Aloha Nick,

Alan here, one of your paid subscribers.

As a beginning student in astrology, I thought I'd finally make contact with you so that I can more clearly understand the Galactic Ayanamsha. Please correct any misunderstanding. I apologize if these are simplistic questions. Here goes:

The Galactic Ayanamsha is based on the Galactic Equatorial Nodes which are based on the Galactic Center. The GA change according to time. On your Web site table the GC is at 1 degree, 48 minutes of sidereal Sagittarius. The GENs are at 5 degrees Sagittarius and 5 degrees Gemini, respectively.

Is the GC longitude fixed or does it change with time? Is there any disagreement on determining that point?

Is there a way to calculate the GENs by observation, like the way the Equinoctial Nodes can be determined?

Does the GENs change with time?

The Holy Cross aside, if the positions of the GC and the GENs are subject to change, then how is that any different from using a 'fixed' star as a reference point?

That's it for now. Thank you.

First a minor clarification to your question: Yes, the Galactic Ayanamsa is based on the Galactic Equatorial Nodes (GEN). These nodes are where the galactic plane crosses the ecliptic plane--those nodes are fixed in the heavens (in the ecliptic). The GC is not of issue here, it happens to reside a bit south of the ecliptic plane, and of course on the galactic plane. The GC happens to fall into the first couple degrees of sidereal Sag (sooner than the GEN) because the galactic plane it tilted ~60° to the ecliptic plane and the GC is south of the ecliptic. See the Star Chart to see the triangular geometry.

Yes the GC and GEN's are observable / measurable in location and there is not disagreement on the location of our galaxy's plane, the GEN, or the GC--those are fixed astronomical locations, measure by a variety of means (hydrogen adsorption, x-ray and IFR emission spectroscopy, etc.).

The location of the Galactic plane and Galactic center do not change, nor do the stars. All of these locations are fixed in the heavens (The stars actually do move over very long periods of time, which is called as star's "proper motion".) The only thing that changes is Earth' s precessional orientation, and so too the vernal point which is based on the Earth's precessional orientation. Thus the tropical zodiak, which is referenced from the moving vernal point, moves with respect to all that is fixed in heavens at the rate of precession, with respect to the stars and to the GENs.

Any Ayanamsa is simply the angular distance (which is ever increasing at the rate of precession) of the vernal point (0° tropical Aries) referenced to 0° sidereal Aries. The question is where exactly is 0° sidereal Aries (the sidereal sign cusps) in the ecliptic. The variety of Ayanamsas only define minor differences of where the sidereal sign cusps actually reside amongst everything fixed the heavens. The sidereal signs have to be reference from some where, from some fiducial; whether from a star or from some other fixed location in the heavens. The Galactic Ayanamsa simply references the sidereal zodiak from the GEN in sidereal Sag--setting this location as 5° sidereal Sag (with a few reasons behind this approach). The Galactic Ayanamsa is referenced to the spherical geometry created by our solar system (ecliptic plane) and our galaxy (galactic plane), the fixed galactic equatorial axis, much like the tropical zodiak is based upon the spherical geometry created by our ecliptic and Earth's equatorial plane, the moving vernal axis. I choose this method of reference partly because of the geometry of the Holy Cross created by these axes, (specifically the fixed galactic axis ) is far more fundamental / transcendent from a cosmological perspective; and recognizing a hierarchy of consciousness exists and that translates from one astronomical sphere / plane to another via their common nodal axes. These axes are fundamental to the heavens and to the evolution of consciousness.

The fixed galactic equatorial axis relates more to our durative soul-level awareness, whereas the moving vernal axis reveals the current incarnational punctual moment, precipitating from the durative soul stream. Thus, this spherical geometry defines a far more embracing evolutionary context compared to any star arbitrarily chosen. Since the recent advent of tropical astrology (signs) and the obscuration of astronomical-based (sidereal) astrology, astrologers have sought to identify the most appropriate and accurate placement of the sidereal cusps in the Heavens. Some arguments adjust the sidereal signs such that Aldebaran's ecliptical longitude is exactly in the center of sidereal Taurus; or that of Antares in the center of sidereal Scorpio (those being two of the four royal architects (meaning: revealing structure in the heavens). They are both south of the ecliptic however, thus it is thought by some that it makes more sense to use a star on the ecliptic plane (0° ecliptical latitude), such as Regulus, heart of the Lion. Regulus, for this reason, (near 5° sidereal Leo depending on which Ayanamsa you use) is considered the King or Chief of the four Royal stars (Regulus is from Rex, meaning law giver; i.e., defining order in the heavens). Another significant star is Spica of Virgo, also on the ecliptic plane. The Fagan-Bradley Ayanamsa uses Spica as its primary fiducial. You can research the reasoning behind that on the web or in Fagan-Bradley books, it being the most popular and respected Ayanamsa in vogue today.

Reference: Learn about Sidereal Astrology

Hope that helps. Nick

Hi Kelly here, I am a student and obtain a simple board search to find your site. I feel really nice to read especially in this post. It is very informative. As well as all posts on your blog are full of information and they increased my knowledge. However, this site plays important role in improving our new generation for the good work ....


_______________
i have just passed ccna certification

Hi to all and Nick,

Einstein always liked his students to question his theoretical claims (interpretation of facts, consistency, coherence, etc) and I'm sure Nick doesn't shy away from such questioning.

So with that in mind I want to address some astronomical questions that relates to the GC and GEN.

The following statements are cited in the wiki articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun.27s_location_and_neighborhood

The Sun is currently 5–30 parsecs (16–98 ly) from the central plane of the Galactic disk.

Based on this wide range of measure isn't there a considerable percent error needed to be factored in when calculating the GEN?

I would think +/- 2 or 3 degrees from the 5 degree fiducial.

The Sun's orbit around the Galaxy is expected to be roughly elliptical with the addition of perturbations due to the Galactic spiral arms and non-uniform mass distributions. In addition, the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the Galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit.

With respect to the GC the Sun makes a complete orbit every 225 million years which on the scale of millions of years would change the position of the GC with respect to the Sidereal Zodiak. Based on our human time scale it can be observed and experienced as fixed but actually is not fixed.

I would think that the oscillation motion of the Sun above and below the Galactic Plane causes a nonfixed GEN over long time periods. It is also calculated that one complete oscillation takes approx 83 million years based on the 2.7 oscillations per orbit so the rate of GEN movement is considerable in astronomical terms.

Here's another cited statement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex

The sun's motion in the Milky Way is more complex than a simple orbit, it also shifts ("bobs") up and down with respect to the galactic plane.

So, for all practical purposes and for short human time scales the GC and GEN is fixed. But the huge measurement range of error of the Sun's distance from the Galactic Plane is a concern and so the accuracy of the 5 degree fiducial may be in question.

I would think that the projection of the ecliptic is very sensitive to distance from the plane of the galaxy. Somewhat like sensitivity to initial conditions of a nonlinear function.

Also, a related question is why wouldn't the GEN fiducial be considered as the 0 degree Aries point of a reformatted and reconfigured Sidereal and astronomical constellation system? Why accept the present astronomical constellation system?

I understand it has historical precedence and probably based on the 'Biopsychic Field' notion proposed in Arguelles book Earth Ascending but in terms of exoplanet models all galactic sun/solar systems should base their Sidereal Zodiak on their respective GEN fiducial. (GEN as primary and local star neighborhood as secondary)

Sorry to be such a stickler but these are probably the kind of questions that would be asked in a classroom setting by a bunch of Astronomy Grads who want to understand Astrology (aka Metaphysical Astronomy).

Look forward to your feedback.

Mike

****************************************************************
March 10 Update

The wiki article stating 5 - 30 parsecs for Sun distance to Galactic Planes needs some more corroboration.

Here's a few recent studies using various techniques to determine distance of Sun to GP. The various distances are in bold green.

1. the wiki citation of 5-30 pc
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..263M

The distance of the Sun from the Galactic plane inferred from classical Cepheid variables is Z solar = 26 +/- 3pc, a result dependent on the sample's distance and direction because of the complicating effects of Gould's Belt and warping in the Galactic disc.

2. Displacement of the Sun from the Galactic plane
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378..768J

Abstract
We have carried out a comparative statistical study for the displacement of the Sun from the Galactic plane (z solar) following three different methods. The study has been carried out using a sample of 537 young open clusters (YOCs) with log(Age) < 8.5, lying within a heliocentric distance of 4 kpc, and 2030 OB stars observed up to a distance of 1200 pc, all of which have distance information. We statistically separated the members of the Gould Belt before investigating the variation in the z solar estimation with different upper cut-off limits in the heliocentric distance and distance perpendicular to the Galactic plane. We have found that z solar varies in the range ~13-20 pc from the analysis of YOCs and in the range ~6-28 pc from the analysis of OB stars. A significant scatter in zs olar, because of different cut-off values, is noticed for the OB stars, although no such deviation is seen for the YOCs.

3. The Sun's Displacement from the Galactic Plane from Spectroscopic Parallaxes of 2500 OB Stars

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JRASC.100..146R

Abstract
The Sun's vertical displacement from the galactic plane, Z_sun, is determined model-independently from 3526 spectroscopic parallax distance estimates for 2488 OB stars within 1200 pc of the Sun. The result, 19.6+/-2.1 pc, agrees well with various other recent determinations. The distribution of stellar z-values as a function of galactic longitude shows a very scattered sinusoidal dependence with an amplitude of about 27 pc.

4. The Sun's Distance from the Galactic Plane

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3AASTR.0000005097.18183.64?LI=true

Astrophysics and Space Science
12-2003, Volume 288, Issue 4, pp 313-325
R.L. Branham Jr.

Abstract

Use is made of 93,106 parallaxes from the Hipparcos catalog, with a mixture of spectrum-luminosity classes, to derive the position of the Galactic plane. The reduction technique, mixed total least squares-least squares, takes into account the errors in the parallaxes, and the condition that the direction cosines of the Galactic pole have unit Euclidean norm is rigorously enforced. To obtain an acceptable solution it is necessary to eliminate the stars of classes O and B that belong to the Gould belt. The Sun is found to lie 34.56±0.56 pc above the plane.

5. The Sun's Distance Above the Galactic Plane

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AJ....110.2183H

Humphreys, Roberta M.; Larsen, Jeffrey A.
Astronomical Journal v.110, p.2183

We have determined the Sun's distance (Zsun) from the galactic plane using optical star counts in 12 Palomar Sky Survey fields, six each at the North and South galactic poles. The star counts were made in t6 square degree regions at the center of each field in the O (blue) magnitude range 15-18. All stars with O - E color greater than 1.8 mag (B - V- 1.1 mag) were selected to isolate a sample of disk population stars in this magnitude range. The total counts show significantly more stars in the six fields at the SGP indicating that the Sun is above the galactic plane as defined by neutral hydrogen. The observed ratio of N(SGP)/N(NGP) is 1.11±0.O2 leading to Z sun=20.5±3.5 pc above the galactic midplane.

The updated measurements show a range of 6 to 34 parsecs, or 20 to 110 light years for the Sun's distance above the Galactic Plane. So the variance is quite large with respect to measuring intercepting planes.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of my assessment of how the Sun's distance above the Galactic Plane affects the measurement of the GEN, but here's my take.

When the Earth-Sun ecliptic plane is extended on a scale proportional to the Galactic Plane it is then viewed as the smaller plane -- like a smaller disc intercepting a much larger disc.

Viewed in that sense and given that the Sun is displaced above the Galactic Plane, then the GEN does not form a 180 degree intercept (diameter) through the ecliptic. It only does this when the Sun is on the Galactic Plane.

So when the Sun is above the Galactic Plane the GEN axis is off center and makes a chord (rather than a diameter) through the ecliptic -- one arc of this chord is less than 180 degrees and the other arc of the chord is greater than 180 degrees. For example when off center by 1 degree then the GEN axis is a chord connecting 6 Sagitarius to 4 Gemini with arcs of 178 degrees and 182 degrees.

If you were to increase the scale of the Earth-Sun ecliptic -- make it as large or larger than the Galactic Plane -- then I can see where the off center displacement becomes proportionately smaller but still exists and the GEN axis is not an exact diameter -- only until the Sun is on the Galactic Plane.

On another note -- this statement I made needs correcting.

Also, a related question is why wouldn't the GEN fiducial be considered as the 0 degree Aries point of a reformatted and reconfigured Sidereal and astronomical constellation system? Why accept the present astronomical constellation system?

Reformatting and re-aligning the 12-fold Sidereal system is really the only important factor -- there's a wide variety of constellation systems from different cultures, and so that would not be practical for reconfiguring.

But since the GEN is not a diameter that poses a problem to creating a symmetric 12-fold Sidereal sign system.

Also, in cases where the ecliptic plane of other inhabited exoplanets in our galaxy is nearly parallel to, or at a very slight angle to the Galactic Plane, then there is no intercepting of planes (or very extreme distance outside of galaxy) and not a clearly defined GEN for the Zodiacs of these planets.

So, my take is that the GEN theory is not a general, all-inclusive theory but can be considered a single theory for special cases.

I'm open to alternative views and explanations so hope to hear from others.

Mike

After re-reading the Sidereal Astrology page it's still unclear to me as to what sidereal system is used as a backdrop to determine that the GEN is 5 degrees Sagitarius and the Galactic Center is 1.5 degrees Sagitarius.

In the diagram showing the astronomical, sidereal and tropical zodiacs which sidereal zodiac system is used to then determine the 5 degree GEN?

Is it Fagan-Bradley or Babylonian or some other sidereal zodiac or is the astronomical zodiac used as the backdrop to then determine the Galactic Ayanamsa?

And why would the Galactic Ayanamsa be in such close alignment with these other ayanamsas?

There seems to be some assumptions and possible circular reasoning used to determine the Galactic Ayanamsa that hasn't been clearly explained.

I believe in the concepts of Galactic Logos and Solar Logos through which astrological information can be intuitively transferred to us so perhaps that is more the basis for why GA aligns with the other sidereal systems.

Also, based on exoplanet theory my thinking is that the local star neighborhood is more important than the galactic plane to determine the sidereal system of a particular planet -- because -- if the ecliptic of a particular planet was close to being parallel to the galactic plane there is no GEN's or intersecting axis to create a galactic ayanamsa.

And also, what if the galaxy is not of the spiral class but is an irregular (ie our local Magellanic galaxy) or of slightly irregular elliptical or spherical class? These galaxies are more numerous than spirals and have no clearly defined galactic plane so the local star neighborhood for a solar system in these galaxies is the main reference for a sidereal system.

The working thesis I go by is this:

The local stars (or solar logoi), which is a part of a galaxy (galactic logos), through themselves and through their forming of constellations, are more directly and holographically connected and would instream archetypal energies to a planet/sun system (planet logos/sun logos). We are products of our Earth logos, our Sun logos, the local star logoi and the Milky Way galaxy logos -- we sublogos in an hierarchical system.

This doesn't apply to extragalactic stars and solar systems as described in the exoplanet model post. This is because there are no perceptible stars or galaxies (perhaps very dim smudges in the night sky). The sun and planet logos apply but it's a mystery as to the other influences (astrological and otherwise)

IMO, a general theory of sidereal astrology is still a work in progress for us all.

Sorry to come across as pedantic or skeptical -- internet communication via typing out words is not my favorite way to communicate.

Mike