What Is the Zodiac?

[Jim Eshelman]

NOTE: This thread supersedes earlier threads on the same topic (which, however, are still valid), including:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=140 and viewtopic.php?f=14&t=99

From earlier chapters on the archaeological and modern statistical arguments, we know certain things about the zodiac’s structure and form:

1. From great antiquity, Egyptian and Babylonian astrologers recognized the zodiac as 12 equal 30° divisions of the ecliptic marking off equal segments of space.
2. Originally based on visual observation of the heavens, the zodiac’s boundaries were marked by certain bright stars, especially Aldebaran (15° Taurus) opposite Antares (15°Scorpio).
3. This zodiac was sidereal, meaning indifferent to the equinoxes and, therefore, unbeholden to precession.

In contrast to this stability of the zodiac and its boundaries, the vernal equinoctial point, in Taurus between 4153 and 1956 BCE, precessed back to 5°16' Pisces (54°44' before 0° Taurus) by 2000 CE. It continues its backward movement at a rate of about 0°05' every six years.

Signs (zodiacal constellations) are twelve equal parts of space. With boundaries at equal 30° intervals, the celestial sphere (the universe mathematically modelled as a sphere) segments into a dozen three-dimensional zones resembling giant “orange slice” segments called lunes (because of their half-moon, or “lunar,” shape).

Borders between signs are precise and abrupt, with no overlap or blurring at sign boundaries. For example, one moment a planet is at 29°59'60" Scorpio and the next instant at 0°00'00" Sagittarius.

Each sign being a three-dimensional area of space, when we say a planet is “in a sign” we mean it literally: The planet, millions of miles from Earth, is physically in that 3-D space segment.

Because these signs are sections of the universe, they are universal rather than local. Accordingly, their structure is not beholden to fleeting local phenomena such as Earth’s wandering equinoxes.

Though the equinoxes meander backwards (precess) against the backdrop of space, space itself is precession-free.

These astrological constellations differ from astronomical constellations defined (somewhat arbitrarily) by 20th century astronomers. Do not confuse the two. Astronomers are entitled to their own definitions. Astrology’s definitions, however, are those given above.

[Jim Eshelman]

Although we know in essence what the zodiac is, physics does not yet have all the language to describe what it truly is.

This is a small matter. The mechanism of how astrology works has always been obscure, articulated only in metaphor. I have been content to demonstrate empirically that astrology works and concern myself little with how or why.

This follows the path science has taken through history: Nearly always, observation determines that something is so before scientists have concerned themselves with how it could be so. For example, astronomers knew for centuries that planets moved through the heavens. Successive generations improved our ability to calculate planet positions climaxing in Kepler’s model of planetary motion, the immediate predecessor of Newton’s theory of gravitations – which finally provided a mechanism for the observed behavior.

Humans have known for ages that eating plants and animals is basic to our survival ad strength. Uncounted millennia passed before anyone figured out why or how. (Early reasoned theories likely were variations of “eating living things gives life,” which, though primitive and simple, is consistent with what we know today.) Similarly, the link between copulation and childbirth was clear centuries before anyone ever saw or understood gametes. (Explanations in some medical texts well into the 20th century – less than 100 years ago – seem bizarre and naïve today.)

I can contribute best, therefore, by describing and demonstrating that astrology exists and how to use it, not concerning myself much with its mechanism. Over decades to come, the language and concepts of astrophysics likely will expand to allow better understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

I am confident, though, that the functional basis of astrology lies not in physical phenomena as “physical” is usually understood. For example, it will not be found from understanding things like gravitation, electromagnetism, or mass: These are wrong places to look. We know from watching astrology in action, in human affairs, that the direct influence of astrological factors is on the psyche, especially on the field of subconsciousness. The more deeply we understand the convergence of astrological patterns with individual and collective subconscious patterns, the more easily we will understand astrology’s basis. In my book Visions & Voices (2010), I elaborated these thoughts in language that aligns them with Qabbalistic models of the strata of reality, specifically suggesting that astrology’s primary impact is on the layer Qabbalists call the World of Y’tziyrah (lit., “formation”), a layer of more subtle forces and substance that (among other things) includes subconscious mind. Y’tziyrah is casually called the astral plane: If we use a Latin root instead of a Greek root, we could as easily call it the sidereal plane: the plane of subtle stellar energies.

Besides strata of consciousness, this layer of reality (according to the Qabbalistic model) also includes patterns underlying and pre-existing physical matter. Therefore, it serves as a basis of celestial influence on natural phenomena from plant growth to earthquakes. Everything I have ever observed or intuited about astrology’s individual, collective, and natural out-workings is confirmed by this one explanation.

What I did not mention in Visions & Voices is that this layer of reality (usually thought mystical or even superstitious) most likely is linked intimately with the physical universe and perhaps is not metaphysical at all. It likely is part of what quantum physics is discovering about the formative underbelly of the physical universe, closely entwined with the structures of string theory. In recent decades, these areas of physics have unfolded rapidly. They likely will unlock (probably in the present century) not only how astrology conceivably could exist, but also the inevitability that what we have long called astrology must exist.

At present, though, this is all speculation and dreaming. Let us return to what we can say with today’s language and documented realities.

[Jim Eshelman]

“…local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe.” – Stephen Hawking & George Frances Rayner Ellis

The zodiac is not about stars – it is about space.

From the zodiac’s earliest days, certain bright stars had unusual importance as markers helping nocturnal explorers find their way around the sky. Among these are Aldebaran (15° Taurus), Antares (15° Scorpio), Spica (29° Virgo), the Pleiades cluster (5° Taurus), and Regulus (5° Leo). These did not define the zodiac: We simply knew where the zodiac was because of these signposts.

No single star can define a fixed zodiac because no “fixed star” is truly fixed. All have very slow motion. Aldebaran was indeed at 15°00' Taurus in ancient times and today (millennia later) at 15°03' Taurus; yet the boundaries of the zodiac have not moved with it. (This claim was only provable in 1957 with the discovery of Sidereal solar and lunar ingresses: See Volume III of Comprehensive Sidereal Astrology.)

The zodiac is not about stars, it is about space – because by the zodiac we mean the whole of space. All of it. The entire universe, or at least a segment so large that with present resources scientists are incapable of distinguishing it from everything.

Both classical physics and the special theory of relativity speak of inertial space (aka Galilean reference frames or inertial frames of reference). It is more or less the story of an elevator car falling an infinite distance in zero gravity: Everything inside the car can move as if nothing exists outside the car. One does not feel that the car is moving any more than we can feel Earth moving through space or spinning on its axis.

The whole universe is the largest inertial space: Everything moves within it in relation to each other thing but with no measurable sense that the universe itself is in motion. (We tend to think that the whole of everything has nowhere that it can go.) Within the universe are other, lesser inertial frames such as “neighborhoods” of galaxies gravitationally tied together.

I am endeavoring to create in you a glimmering of the nature of space so vast – whether truly infinite or merely inconceivably, immeasurably large – that it seems immutably unmoving in comparison to everything we know, observe, measure, or otherwise experience, all of which occurs within fixed, or immutably unmoving, space.

The immutability of such a space, in a way immediately relevant to the nature of the zodiac, is described candidly in historic physics. Isaac Newton wrote of absolute space as a reference frame that was unmoving relative to all the fixed stars. He deemed everything else in motion as within this absolute space. Ludwig Lange updated Newton’s concept, replacing his term with the more expansive phrase, inertial frame.

The zodiac – specifically, the zodiac as understood by Sidereal Astrology – is identical with what Newton first intended by absolute space, later expanded (to align it with the theory of relativity) to Lange’s terminology.

[Jim Eshelman]

Furthermore, everything in the universe is connected to everything else in the universe. This is true at molecular and atomic levels and (apparently) at quantum levels.

Basic physics confirms my broad-brush generalization. For example, one value in equations to calculate physical properties of an object is the total amount of mass in the universe. Were the quantity of mass different, the outcome would be different. While mind-boggling, this allegation does not necessarily infer communication across infinite space in any sense that we usually mean “communication.” It does, however, require that something in the fabric of the physical universe behaves as if there were direct communication. We are not unreasonable, therefore, to use “communication” as a metaphor.

Quantum entanglement is one example of such communication – functional sharing of data instantaneously between two particles separated by immeasurably vast distances.

Mach’s principle is Albert Einstein’s interpretation of Ernst Mach’s ideas that are basic to Einstein’s general theory of relativity. You may wish to read about Mach’s principle. (A meaningful elaboration is beyond the scope of the present work.) Garth Allen began an explanation in his American Astrology column in the late 1960s, part of which warrants repeating:

Let’s begin with the physics of the pendulum. The reason the swinging-plane of a pendulum gradually rotates… is that its mass in motion is beholden to the rest of the universe… The friction-free pendulum keeps swinging in the same direction, with respect to the stars in their entirety [emphasis added], and the apparent rotation of this direction is due to the turning of the Earth on its axis. The pendulum ignores terrestrial rotation in favor of the totality of mass within the whole universe.

In fact, anything and everything in motion moves within the frame of reference of the universe as a whole. There are now thousands of artificial satellites revolving around the Earth. If one of them, for example, is seen to pass overhead, a few hours later it will cross your sky considerably to the west of the zenith. It has not changed the plane in which it revolves, but you on the surface of the Earth have changed position with respect to the orbital plane of the body.

Within our Machian cosmos, anything and everything in motion moves only in terms of sidereal space, by which is meant the total distribution of matter throughout the continuum of the universe [emphasis added]. When you twirl an object on a string around your head, the centrifugal pull away from you, more intense the faster the motion, is the net result of all the matter in existence tugging at the object from all directions.

Take a toy gyroscope and hold it while it is spinning. It will fiercely resist any of your efforts to shift its angular position, because it is directionally locked to all the stars and galaxies existing throughout space-time…

All existence is geared to the sidereal universe. …the zodiac exists in space-time independent of individual stars, and certainly independently of cultural artifices like constellation-visualizing. The divisions of the sidereal zodiac are similar to the planes of crystallization within a mineral – from every point of observation within the crystal, the directional planes are the same to the observer who always seems to be at the center of the molecular lattice.

He concluded by calling the zodiac “the natural ‘grain’ of space-time,” which is a compelling summation.

[Jim Eshelman]

Empirically, we know that space is divided into 12 equal sections meaningful in describing human behavior. That is, statistical analyses of professions and other life conditions (some of which were summarized in an earlier chapter) have demonstrated that Sun and other planetary positions within 12 equal segments of the ecliptic correlate to choice of (and success in) different occupations, tendency to marry, sex of children, longevity, and other important life conditions.

These confirmations do not exclude other potentially meaningful divisions of the ecliptic that may be simultaneously valid. For example, they do not preclude a 27-fold division like the Hindu nakshatras (which must be confirmed independently). However, they give high confidence in the following:

1. Twelve equal (30°) segments of the ecliptic are astrologically meaningful (effective).
2. Their boundaries (to at least the nearest degree) are those of the Sidereal zodiac.
3. Their measurable (statistically discernible) effects disappear if we use the boundaries of the Tropical zodiac. If we studied these phenomena using only bounded 30° segments measured from the vernal equinox, we would be justified by the results to conclude that there is no zodiac.

Historically, most answers to the question “Why exactly 12?” have been philosophical, usually grounded in numerological symbolism of the factors of 12 (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6). To take one simple example, it is tempting to think that various philosophical or proto-scientific groupings of three things or four things might combine meaningfully in 3 x 4 things.

For this question, though, we may be closer to an explanation grounded in known scientific (mathematical) principles. The explanation of “Why 12?” begins with sinusoidal waves, perhaps the most common waveform in nature. For example, it is the waveform that describes light and sound waves. Evolution has customized our nervous systems to detect and interpret sinusoidal sound and light waves, including distinguishing sound according to the number of overlapping waves (degrees of purity) and their mathematical relationships to each other (harmony and disharmony).

One important sine-like wave is the cosine wave. Among its characteristics, the cosine function has critical junctures at 0°, 60°, 90°, 120°, and 180°. We will examine this in more detail in the chapter on Finding Aspects. For the moment, it is sufficient to know that this prevalent waveform, a mathematical structure commonplace in physical space, creates an innate relationship between any point on a circle and points exactly 60°, 90°, 120°, and 180° from it bidirectionally, i.e., points 60°, 90°, 120°, 180°, 240°, 270°, and 300° from it around a circle. This suggests that the cosine function is enormously important in astrology: We will encounter it repeatedly as a basic organizing function of astrological structures.

Several details demonstrably true in astrology are easier to explain if we accept that each point in space has an inseparable connection to points 60°, 90°, 120°, and 180° from it bidirectionally.

For example, take any point on a circle and arbitrarily call it 0° Taurus. By virtue of the cosine function, this point, just by existing, marks seven points 60°, 90°, 120°, and 180° from it, which are 0° Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. Four sign-beginnings are missing from the list; but, when you also take all points 60°, 90°, 120°, and 180° from each of the newly “found” points, the “missing” four zero points immediately fill in.

What is more (and this is crucial), this process both defines 12 equidistant points and can never define more than 12: The 12 points keep reinforcing or redefining each other. They are enmeshed or entangled with each other.

After these 30° intervals are thus defined, 30°-phased cosine waves moving bidirectionally (forward and backward) around the circle cross each other at the 12 identified points forming a standing wave that segregates the 12 signs.

While gaps remain in this model, we are well on our way to understanding how constellation geometries exist in space. Furthermore, we have a natural answer to the “Why 12?” question. We can see at least the beginning of a full explanation of how the zodiac model comes together in nature.

All that remains is the question of how that seemingly arbitrary starting point is selected in the first place. In other words, from where do all those 0°00' positions come?

[Jim Eshelman]

Why do the 12 constellations begin and end where they do? Why is each 0° a 0°?

The answer is: We do not know.

We know what is so but not why. Perhaps that means, “We do not know yet.” Perhaps, though, we will never really know, depending on the nature of the answer.

We do know, however, that each zodiacal constellation begins and ends at places we call 0°00'. We know this because:

1. Archaeological research confirms, with wide agreement, the exact degree that began the ancient Egyptian and Babylonian zodiacs.
2. Modern statistical research confirms a zodiac of 12 signs that – at least to the nearest degree – matches the ancient Egyptian and Babylonian zodiacs.

Research into how astrology behaves today confirms the zodiac’s historic foundations. The Sidereal zodiac is both an ancient recovery and a modern discovery. However, none of this tells us what (if anything) defines the zodiac’s starting point.

I have placed this discussion in the Advanced portion of this chapter because nobody needs this information to practice astrology effectively. It has never been essential and, so far as we know, has no practical application. Nonetheless, many of us would like to know the answer for our own intellectual and emotional satisfaction. Arguably, the Sidereal Astrology system itself needs this information to be a complete theory.

Two possible answers lead the rest. One is more satisfying intuitively and emotionally. The other is more likely true.

[Jim Eshelman]

As our Sun, like all stars in our galaxy, circumambulates the Milky Way (at a brisk half million miles per hour), it also moves against the trend of its neighboring stars on a path toward the constellation Hercules. The Sun’s direction of motion in relation to the flow of local stellar traffic is called the Solar Apex.

This target direction might be the natural phenomena that defines the boundaries of the zodiac.

I say it might, yet odds are against it. Space is big. Nonetheless, of all possible answers, this is the most engaging, interesting possibility, the most intuitively gratifying fantasy, hooked to the astrophysical structures of our surrounding space. As the plane of Earth’s orbit about the Sun defines the zodiac’s base plane, the direction of the aggregate forward motion of our solar system may define its boundaries.

During the entire course of human history, the direction of the Solar Apex has not changed a measurable fraction of a second of arc, consistent with the seeming invariability of the fixed zodiac itself.

Unfortunately, the position of the Solar Apex has been monstrously hard to calculate. The method is to note small differences in the positions of stars around us over time (much like looking out the window of an automobile at passing traffic) to calculate our movement compared to the rest. Astronomers’ tools have gotten better over the nearly two and a half centuries of looking. However, even today those tools still are not good enough.

Nearly every new journal article I have found on the Solar Apex over the last 30 years has reported testing or discussing how scientists should calculate it. Astronomers are still experimenting to learn how best to measure it.

William Herschel started the search: Two years after discovering Uranus (the first new planet discovered since ancient times), he first calculated the Solar Apex as being toward the star Lambda Herculis, which is at 25°10' Scorpio.

Inconsistencies in different astronomers’ determinations since Herschel are due not only to gradually improved tools, but also to which stars they used for comparison and how they observed those stars. Currently, astronomers give two Solar Apex positions several degrees apart, both known to be approximations.

One position, obtained by radio astronomy (RA 18:03:50.2, Dec 30N00'16", epoch J2000) converts to 6°39' Sagittarius. This is the position given most often in astrology references and is close to an earlier, long-standing estimate of R.A. 18:00 or 18:04.

The other contemporary “standard” position was obtained by visual observation of stars instead of radio astronomy. This value (RA 18:28:00, Dec 30N) converts to 15°25' Sagittarius.

Notice the range spanned by these different determinations. This last value (16° Sagittarius) is most of a sign-width different from Herschel’s original determination (26° Scorpio). The two contemporary standard determinations are about 9° apart.

Recent calculations of possible Solar Apex positions stretch across a wider span than this: A 2003 Cairo University paper modelled a new way of measuring the apex position against stars of different spectral classes. The main takeaway of the paper is that they found a wide range of possible positions and only on average did these approximate the conventional positions. Depending on the spectral class of star used for comparison, the derived longitudes varied from as early as 14° Scorpio to as late as 3° Capricorn.

None of these values can be trusted to be exactly right. All are somewhere in Sagittarius – or a little earlier in late Scorpio – or a little later in early Capricorn. The simple truth is that astronomers do not yet know the correct location: They are still looking.

In 1959, at a time when most astronomers conventionally said the apex was about 18h of right ascension and +30° declination, Donald Bradley discovered the 1935 research of Professors A.N. Vyssotsky and Peter van de Kamp of the Leander McCormick Observatory (University of Virginia). Based on an analysis of the proper motions of 18,000 fainter (and mostly faster) stars, they summarized their findings:

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 [in R.A.] 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...

Vyssotsky and van de Kamp estimated that their calculations were accurate within plus or minus 1½°.

Writing as Garth Allen in the August 1960 American Astrology, Bradley calculated the celestial longitude equal to the Vyssotsky and van de Kamp determination (R.A. 19h, dec. 36° N, epoch B1950) and found that the new estimation was 29°24' Sagittarius – about half a degree from Sidereal 0°00' Capricorn!

It looked like – and some Sidereal astrologers still think it looks like – the Solar Apex defines 0° Capricorn.

To grasp the true import of this possibility, you need to know that three years earlier, in 1957, experiments in Sidereal mundane astrology disclosed 0° Capricorn to be a “master point” of the zodiac: Charts for Sun and Moon entry into Capricorn are the most accurate descriptors of events affecting masses of people collectively. (Mundane astrology is the primary topic of Comprehensive Sidereal Astrology Volume III.)

Therefore, the Solar Apex might be the master point – and the defining point – of the Sidereal zodiac.

As astronomers continue to labor at resolving the question of the Solar Apex’s actual location, 21st century researchers have calculated apex locations ranging from mid-Scorpio to early Capricorn, depending on such things as which spectral class of star is used. It might be that Vyssotsky and van de Kamp had it pretty much correct after all.

Then again, space is big, and even the narrow corner of space where the apex is known to fall is big. Odds are against this being right.

[Jim Eshelman]

Second of our two theories is one based on a vast aggregate of stars instead of the solo leadership of one star: By this theory, the zodiac’s structure and boundaries are based on innumerable stars – all the stars and all the fabric of space itself – that is, on everything.

The zodiac is about space, not stars. By zodiac, we mean the whole of space – everything – all of it. In this holistic cosmos, wherein everything connects to everything else, we allege only that the universe has inherent structure.

The universe is full and whole. We respond to uncountable harmonic influences from uncountable individual stars visible and invisible that saturate the cosmos. By this “everything theory,” they all help form the zodiac. (They are the zodiac.)

If this is the correct view – what some think is the most reasonable explanation of the zodiac – we likely never will be able to confirm it or say for sure that we know it. How could we? Its order lies only in the chaos of the uncountable.

To understand the reason of the infinite, one must follow reason faithfully to the end of its road and then go on without it. Einstein spoke of a “cosmic religious sense” that feels nature’s “nobility and marvelous order.” He thought it “the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.” Contemplation of the wonders on which astrology naturally rests awakens and feeds these thoughts, this instinct, this intuition.

A technical justification of the shape and function of the zodiac seems beyond our reach for now. Perhaps future successors to Einstein and Hawking will provide the concepts within which it can be explained.

[Jim Eshelman]

In an earlier chapter of the manuscript from which the above was excerpted, I addressed the question of "why the ecliptic" as a base plane of the zodiacal coordinate system. (The earlier purpose was to discuss the behavior of fixed stars in astrology.) This short section is relevant to the current thread's topic, so I'll excerpt part of it below as an addendum.

A later chapter addresses what the zodiac is. Now is not yet the time nor this chapter the place, though basic points must be made. First, the zodiac is the structure of space itself and likely has the same internal structure everywhere (much as looking out-ward from any point within a crystal shows an identical structure). However, at each point in the universe a primary axis is needed based on a stable reference plane: somewhere secure to stand to view that structure.

If you pass a plane (let us call it the base plane) through the center of a sphere anywhere in the sphere, at any angle, the universe’s internal structure will orient itself perpendicular to the base. (This is a description, not a proof. Its immediate purpose is to provide language for what follows.)

All evidence points to the ecliptic – the plane of Earth’s orbit – being the base plane of the zodiac as we know it. However, this necessarily changes when we move far enough away from Earth. We do not yet have evidence to confirm this change, though planned flights to Mars in the next decade may give an opportunity; but reason suggests what we may find. For example, as each planet gravitationally controls the space around it, in the course of an Earth-to-Mars journey physics describes a handoff of “immediate neighborhood control” to Mars. From that point, the plane of Mars’ orbit likely will be the base plane of the zodiac.

Continuing outward, a point would be reached still part of our solar system (under immediate neighborhood control by our Sun) and outside the domain of any controlling planet. The base plane may shift to the invariable plane (a weighted average of all orbital planes in our solar system) or, more likely, the plane of our Sun’s individual journey around the rim of our galaxy. Beyond even this, at some point the only available base plane would be the galactic plane, which slices through the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

[SteveS]

When humans start living on Mars, how will planetary aspects to earth affect humans?

[Jim Eshelman]

When humans start living on Mars, how will planetary aspects to earth affect humans?

We practice evidence based astrology. That means we have no idea untl we get there and start exploring it like any other "new planet."

The bigger question in my mind is: Since the power drives associated with Mars are basic to the human condition, what happens when we don't have Mars in the chart? We also won't have Earth's Moon (though we will have two very fast, small martian Moons: Perhaps one or both of these will take up the Mars characteristics?).

I don't like to go on theory when we can rely on observation; however, a recent theory has presented itself suggesting that the SIZE of a planet determines its characteristics. Planets of the most similar sizes tend to be natural pairs (similar themes but opposite nature). Adjacent-size planets also seem to have related themes.

With this in mind, here are the relative body sizes of planets seem from the perspective of Mars. It looks like Earth is the natural pair of Venus (almost precisely the same size). The Moons are so small that if they weren't immediately in orbit, I wouldn't expect any significance at all, but on Mars they probably have some. (Anything under 100 km in diameter seems negligible.)

Sun 1,391,400 km
---------------------------------
Jupiter 139,822 km
Saturn 116,464 km
---------------------------------
Uranus 50,724 km
Neptune 49,244 km
---------------------------------
Earth 12,742 km
Venus 12,104 km
---------------------------------
Mercury 4,880 km
Pluto 2,377 km
Eris 2,326 km
--------------------------------
Deimos 15 km
Phoebos 11 km

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Since the power drives associated with Mars are basic to the human condition, what happens when we don't have Mars in the chart?

Fantastic question/observation!