Quote:
Originally Posted by hhEb09'1
The basic measure of time is the second, which has no connection to terrestrial events, in the way that you are referring to terrestrial events.
|
This comment opens up the definition of time, ie whether time is inherent in nature or is solely a function of human knowledge. By ‘basic’ I did not mean ‘scientifically precise and constant’ but ‘underlying source’. The second is a scientifically precise human construct, whereas the sign, the year and the great year are natural cycles of time imbedded in all complex systems of earth. The second derives from division of the day by 86,400, even if for modern physics it has been decoupled from its natural origin because the variance within the day length does not serve the needs of science for precision. For the scales and rhythms I am discussing the exact precision of the caesium second is not relevant.
Quote:
|
While it is certainly true that the earth's orbit is nearly circular (it deviates from a circular path by not much more than its diameter if I recall), but the center of that circle is offset from the sun by over a million miles, some six times the distance to the moon. That causes the earth to speed and slow in its orbit as it gets closer to and farther from the sun.
|
This oscillation in planetary velocity would not affect the existence of a wave structure produced by the seasonal turning points of the orbit. It might cause a small variance in the period of the signs (eg a solstice may be 3.01 months after the preceeding equinox rather than exactly 3 months). This effect should be factored in to the exact determination of sign cusp time. In any case, each secondary cusp (ie the eight of the twelve that are not at one of the four seasonal points) is produced by resonance to one of the turning points, not to two or more.
Quote:
|
Because of the reason mentioned above, there is not really that nice of a symmetry.
|
This is a simplified schematic model produced for purpose of illustrating a theory. Of course the actual elliptical reality requires adjustment.
Quote:
|
In other words, you're simply re-naming "three" as "air" or something? If there is no metaphysical or alchemical sense to it, it seems to be just adding to the astrological confusion.
|
The attached diagram shows the interaction of elemental and seasonal zodiacal wave functions to produce the signs. My suggestion regarding the 'elements' is to visualise the rhythms of the year as sine waves with one cycle per four months, interpreted as harmonic products of the annual waves based on the four turning points. A sine curve has four phases. In order these are: ascending positive, descending positive, descending negative and ascending negative. Historically the sign mapping of these phases, within this new scheme I am presenting, is identified with the four alchemical elements, fire, earth, air and water. Of course you are right that this would be an obsolete identification to argue in physical terms. I want to avoid the cultural debris of obsolete ideas while remaining open to the possibility they may have some meaning. At this stage I am using the four elements and seasonal triplicity for ease of reference and imagery – ie Gemini is defined as mutable air. An alternative suggested by your comment is to define Gemini as (33) where the two numbers represent the position of the sign within the triple and quadruple divisions of the year. Using this latter method, which may be more scientifically congenial, we would have the following pattern of twelve unique combinations from Aries (11) to Pisces (34): 11, 22, 33, 14, 21, 32, 13, 24, 31, 12, 23, 34, repeated annually with constant regularity. The corresponding codes on the attached are: CF, FE, MA, CW, FF, ME, CA, FW, MF, CE, FA, MW.
Quote:
|
As I mentioned earlier, the offset of the sun from the center of the circle causes a deviation from the regularity such that if you had a timepiece with that "clockwork regularity" you'd have tossed it to the street with the trash.
|
Sure, having a clock that goes fast and slow depending on the velocity of the earth would be quite inconvenient for our daily human use, but, in a sense I am arguing that just such a clock has been dealt to us by nature, so it is useful to try to understand it. As I noted above, if ellipticity causes less than a few hours difference in the length of time between the four turning points of the year, and these differences are entirely predictable and regular, that still counts as clockwork for these purposes.