John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<eppk001gcq7ejkbug534cnpbv26udbnetv@4ax.com>...

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
<44ri005drmjl8qbr7g7dkj56bv3024b4cm@4ax.com>:

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

It's simplest to think of the difference as signs = tropical
zodiac constellations = sidereal zodiac

At what point in time did those two separate? Which year,
give or take a 100 or so?

They're out of alignment almost all the time, due to the
precession of the equinoxes. The last time they were in alignment
was 100-plus years before the (alleged) birth of JC. (That was the
transition between the Age of Aries and the Age of Pisces.)

Which year, or nearest year did they become different?

It's impossible to give a date of that accuracy. There's disagreement
over the length of the precessional cycle; the commonly cited figure
of 25,920 years is very conveniently (2,160 * 12) years. Do we use
that average 30-degree arc, or do we allow for the widely varying
arcs (7-44 degrees) of the constellations themselves?

The Ages are quite speculative to begin with, and since astrology does
not CAUSE anything, but instead is a tool for psychological awareness,
it really doesn't matter.

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<eppk001gcq7ejkbug534cnpbv26udbnetv@4ax.com>...

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
<44ri005drmjl8qbr7g7dkj56bv3024b4cm@4ax.com>:

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

It's simplest to think of the difference as signs = tropical zodiac
constellations = sidereal zodiac

At what point in time did those two separate? Which year,
give or take a 100 or so?

They're out of alignment almost all the time, due to the precession of
the equinoxes. The last time they were in alignment was 100-plus years
before the (alleged) birth of JC. (That was the transition between the
Age of Aries and the Age of Pisces.)

Which year, or nearest year did they become different?

It's impossible to give a date of that accuracy. There's disagreement
over the length of the precessional cycle; the commonly cited figure
of 25,920 years is very conveniently (2,160 * 12) years. Do we use
that average 30-degree arc, or do we allow for the widely varying arcs
(7-44 degrees) of the constellations themselves?

The Ages are quite speculative to begin with, and since astrology does
not CAUSE anything, but instead is a tool <FOOP>

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

It's simplest to think of the difference as signs = tropical zodiac
constellations = sidereal zodiac

At what point in time did those two separate? Which year,
give or take a 100 or so?

They're out of alignment almost all the time, due to the precession of
the equinoxes. The last time they were in alignment was 100-plus years
before the (alleged) birth of JC. (That was the transition between the
Age of Aries and the Age of Pisces.)

Which year, or nearest year did they become different?

That's not possible to answer with any precision, unless one finds out
from astrologers where they draw their boundaries.
The current boundaries between the constellations were drawn roughly a
hundred years ago. So any use of those boundaries prior to that is
pretty much a nonreferent.
That said, I can tell you roughly in what year the sun moved from the
area of the sky currently known as Taurus into the area of the sky
currently known as Aries. (Only roughly because I'm examining a star
atlas and winging it -- I'm not willing to put any more effort into it
than a simple lookup).
The Aries-Taurus boundary, as of 2000 CE, was roughly 53.4 degrees
away from the point of the Vernal Equinox. The planet precesses once
every 26000 years or so, or one degree every 72.22 years. Multiply
72.22 by 53.4 and you get 3857, or more or less 1857 BCE. That would
be the start of the Age of Aries, give or take a hundred years or so
(because of my eyeballing and estimating; someone who knew the exact
precession rate and current offset could tell you the value of this
meaningless date to within a year or so).

Hope this helps.

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:<44ri005drmjl8qbr7g7dkj56bv3024b4cm@4ax.com>...

John Iser <john_iser@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism

They're out of alignment almost all the time, due to the precession of
the equinoxes. The last time they were in alignment was 100-plus years
before the (alleged) birth of JC. (That was the transition between the
Age of Aries and the Age of Pisces.)

Which year, or nearest year did they become different?

That's not possible to answer with any precision, unless one finds out
from astrologers where they draw their boundaries.

John Iser wrote:

Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
<4006A72B.A98C6D7E@serv.net>:

Demonstrable untruth. The smallest constellation, Scorpio, covers only 7 degrees
of arc. The largest, Virgo, covers 45 degrees of arc. No where near "roughly"
even.

Oh, come on now. Given that the average is 30 degrees, that's 'only' a
tolerance of -75%/+50%. (: (Sorry, I'm feeling a bit facetious this
morning.)

Astrology is based totally on *real* planets transiting *real* constellations.

If a
planet takes seven days to transit one constellation and 45 days to transit another,
you are flat out lying when you say that it takes only 30 days for it to transit
each.

This relates to a favourite topic of mine, the conflict between the
human mind's desire for simplicity and nature's love of complexity.

I was not aware that "nature" had any mind with which to love.

The human mind prefers the neat - and completely arbitrary -
12-signs-of-30-degrees system to the messy wide tolerance of the arcs
of the constellations themselves. This is why our ancestors invented
the tropical zodiac.

The ancients who used astrology did so by actual observation. Those who merely went
through the motions never bothered to look up at the sky. Which comes back to my
point that astrology, as practiced nowadays, is a fraud.

Putting aside the (very
remote) possibility that there *is* some personal significance to Venus being
retrograde in Libra, the simple fact is that modern astrologers can't be bothered to
even see if Venus is actually IN Libra before they make their prognostications.

You mean: "the entrance to the *constellation* of Aries..." You're
confusing signs and constellations again.

They are one and the same.

As I was saying to Elroy,
this is understandable given that they share the same names but are
found in different parts of the sky.

But when the "rules" of astrology were established, they were not,

and the rules were
established based on actual observation, something that astrologers nowadays are too
lazy to do.

Mainly, I think, because it would prove that astrology is a fraud.

It's simplest to think of the difference as
signs = tropical zodiac
constellations = sidereal zodiac

Irrelevant.

...and realise that the two are currently *very* roughly 30 degrees
out of whack, due to the precession of the equinoxes.

Significantly more. Even if you assume that both Aries and Pisces are 30 degrees of
arc, you are still off by about 66 degrees. In actuality, Aries is 25 degrees and
Pisces is 38 degrees. With the sun of the spring equinox being six degrees past
Pisces, the actual margin is about 69 degrees of arc, or nearly one fifth of the way
around the ecliptic from the start of Aries. Roughly.

Astrology is *based* in fact. (It then piles a mountain of hooey on
top of the factual basis, but hey - that's what facts are for.) (:

And what facts are those?

What scientific evidence gives credence to the significance
of the Moon and Jupiter in trine while Mars is retrograde?

An
astrologer's ephemeris and the astronomical software you mention use
the same formulae that were worked out by Kepler 400 years ago.

For calculating the position of the planets, that's fine. But that has nothing to do
with the essential relevance to the planets relative to the constellations -- excuse
me, relative to the signs.

Going a bit OT: Kepler's an interesting case. He used to cast
astrological charts to finance his astronomical studies - and used a
metaphor of the 'ugly *****' supporting the 'beautiful princess' to
describe the relationship between the two. My point is: the two fields
are connected to each other by their history, even if the astrological
side is a bit of an embarrassment for astronomy these days.

If by "a bit of an embarrassment", you mean to say that they have a total disjoin
between presumption and observed fact.