makes a difference of 15°. In order to have an independent check on the R.A. of the apex, two additional solutions were made for the solar motion, using proper motions in R.A. of faint stars determined in the process of parallax determinations. The corresponding values of the R.A. of the apex are 18.8h (Allegheny and Yale-Johannesburg) and 18.6h (McCormick). A higher percentage of high velocity stars among the apparently faint stars may be the explanation of this well pronounced difference...

I think throughout they are saying that by using fainter stars they get a different (and I think they think it is more accurate) read than studies that only use the brightest stars. I may not have assimilated all of this correctly, though.

This article was cited in the September 221, 1935 issue of Nature.
extension://elhekieabhbkpmcefcoobjddigjcaadp/https://www.nature.com/articles/136488b0.pdf

It was also abstracted in Science in May 1935:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.81.2106.462

There seems to be a lot of information especially arising from Vyssotsky's later work showing that the derived position of the solar apex "varies over more than 20° for different spectral types" of stars, according to one paper (Vyssotsky and WIlliams 1948). I think the import of this is that different ways of trying to solve the problem were producing widely differing results.

[mikestar13]

It seems the solar apex has a fatal flaw as a fiducial of any kind: its precise position varies quite a bit according to how it's defined. This is not true of other candidate fiducials: we can give very specific locations for Spica, Aldebaran, and even the vernal equinox beloved by Tropicalists. But I'm inclined to the view Jim has expressed: there is no fiducial. In pre-telescopic times, it was convenient to act as if there were one, assuming Aldebaran was at exactly 15 Ta opposite Antarares at exactly 15 Sc facilitated measurement.

[Jim Eshelman]

It seems the solar apex has a fatal flaw as a fiducial of any kind: its precise position varies quite a bit according to how it's defined.

Is it that? Or is it that using different ways of trying to determine it produce different outcomes (partly from parallax, partly from other factors). - Most of the literature I found wasn't about new determinations, but the tests and discussions of the right way to procede.

This is not true of other candidate fiducials: we can give very specific locations for Spica, Aldebaran, and even the vernal equinox beloved by Tropicalists. But I'm inclined to the view Jim has expressed: there is no fiducial. In pre-telescopic times, it was convenient to act as if there were one, assuming Aldebaran was at exactly 15 Ta opposite Antarares at exactly 15 Sc facilitated measurement.

I do think it's likely there is no single fiducial. (We know for sure that it's not a specific single star.) But if there IS a single fiducial, the solar apex makes the most sense - makes so much sense that it keeps sucking me back in! It seems a perfect theory. (Just no ACTUAL evidence sufficient to back it up.)

[mikestar13]

Plus the problem that whatever its position that position is not 0 Cp. BTW what is the sidereal longitude of the apex according to best estimates? It's hard to credit a fiducial that isn't 0 or 15 of some constellation. Indeed, that last is important in the history of the Fagan-Bradley Sidereal Zodiac. Fagan's original research in the sidereal zodiac used the popular Hindu zodiac with Spica 0 Li. Resolution of the hypsomata refined this to 29 Vi, which is less credible, then after Bradley's discovery of the SVP, refined Spica's position to 29 Vi 6' 5". This is quite unbelievable as a fiducial. Aldebaran 15 Ta 0' 0" tracks closer to the SVP but not exactly, and all stars have proper motion. The attraction of the solar apex is that if we are going to be beholden to proper motion, why not let it be the proper motion of the Sun?

[Jim Eshelman]

Plus the problem that whatever its position that position is not 0 Cp. BTW what is the sidereal longitude of the apex according to best estimates?

We don't really know that. Odds are against it, of course, but the Vyssotsky study with low magnitude stars seems as solid as the others which stretch it across fast areas.

Consider: Current best estimates that are "conventional thinking" enough to get into standard references list the Solar Apex as determined by radio astronomy as 7°20' Sagittarius and the same Solar Apex by optical astronomy at 15°24' Sagittarius. That's a big difference, and makes the gap from there to the Vyssotsky observations at 30° Sagittarius not seem to big. (I've seen studied that stretch this as early as mid-Libra.)

So the simple fact is that we can't say where the Solar Apex is. Most likely it is somewhere in Sagittarius, but the studies have enough variability that 30°00' Sagittarius isn't any more unreasonable than most of the others, especially since the last 30 years of literature still has lots of studies trying to figure out the best way to measure it.

Consider: It's often stated as being "close to Lyra," with Vega (a Lyra) at 20° Sagittarius.

It's either 0° Capricorn or the whole thing is a lovely fantasy.

The one thing we know for certain is that the zodiac is not anchored to any star at all - unless, as you say, it is our own sun. Once any starting point at all is anchored, the twelving of it is utterly easy to justify based on the structure of a cosine curve and its prevalence in nature as, oh, the behavior of light.

[Jim Eshelman]

Here are some convenient galactic construct or potential zodiacal construct longitudes.

Galactic.PNG

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

It's either 0° Capricorn or the whole thing is a lovely fantasy.

All I got to say on this issue is: If the Solar Apex happens to be O Cap it sure would explain a-lot to my mind why the Capsolar is the mundane Master Chart of the Year, and for the other 3 Cardinal Ingresses having mundane importance. Otherwise, what is the explanation for the proven mundane fact the Capsolar is the Master Chart of the Year? I think if Fagan/Bradley were living today they would express the same feelings about this Solar Apex issue.

[mikestar13]

I notice Antares at 15 Sc 1 would be the closest fit to the SVP were we to use it as a fiducial today, given the prerequisite that a fiducial must be 0 or 15 degrees of some constellation. I can see why the Aldebaran-Antares axis was used anciently. Withing the limits of unassisted naked eye observation, this was spot on.