Calendar

KryssTal Reply: My pleasure.

If I understand this correctly, astrologers say, "Mars is in Libra" when in fact it's in Virgo because they use the positions of the stars from 2,000 years ago.

KryssTal Reply: That is correct. An astrologer would say Mars in in Virgo and then make predictions based on that. However, if I wanted to point Mars out to you, we would find it "amongst" the stars of Libra. Actually, Mars is in the same direction as the stars of Libra which are themselves at different distances. It is a bit like holding your hand up to the sky and saying "The planet 'Hand' is in the constellation of 'The Clouds'".

Not up with the times, are we!

KryssTal Reply: There is more. Mars is said to be the god of war because its red colour reminded the ancients of blood. Mars is red because its surface is covered with iron oxides - rust!

(Mars was associated with iron long before we knew that there was iron there....)

Also, the constellations in use by us are not the same as those used by other cultures. The Chinese and Indians have totally different zodiac signs as well as different numbers of signs of the zodiac. Remember, these are created by humans and do not exist in the universe.

So 2,000 years ago, the constellations and the signs were in the same place in the sky. Right?

KryssTal Reply: Well yes, the signs were invented after astrologers understood the effect that precession was having on the zodiac constellations.

And the precession of the equinoxes has gradually moved the constellations backward through the signs. From reading your mail I'm clear about this now.

KryssTal Reply: The complete precession cycle takes 26,000 years. Since there are "12 zodiac signs", that is a movement of "one sign" every 2,166 years.

So really the signs are an irrelevence. They were just an easy way to identify where the planets were, with as you say declination and right ascension etc. being reasonably user-unfriendly.

So to say, I am a Sun sign Aquarian, is more to identify the Aquarian traits with a particular time of the year, the flavour of the beginning of the year. Hence the Tropical Zodiac, tied in to the seasons. Cycles, huh......

KryssTal Reply: Aquarius is the name given to a part of the sky with faint stars that reminded the ancient Greeks of a water carrier.

The stars are a background. They are the scenery to tell us where we are in our orbit around the sun. The "beginning of the year"? The year is artificial, remember. The Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist years all start at different times. Don't forget that when it's spring in Tottenham, it's autumn in Buenos Aires.

It seems that stars are far less important in astrology than I'd thought.

KryssTal Reply: The patterns are artificial. The actual stars are all at different distances and have nothing to do with each other.

(Hey I know about redshift!)

(KryssTal Reply: Redshift has NOTHING to do with stellar distances. It is to do with stellar movements AWAY or TOWARDS the earth. Most stars are moving in space at several kilometers per second. However, they are so far away that even over thousands of years, the movement cannot be detected with the naked eye. With three exceptions ...)

I have been studying the subject for a year and was always drawn to it by the awesome sight of the stars, and now I find out that the stars were a convenient map rather than a source.

KryssTal Reply: The stars are interesting in their own right. Check out the essay on stardust on my web site.

(OK! That's you and me, from what I know - all matter in the universe is born of stars.)

(KryssTal Reply: Almost. The Hydrogen and Helium in the universe was present in the big bang. All the heavier elements (like iron, carbon, oxygen, uranium) were produced inside stars.)

Now the difference between the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs, that's another thing. I understand that the Tropical Zodiac is linked in to the Earth's seasons, so that for example the solstice (or is it an equinox?) that is coming up in a few days is tied into the Sun's ingress into the astrological sign of Cancer.

KryssTal Reply: It's the solstice on June 21st. It is linked to the angle the earth's axis faces in relation to the sun. That is what causes the seasons - nothing to do with the stars that happen to be behind the sun at the time!

2000 years ago the sun would have been in front of the stars that we call Cancer at the solstice. Hence the Tropic of Cancer. In fact at the solstice now the sun will be in Gemini. If a total eclipse of the sun were to occur on the solstice, the stars of Gemini would be visible "around" or "near" the sun.

(And wasn't the solstice a lovely day! I sit here gently glowing from all that sunshine.)

(KryssTal Reply: Delightful. Sunset in London was at 9:23, the latest it gets.)

So really the Sun is in Gemini. I can't believe that astrologers still use the names of constellations to identify where the planets are, when they are blatantly inaccurate now.

KryssTal Reply: If your learnt the constellations and observed the planets and then compared that with an astrological chart for the same day, you would see that the inaccuracy is a fact.

(Yeah I still.... am thinking about this.)

(KryssTal Reply: Would I lie to you?)

But in the Sidereal zodiac, it's my understanding that the planets are about 23 degrees behind the Tropical Zodiac because of the equinoctal precession.

KryssTal Reply: No, this is wrong! The 23 (and a half) degrees is the tilt of the earth's axis relative to the plane of the earths orbit around the sun (the zodiac). It is this tilt that causes the seasons. The tropic of cancer is 23 and a half degrees north of the equator while the tropic of capricorn (should be sagittarius) is 23 and a half degrees south of the equator. Also the polar circles are 23 and a half degrees from the poles.

In fact, Kryss, there is a 23 degree difference between the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiax - just happens to tie in closely with the Earth's tilt. But you not being an astrologer, well I couldn't expect you to know that!

KryssTal Reply: No, the figure is approximately:

(2000 years since the zodiac was named, 26000 years for a complete cycle of precession, 360 degrees for a complete cycle in the sky.)

This figure gets larger by 1 degree every 70 years. The earth's tilt is constant at 23 and a half degrees. Even if the two figures were identical it would only be a coincidence.

What I have sussed is that the Siderealists use basically the same zodiac as the Tropicalists, but the size of the signs in the sky are variable - for example Scorpio takes up about 9 degrees.

KryssTal Reply: The signs are astrological zones 30 degrees wide because that is how they have been defined (30 = 360 / 12). The constellations are variable in size for the same reason that countries are of variable area. It's the way they developed.

So the Siderealists use a particular star at the start of Aries (though I'm not sure which, as yet) and give all the signs 30 degrees, counting around from that star.

KryssTal Reply: Not a star! It is an imaginary point called The Vernal Equinox (or The First Point of Aries - a name that is as out of date as The Tropic of Cancer). This point is the position of the sun as seen from the centre of the earth at the time that the sun is directly over the equator and moving from south to north.

In 1998, the Vernal Equinox occurred on March 20th at 19:55 GMT. It varies slightly because our calendar is rounded out. Of course, this point is no longer in Aries, it now lies near the beginning of Pisces.

Six months later the sun is again over the equator but moving south (The Autumn Equinox).

So do the astronomers and the astrologers who use the Sidereal Zodiac agree as to the position of the planets?

KryssTal Reply: No - most astrologers wouldn't be able to point out a planet in the sky.

(Thanx for the most - I've seen Saturn's rings :) )

(They're lovely aren't they?)

Astrology is based on a number of assumptions that have been discreadited in the last 2000 or so years. It was formulated when the sky was thought to be a crystal sphere centered on the earth with the stars placed on this sphere. The stars and planets were thought to be gods in orbit around the earth which was thought to be the centre of the universe. The earth was made of four "elements" (earth, fire, air and water) while the heavens were made of a fifth "element", the aether. This was the basis on which astrology was formulated.

(Er well let's just agree to disagree on this one!)

(Check out Isaac Asimov's "Astronomy - From Flat Earth to Quasar" for a history of the human perception of our place in the universe.)

Now we know that the earth is one of nine planets in orbit around the sun which is itself an ordinary star no different to the other stars in the sky (except closer).

Again I think they do not, for I have seen - it may have been on your site - a remark noting that Tropical and Sidereal astrologers and astronomers would all place the planets differently. This confuses me, as I thought that the whole point of the Sidereal Zodiac was that it was linked to the motion of the stars.

KryssTal Reply: The siderial zodiac is linked to the motion of the earth, moon and planets as seen against the starry background.

Again, thanks for your time, I really appreciate that you replied. I'm going to spend some time investigating this to my own satisfaction, but if you could point me in the right direction with regard to the Sidereal Zodiac and the astronomers identification of planets' positions, thanks.

KryssTal Reply: Question and investigate everything - that's called the scientific method.

NB I just noticed, you are in Highbury? LOL I live in Tottenham!

KryssTal Reply: Not only do I live in Highbury but I'm also an Arsenal fan!

It's a justification of some of the more obvious criticisms re: "Astrology is a load of bollox". It's also very informative about this whole Sidereal / Tropical / Constellation debate. I actually think I know the difference now!

I have another ? for you. Is it possible to see satellites in orbit? I would have guessed that they would be far too small and not reflective enough. However over the past couple of weeks I have seen what I am assured are indeed artificial satellites. I thought most of them were geostationary? I suppose again your point of view makes a difference, if a satellite is stationary over say Athens it will appear to arc across the sky in London.

KryssTal Reply: Yes, but only near for a couple of hours after sunset or before sunrise. They look like stars but they move slowly across the sky. When they enter the earth's shadow, they vanish.

Many are reflective because of their solar panels.

A satellite that is geostationary is too far away to be visible. The closer a satellite is to the earth, the faster it moves. At the geostationary distance, the satellite takes 24 hours to orbit the earth, the same time as the earth rotates. Hence it appears to hang over one location. Many satellites are closer than this.

An article for your learned consideration. Drawn from

I've cut a little to make it a little shorter. This article was written in 1960. I've looked around for some stuff on the Solar Apex now - to see if current astronomy still places it at the same point - unsuccessfully so far. Is 19h 0m, plus or minus a tenth of an hour or 6 minutes (in arc, 1-1/2 degrees), 36 degrees north, plus or minus 1-1/2 degrees still an accurate value?

KryssTal Reply: So you're on to the solar apex now, eh? This is nothing to do with the earth, planets or zodiac. It's to do with the galaxy.

(The solar system is nothing to do with the galaxy?)

(My house is in London. It is part of the city. However, the angle it faces has nothing to do with the angle of the runways at Heathrow.)

The sun and its planets are like a house. Each room is a planet and we live all our lives in one room. A few probes and less people have visited a few of the other rooms in the house. The other houses (stars) are only visible from our windows. They form rows patterns but they are all at different distances from us. Some people beleive that a house across the street can influence our personality. The galaxy is like a city containing millions of houses.

(Home, sweet home. Nice imagery Kryss, you could be a poet.)

(I wish I was - I always have trouble with rhymes.)

The real galaxy is rotating. This means that the sun and all the other stars are actually in motion around the galactic centre. This centre is a long way from the sun. It takes the sun 225 million years to go round the centre of the galaxy.

(So the solar apex will change by one degree every 225,000,000 / 360 years??? So it will be at 0 degrees Capricorn for 625,000 years.)

(Yes. If we assume that the sun's velocity around the centre of the galaxy is constant. It is - almost!)

In historical times, it is very difficult to observe this motion. Modern techniques allow astronomers to locate the direction the sun appears to moving on the celestail sphere. This is the solar apex. The best position that I have found is

RA = 271 degrees (about 18 hours) (error 2 degrees) and Dec = 30 degrees north (error 1 degree).

This places the apex far from the zodiac in the constellation of Lyra (The Harp). A star map with coordinates would show this clearly.

OK I'm gonna check this out, as I still want to know whether what you have just quoted and what is listed in this article gel. That different systems are used makes this a bit of a pain in the (_!_), but there ya go.

(The systems do not matter. The sun's motion in the galaxy is approaching a point that is not in the same plane of the earth's orbit around the sun. That continues to be true whichever coordinate system is used.

Incidently, whereas the earth only has one corrdinate system (latitude and longitude), astronmers use four (Horizon: azimuth and altitude, Equatorial: declination and right ascension, Ecliptic: ecliptic longitude and latitude, Galactic: galactic longitude and latitude). All are used in differing circumstances. A description and their relationship can be found in "Essentials of Astronomy" by Lloyd Motz and Anneta Duveen.)

Indeed thus far I have scraped by with a very basic understanding of astronomy, I think I'm gonna have to rectify this soon.

(This is the most importnat point in your whole email, my friend. I would agree with this statement fully. The more you know about astronomy the better you will be able to sift through all the information that you need to make your mind up. Since astrology is supposed to be based on things in the sky, it makes all the sense in the world to know what is going on up there. Would you trust a Doctor who didn't know anatomy? Would you take medicine prepared by a Pharmasist who only beleived in four elements? Would you let a Quaker advise you on electronics? I think not. As I have said before, most (not all) astrologers would not be able to point out Jupiter if their lives depended on it.)

Particularly becuase of the commment you make below in relation to the fact that when "astrologized", the apex turns out to be 0 degrees Capricorn in longitude, but the er latitude? is different. Hence Lyra.

(Exactly. This "astrologised" is a play with numbers and relects nothing that is real. If you had the astronomical knowledge, you would see that clearly. Find out more - don't simply beleive - don't even beleive ME. Find out for yourself. The more knowlwdge you have, the more you can decide for yourself based on all the information.

This is rationalism.

I once read the very popular books by Von Danniken (Chariots of the Gods). I knew his astronomy was rubbish but I was impressed by his archiological arguments. After visiting Peru and studying the Nazca people (who drew the lines he writes about), I now know that his archiology was also rubbish. He makes statements that are not true. He relies on peoples' ignorance to sell his books. Good luck to him if he makes money. It is better for us to have the knowlwdge so that we can critically analyse a book like this.)

Though having said this I've seen some justification for the Zodiac extending from pole to pole.

(If is did it would be identical with the celestial sphere.)

For example if we use the oft quoted (by astrologers) 12 degrees either side of the ecliptic, Pluto often falls outside of the Zodiac. Pluto is out there - currently closer to the Sun than Neptune is!

(The ecliptic is the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun. This is a single great circle in the sky. It is inclined 23 and a half degrees to the earth's equator. It is fixed in space except for very slight movements over thousands of years. The paths of the other planets are very close to this plane but not exactly coincident with it. Mercury is inclined by 7 degrees to this plane, Venus (3), Mars (2), Jupiter (1), Saturn (2 and a half), Uranus (1), Neptune (2) and Pluto (17). This means that the planets travel around the sky NEAR the ecliptic but not actually on it. Hence the band on either side. Since the Moon's orbit is inclined 5 degrees to the ecliptic, the traditional width of the zodiac is 8 degrees as this covers all of the naked eye "planets".

There is some doubt whether Pluto should be considered a planet at all since it is quite small. Some astronomers consider it (and Charon) to be large asteroids. In fact most asteroids stay close to the ecliptic, mainly because Jupiter's gravity keeps them close to this plane.

Comets are also objects belonging to the solar system. However their orbits are very elliptical rather than nearly circular and they are inclined at very steep angles to the ecliptic. Comets usually stray outside the zodiac. The fact remains that all of the solar system's MAJOR bodies lie within a plane that is about 8 degrees wide. These are the observable facts. How does that lead to the idea that the zodiac should extend from pole to pole. The only reason I can see for extending it is to make this Capricorn idea work. That is working backwards: beginning with the answer you want and setting the question accoringly! )

The plane of the zodiac is the earth's orbit around the sun. The apex is the sun's motion through the galaxy. The galaxy is a flat disk with a plane inclided at approx 60 degrees to the earth's equator. This is the plane of the Milky Way. These three planes are all at different angles and are all unrelated. It is like having three skyscrapers in three cities: New York, Peking and Buenos Aires. All will be facing different directions in space because, for each one, UP is a different direction. There is no relation between their angles.

And what about that central bulge? Home to black holes and Hawking radiation, perhaps.

(You have a hunger for knowledge. I think that astronomy could keep you hooked for years. Take my advice and get into astronomy. Yes, there is a central bulge. I could write all day about stellar types, gas clouds, star clusters, neutron stars, variable stars, novae, black holes, x ray stars, gamma ray bursters, RR Lyrae stars, Cepheids, the Mass - Luminosty Law, Stefan's Law, Chandrasakar's Limit, Spiral Arms ... There is a whole universe waiting for you. )

In the roughly fifteen years since the search for the dynamic basis originally underlying the science of astrology, we have known that the framework was sidereal, that is astronomical and not geographical. During all this time, we have made remarkable progress toward an astrological reconstruction, thanks primarily to Cyril Fagan, but we have always been handicapped by a lack of something natural which we could point to as the mainspring of the zodiacal circuit. We latched merrily onto the Spica ultraviolet nebula, because its discovery by rocket astronomy gave the boundary of 0 degrees Libra a physical uniqueness in the sky.

KryssTal Reply: This is like looking for something natural for zero longitude. Humans have chosen Greenwich Observatory in London because that is where early time measurements were made and London was an important world city at the time. The zero point for longitude is arbitrary. Similarly for Right Ascenion (RA), the celestial sphere's equivalent of longitude. The Vernal Point was chosen for convenience because the Sun is an important celestial object (for some reason!!!)

Finally, something we astrologers and astronomers agree on!

KryssTal Reply: Watch cause and effect.

People once noticed that when the Moon was visible, plants died. People beleved that moonlight was harmful to plants. In fact it isn't. When the Moon is visible, the sky is clear. When the sky is clear, frost is more likely. It is the FROST that kills the plants not the moonlight.

The clear sky (cause) produces frost (effect) which kills plants and makes the Moon visible (effect). The dead plants and the Moon are both the EFFECTS of the clear sky. The Moon and the dead plants are not directly related. Much of astrology is based on this type of reasoning.

And now, finally, modern astronomy has been overhauling many of its own constants and come up with an astounding fact--that the position of the SOLAR APEX in the sky is several degrees of declination, and an hour of right ascension "off" of where the textbooks have placed it for almost a century! Scientists have not actually been "wrong" because for decades they have known that the true Apex was quite removed from the position being used, so they called it the "classical Apex," meaning that it was more traditional than actual. The classical Apex was located through study of the relative motions of stars near the neighborhood of the solar system in space. But the Galaxy contains more than a billion stars and the determination had been based only upon a few hundred near-by stars. Recently, the results of a new study of 18,000 telescopic stars were published, settling once and for all, within one and a half degrees on the celestial sphere, where this pivotal point really lies.

KryssTal Reply: In fact you get SLIGHTLY different values for the solar apex depending on the TYPE of star chosen. For star types read my Stardust essay. The measurements are difficult to make. The general area of the apex has not changed though. It is a long way from the zodiac but close to the Milky Way because the sun is moving in the galactic plane.

Surely it's best to use as many stars as possible in the calculation?

KryssTal Reply: Yes. However, not all stars are partaking in the gallactic rotation in the same way. Our sun, most nearby stars, clusters and nebulae are in almost cicular orbits along the gallactic plane. The bright star Arcturus is an example that isn't. It is in a highly inclined elliptical orbit around the galactic centre. A star cluster called M13 (in Hercules) also behaves like this. There are actually TWO separete populations of stars in our gallaxy differing in orbits, chemistry and age. The properties of the Gallaxy are very involved. Modern techniques use radio and infra red measuremenst that can "see" object not visible in light. There will always be a SMALL error because of these complexities.

The scholarly among our readers will appreciate the feelings we had when we "astrologized" this point and, wonder of wonders, its ecliptic longitude for the epoch 1950.0 fell at 24 degrees of the tropical sign Capricorn!

KryssTal Reply: This is like saying that New York has the same longitude as Lima therefore there is a relation between them.

That one sentence was worth setting off as a whole paragraph. Just think this over. THE MOST BASIC ASTRONOMICAL POINT IN THE ENTIRE HEAVENS...

KryssTal Reply: This is nonsense - there is nothing basic about the solar apex. You could have chosen the celestial equator, the eclipstic, the celestial poles, the ecliptic poles, the galactic plane, the galactic poles, the Vernal point, the solstice points, etc, etc. Any of these could have been labelled as the most BASIC ASTRONOMICAL point.

(If you look at this in astrological terms, the Sun is the most basic point. The Sun is what gives us life, hence it's the pivotal point.)

(I did not say the SUN. We were not discussing the sun - we were talking about the SOLAR APEX. For life on earth, of course the Sun is important. The solar apex however is irrelevant.

It is the angle of the ECLIPTIC (that causes the seasons), the length of the year and the fact that the earth's orbit is amost circular that are critical to life on earth. If the values of any of those three changed, life would be at least disrupted and, possibly, destroyed. If the solar apex was in a different place it would make no difference.)

..."JUST HAPPENS" TO HAVE 0 DEGREES SIDEREAL CAPRICORN AS ITS ECLIPTIC LONGITUDE.

KryssTal Reply: Above he says 24 degrees of Capricorn. Is it significant that New York "just happens" to have the same longitude as Lima?

The 24 degrees / 0 degrees thing is because the Tropical Zodiac is 24 degrees ahead of the Sidereal Zodiac.

(But in a previous email we calculated it as being about 27 degrees out. It is not exact and, anyway, it's all a play on numbers. The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun. It is also 400 times closer. Hence the two appear the same size and total eclipses are possible. This is only approximately true and will not always be true as the Moon draws further from the earth (another side effect of precession))

Arguably Capricorn is a siginificant point because it's a cardinal sign (there are 4 out of the 12 that share this characteristic - in the Tropicial Zodiac they are the solstice and equinox points), plus because I have read that in the ancient Babylonian/Egyptian Zodiac, Capricorn was what they used as the beginning of the Zodiac.

(The so called Tropical signs are equivalent to Persia and Carthay. The Siderial signs are equivalent to Iran and China. The former are ancient entities that have little bearing on the present. The latter are conventions used in the modern world but are not physical properties of the earth.)

At long last the sidereal zodiac has been provided with an incontrovertible fiducial that exists both mechanically and dynamically in the universe as the primum mobile of our galactic existence.

KryssTal Reply: Well it hasn't, the solar apex is in Lyra. The point happens to have the same "longitude" as a bit of Capricorn. But any point will have a longitude equal to a point on the zodiac. On the earth, a line of longitde goes (like Michael Palin) from pole to pole.

(As above, so below? This is about as basic a description of astrology as there is.)

(This is a play on words that is not worthy of your intelligence. It is an equivalent argument to falling off a 10 storey building and after falling past nine saying "well, I've fallen nine floors and it hasn't hurt me so why should one more matter". You must ensure cause and effect do not confuse you and you must ensure that the argument makes sense. Remember the Moon and the frost. I was once given the following argument by an astrologer.

The Moon causes tides (correct). Tides are a pull on the earth's waters (almost true but not quite right). The human brain is mainly water (corect). Therefor the Moon affects the brain.

This argument only sounds good if the listener does not fully understand how tides work. The fact is that the tidal force of the moon on the earth depends also on the width of the earth. Remember there are TWO tides per day. So it cannot be just that the moon is pulling the earth.

Again, knowledge allows one to sift through arguments and see the flaws in them.)

The word universe is wrong here. The solar apex is a solar phenomenon related to the galaxy. It has nothing to do with the rest of the universe outside the galaxy.

The solar apex assumes the sun is moving in a straight line. It is - during a short period like a few thousand years. In fact the position of the apex will change as the sun carries us around the galactic centre. On a roundabout, you only travel towards a point until you turn away from it.

Astrology relates to the life of humanity.

(This is an assumption. Where is you evidence for this statement.)

At an individual level the time it takes for the apex to change direction - to swing around the centre of the galaxy - is irrelevant.

(If so, then why make such a fuss about the solar apex.)

At a species level, I'd say it would signify a change in the group consciousness, but I'd be suprised if you would agree with that!

(This is speculation. Again, you would need to provide evidence for such a statement. Words come easy but proof is much harder.)

The solar apex is not a fundamental universal constant any more than the direction faced by the Kop at Anfield.

Depends on how much of a Liverpool fan you are!

The very structure and rotation of our Galaxy turns out to be the key to the zodiacal concept and in a very literal, physical sense.

KryssTal Reply: No - read a good astronomy book to clarify these ideas. It smacks of astrologers clutching at straws. Astrology is a religion - people have the right to beleive it. But making incorrect statements to prove it is unscientific.

What gives the Solar Apex this distinction? Why is it so important? For the benefit of students and readers not quite hip to astronomy, we'll try to demonstrate the answers.

Figure 3 [OMITTED]: The Earth's orbit through space is a corkscrew motion.

We are so accustomed to visualizing the Earth's orbit around the Sun as a flat ellipse on paper that we often forget that the path of our planet through space is in reality a kind of gigantic corkscrew. Figure 3 makes this easy to understand, illustrating the fact that in the year's time it takes the Earth to move around the Sun once (roughly Pi times 2 times 93 million miles, or 584 million miles per revolution), the Sun itself has forged on through space, revolving around the center of our galaxy a distance of 375 million miles, which means that every day we are 375 million miles away from where we were just one year ago even though we are again in the very same degree of longitude, and likewise the Sun, that we occupied 365 1/4 days back. We spiral through space to keep pace with the Sun. And the direction the Sun is moving is called the Solar Apex. The opposite point on the celestial sphere, away from which we are moving, is called the Antapex.

How this direction is ascertained is apple-pie easy, theoretically, for it is a simple matter of watching other objects apparently move in relationship to our own motion. The difficulty, in actual practice, of locating the Apex exactly was because stars are all at varying distances and the rate of their shift against the background of each other is a matter of distance. When you drive your car down the highway the near-by telephone poles, billboards and buildings zip by fast while structures a block away on either side seem to pass more slowly, while distant hills barely budge. Yet all these things are moving relative to your car.

In the old days when astronomers did not have the equipment blessing their efforts nowadays, they made their estimates of the position of the Apex only from telephone poles, as it were. With all the technological advances of recent years they were able to tackle the Apex problem more accurately -- using the country-side as a whole. Old astronomy books, therefore, place the "Standard Apex of the Sun's Way" at right ascension 18h 0m, north declination 30d. Medium old books list it at 18h 04m and variously 30d, 31d or 34d north declination. It was Benjamine Boss of star-catalog fame who pushed it several degrees north of its classical declination. Then, as now, the coordinates of the Apex remain in round numbers, as degrees, because the specific point is actually indeterminate.

Through the massive research of Professors A. N. Vyssotsky and Peter van de Kamp, the radically changed position turns out to be 19h 0m, plus or minus a tenth of an hour or 6 minutes (in arc, 1-1/2 degrees), 36 degrees north, plus or minus 1-1/2 degrees. As you can see, there is still a margin for error because the precise point is undetectable for geometrical reasons. (Most stellar shifts in a year's time amount to mere thousandths of a second of arc, and these microscopic streaks are projected, from all parts of the sky, to their general juncture in the Apex region. Naturally, working with such tiny values is maddening and only a "statistical" value, based upon averages, is achievable.)

KryssTal Reply: All scientific mesaurements require a statistical error calculation to be made. No scientist ever says something is x units. Rather they would say it is x units with an error of y.

Figure 4 [OMITTED]: The stars en masse appear to diverge away from the Apex and converge toward the Antapex.

The practical effect of solar movement toward the Apex is shown in figure 4, and we have taken the liberty of entering the sidereal zodiac's lines marking 0d Cancer and Capricorn to dramatize the fact that the principal motion of the solar system is geared to the true zodiac, after all. The stars' shifts are exaggerated for graphic purposes, of course, but you can see that as the Sun and its family of planets move through space toward the Apex, the stars appear to be shooting away from the point we are headed for. Similarly, the stars all over the sky appear to verge toward the Antapex. In a circle 90 degrees from these axial points, the shifts are longest, which is why it is easiest to measure these arcs that are farthest from the points of Apex and Antapex where the stars seem hardly to move at all (the old railroad-track illusion, caused by perspective and distance).

Figure 5 [OMITTED]: The Cygnus-Lyra Region of the sky showing how the longitude of the SOLAR APEX coincides with 0 Capricorn of the sidereal zodiac.

KryssTal Reply: And New York has the same longitude as Lima. Therefore New Yorkers are really Incas ...

The last figure, 5, is a star map for the Apex region of the sky occupied by the familiar constellations Lyra and Cygnus and the bright stars Vega, Deneb and Albireo. The circled area is the established place of the Apex with its possible margin for error (1-1/2 degrees). Naturally, as with anything celestial, the coordinates of the Apex are subject to precessional change, which means the point is "fixed" to all intents and purposes among the stars.

KryssTal Reply: It is fixed to the stars in our historical epoch. Its coordinates change because our coordinate system is based on a zero of the Vernal Point which is presessing.

Across the diagram we have drawn the line of 0 degrees Capricorn in the sidereal zodiac. Measurement shows this line to pierce the Apex circle and cross the Vyssotsky center within less than a degree!

KryssTal Reply: What if a better value comes along? Astrologers will continue to use the one that suits them - very unscientific!!!

This can hardly be a "coincidence."

KryssTal Reply: Coincidences do occur. Hong Kong has the same latitude as Havanna and both begin with the letter H. Anatolia means EAST in Greek; Austria means EASTERN EMPIRE in German; TIMOR means EAST in Indonesian (so East Timor is actually EAST EAST !!!). The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has the same name as Australia's "Northern Territory". Bolivia and Saudi Arabia are both named after soldiers.

The figures are not exact anyway but even if they were - it would be a coincidence.

Astrology finally has something literally cosmic to go on now for we have found the long-sought "missing link" that puts the true zodiac on physical footing.

KryssTal Reply: This is not a proof that astrology works any more that the fact that New York has the same longitude as Lima proves that New Yorkers are descended from the Incas. This is clutching at straws.

For the benefit of serious students we have computed the exact 1950.0 right ascensions of the line of 0d00'00" Capricorn for every degree of declination within 4 degrees of Vyssotsky's declination of the Apex, as follows:

Assuming that the Apex is precisely at 36d north declination (which it cannot possibly be for obvious reasons, even if precession were not a fact), the difference of 221.162 seconds in right ascension equates to an actual great-circle arc of 0d32'29".34, hardly more than half a degree! This finding surely represents the most startling development on the astrological scene in years.

KryssTal Reply: It's playing with numbers.

When Cyril Fagan dug up the Spica fiducial, then improved it via discovering the rationale of the exaltation degrees, followed by revelation of further improvement that led to coinage of the term synetic longitude, we had nothing more to go on than that the "thing" worked and made sense out of the hodge podge of astrological lore.

KryssTal Reply: I am not familiar with SYNETIC LONGITUDE.

And again we face the apparent enigma of ancient adeptness: How did astrology's founders, without real instrumentation that we know of, discern the true skeleton of zodiacal organization in the sky, when even modern scientists had to await the middle of the twentieth century before they were able to pinpoint the Apex? The answer, quite automatically, is that astrology was founded upon observation of astrological effects and our forebears discovered the coordinates of the zodiac in much the same manner we tracked down the synetic vernal point, to wit, through study of actual observed effects. Take careful note of the fact that the bulk of the opposition to sidereal astrology nowadays comes from people who do not, because they will not, and are provocatively frank in not wanting to, study actual cases. They prefer to believe, and oppose.

KryssTal Reply: Dodgy assumption formulated with incomplete information and incorrect facts to prove something already beleived in. Whatever this is, it is not scientific.

Interesting, huh. Now I'm thinking about why 0 degs Cappie, not Aries? Aries is a more obvious, this is the beginning of the year...

KryssTal Reply: It was in a past epoch but not now.

...as it's the beginning of Spring, of the rush of nature and life.

KryssTal Reply: This is a person who thinks that the Norhtern Hemisphere is all there is to the world.

Yet I catch myself still thinking in Tropical terms. In the Tropical Zodiac, Capricorn marks...

KryssTal Reply: marked

(still does in the Tropical Zodiac - the Sun's ingress into the Tropical Zodiacal sign of Capricorn is the time of the winter equinox.)

...the winter equinox, if memory serves. This whole Tropical thing can be traced to Ptolemy. I've got the Tetrabiblos at home, he was the first to really codify astrology, the guy had access to the libraries of Alexandria...... lucky man.

KryssTal Reply: The books from this library were destroyed by early Christians who beleved that since they had the Bible all other books were useless.

(Great to have an open mind, isn't it.)

(Yes, it is. People have been trying to convince me about astrology for over 25 years now. I still listen and debate.)

However, I wonder if he didn't corrupt as well as teach. 90% of astrologers (this stat is from an Eastern astrology page so there may be a degree of bias here!) use the sidereal zodiac. We Westerners with our Greek heritage are the only ones to use an Earth-centered, rather than star-centered, zodiac.

KryssTal Reply: This is the precession difference again.

Now if I were a sceptic (I am), I'd say there is a 1 in 30 chance of the apex hitting 0 degrees of a sign.

KryssTal Reply: There are so many "points of significance" on the celestial sphere that it would be more surprising if there was NO coincident numbers. Just like on earth, there are so many big cites that some of them will have identical latitudes or longitudes.

Small but this could just be a coincidence. So this is what I'm now going to look into. Is there any justification for using 0 degrees Capricorn as the beginning of the Zodiac, rather than 0 degrees Aries.

KryssTal Reply: The same justification as moving the Greenwich meridian to New York - it's all convention.

Is the latter down to Ptolemy's slight reorganisation? Have the Tropical astrologers been labouring under a misconception for 2,000 years?

KryssTal Reply: If astronomy had developed FOUR thousand years ago instead of TWO we would be talking of the First Point of Taurus, and the Tropics of Leo and Aquarius.

(Well there is evidence that astrology developed long before the Zodiac. The first records we have are from the Megalithic era - Stonehenge and all. You could aruge that these sort of monuments are astronomical rather than astrological, but I think if you put that argument to someone of that period, he'd look at you blankly and assert that there was no difference. It's only recently we have become so unable to see knowledge as a whole rather than a series of parts.)

(I did say earlier that the two started together. The reason that they are separate now is not because we cannot "see knowledge as a whole". It is because astronomy is based on the scientific method of observation, deduction and experiment.

Astrology is not. All experiments performed on astrology are inconclusive at best, and disprove it at worst. Astronomy is a science that can make verifyable predictions. Just wait till you see how accurate the eclipse predictions will be next year. Astrology's predictions are hit and miss. In fact you get the same results as chance.)

To use the Solar Apex as the Fiducial Point makes a lot of sense.

KryssTal Reply: Does it?

After all, astrology says that the Sun is the most important planet in any chart...

KryssTal Reply: KryssTal Reply: the sun is a star - the earth is a planet.

(Yes of course, neither is the Moon a planet, but if you look to the derivation of the word "planet" it means wandering star. Astrologers are aware that 2 of our 10 planets are not in fact planets (do you include Chiron as a planet?), but it's a convention. We could say 10 bodies that exist in our solar system, but it doesn't really roll off the tongue.)

(OK when we discuss astrology I'll refer to the sun and moon as plantes. I wanted to be sure you understood the difference.)

...and to use the Sun's direction...

KryssTal Reply: The sun's current motion at this epoch - not "direction"

(Now this is getting interesting. What do you mean by the difference between direction and motion? It's motion is in a particular direction, surely? And if I have understood some of what you have said above correctly, the direction changes over time anyway. So the solar apex which is now somewhere in Lyra, and will in a few hundred thousand years be elsewhere.)

(The sun's direction (as seen from the earth) is Gemini (in June). The sun's motion is towards Lyra for the next few thousand years.)

...through the galaxy as the point from which to start the Zodiac, is more sensible than using a precessing Vernal Point or a particular star - indeed I can't think a more reasonable basis.

KryssTal Reply: It would make calendars silly. The Vernal Point is important because people grow food dependent on the seasons (summer / winter, dry / wet). These seasons depend on the sun and its apparent path in the sky. This is why the zodiac was created. Having a siderial calendar would mean that the seasons would drift back through the months. Some cultures use a Lunar Calendar. This means that all their seasons and hoilidays occur on different dates each year (Jewish, Muslim, The Christian Easter).

(Yes I agree, but I wasn't talking about calendars, I was talking about the Zodiac. Using a Tropical system is the best calendar system we have yet come up with, but it appears (I'm still not convinced but I'm getting that way) that the Sidereal Zodiac is the real one.)

(The Siderial zodiac is a convention. But if I look for Jupiter tonight I would look for it amongst the stars that are collectively known as Aquarius. Actually, Jupiter is brighter than any of the stars in that part of the sky, but you get the idea. I don't know (or care) which astrological sign it is in.

By the way, this year Saturn passes into Cetus (The Whale) from mid July to mid September when it passes into Pisces. This is what is actually happening in the sky. I don't know what astrologers are saying about Saturn.)

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

KryssTal Reply: I was interetsed in writing them.

( :) fun this huh)

(Yes.)

It's great to have such a sceptic to come back at me and say, it's all full of shit! It makes me think through the details.

KryssTal Reply: Debate, argument, discussion - this is how scientific knowlwdge grows.

The only arbiter of what is "true" is not a person's standing or what we would like to be true but what nature says. All ideas have to be tested against nature to see if they make sense. It's healthy to be sceptic and sift the evidence to see if it proves or disproves the assertion made.

This artical begins with an idea that the writer accepts and wishes to be true. He then accepts only that evidence that agrees with the idea and ignors or rubbishes evidence that opposes it. Using this method it is possibe to prove ANYTHING. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa found a passage in the Bible that allowed them to justify apartaide. They ignored other passeges that talked of universal brotherhood.

Try to get a copy of "Why People Beleive Weird Things" by Michael Shermer.

It's a little American orientated but it covers these ideas better than I can.

In the past there was no difference between astrology and astronomy. The two grew up together in a world of spirits, gods, ghosts and mystisism. Some ancient ideas were remarkably accurate. Others were totally wrong. Many examples abound.

Aristotle:

Dolphins are mammals (correct);
The earth is the centre of the solar system (incorrect);
Objects of different weight fall to the ground at different speeds (incorrect);
The brain is an organ for cooling the blood (partially correct);
The heart is the centre of emotion (incorrect);
Matter is made of four elemnts (incorrect)

Pythagoras:

The properties of right angled triangle (correct);
The square root of 2 could not be written as a fraction (correct)
There are only five planets because there are only five regular geometric solids (incorrect)

You cannot quote Aristotle's name to decide if an idea is correct or not - you must observe nature. You cannot use the fact that something was beleived by the ancents to verify an idea. You cannot say that something is correct because lots of people beleive it. For most of history people beleived the earth was flat! Only by observing nature can an idea be verified or not.

Newton discovered the laws of gravity (correct) and also wrote books about angels (?). You cannot say that angels exist because a genius like Newton beleived in them. You cannot say the laws of gravity are correct because Newton says so. The laws of gravity are verified by observing objects travelling under the force of gravity and seeing if their paths are the ones predicted by these laws. There is no other way.

Eistein's reletivity theory is considered one of the greatest achievements of human thought - but he did not accept quantum mechanics, the other pillar of 20th centure science. You cannot say whether quantum mechanics is true by quoting Einsten's dislike of it. Only nature can answer the question is this theory correct.

Thanks for your time. Been good chatting.

Also, what time are you using (GMT, EST, Egyptian Time)? Our sky meridian? Each spot on the Earth has its own local sky meridian. Sirius will cross that Meridian once every Siderial Day for each point on the surface of the Earth. A Siderial Day is 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. Of course, Sirius will not always be visible when it crosses the meridian as it may do so during daylight hours. Obviously at some point between 31 December 1999 and 1 January 2000, Sirius will be on the local meridian of a series of points along a line of longitude on the Earth. But what time are you using for the "New Year"? Local Time, GMT, your local time? It's all very artificial.

Please see ... http://farshores.topcities.com/farshores/skymat_1.htm

With regard to the galactic center point, and to the Solar Apex point, I have found the following precise coordinates .. as of January 1, 2000, based on that particular database mentioned above .. and_refined_to .. show how the amazingly-accurate correlations work !!

It needs to be realized .. that this is a work-in-progress based totally on_empirical_scientific evidence !! (As hard as it may be, to accept these astounding findings).

KryssTal Reply: Scientific or any other kind of findings need to be scrutinised.

Indeed, in my opinion, this has amounted to a revolutionary discovery .. or .. "re-discovery".

KryssTal Reply: I'm sorry but I don't appear to understand what has been discovered.

Concerning the galactic center-point ... here are my figures, (Morton, 2001, Internet) for its Jan.1, 2000 location ..

Grid LAT 05 (deg) X 40 (min) X 18 (sec) South .. = 3600 South (of ecliptic).
Grid LONG 179 (deg) X 17 (min) X 42.0342008 (sec) W.ALNITAK .. = 127910.073 W.ALNITAK.
Grid POINT Value .. 127910.073 / 3600 = 35.53057584

For the Solar apex-point ... my figures for its Jan.1, 2000 location, (Morton, 2001, Internet) ..

Grid LAT 53 (deg) X 26 (min) X 27.00111177 (sec) North .. = 37207.53202 North (of ecliptic).
Grid LONG 173 (deg) X 13 (min) X 47.02552383 (sec) W.ALNITAK .. = 105760.4031 W.ALNITAK.
Grid POINT Value .. 105760.4031 / 37207.53202 = 2.842446068

Notice .... 35.53057584 / 2.842446068 = 12.5 = 100 / 8.

Esoterically, the number "8" is associated with infinity and eternity .. and also with "kingship" and "enlightenment".

KryssTal Reply: You've lost me now.

As I said ... this is a massive "matrix" .. but very precise, and very specific. It seems incredible .. but the empirical evidence has been consistent .. very consistent. I have noticed, for example, that the "Grid LAT" of the solar apex-point is an identical_numerical_match .. of .. the "matrix-format" expression of .. the actual base slope angle of The Great Pyramid of Giza !!

KryssTal Reply: You have defined an artificial coordinate system to produce this.

(Munck, 1992, self-published; "The Code, Volume A") .. a research colleague .. found the exact base slope angle of The Great Pyramid of Giza, to have a tangent of .. (4 / Pi) .. 1.273239545

51.853974 deg ...

Or .. in the "matrix-format" expression ... 51 (deg) X 51 (min) X 14.30508728 (sec) .. = 37202.53202 .. identical to the Grid LAT of Jan.1, 2000 solar-apex. What is at the top of the slope angle of a pyramid?

Of course .. its "Apex" !!

KryssTal Reply: Another cultural effect - you are using a pun in English, one of the world's languages. Surely the pyramid needs to be described in Ancient Egyptian or Modern Egyptian (known as Arabic). :)

That is merely one example .. out of many, many seemingly-incredible numerical, mathematical correlations .. involved in this work-in-progress. but .. as I keep emphasizing .. the_data_found has been consistent .. and consistently amazing. It is_actually_self-evident .. as of Jan.1, 2000.

Of course .. as you will hopefully see .. if you go to my website material .. one of the keys was Munck's discovery of the "multiplied-product" encoding of the_numbers_of degrees, minutes, and seconds .. into a Grid LAT and a Grid LONG. The ratio of the 2 then showing the Grid POINT Value.

Michael Lawrence Morton

KryssTal Reply: You have obviously had fun playing with numbers but I fail to see anything significant here. Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope my comments do not offend.

Your comments are typical .. very typical .. of the comments of most people, at this time, regarding this work .. unfortunately.

KryssTal Reply: My comments were requested by you when you emailed me.

The reference to "Apex" is_not_a "pun", sir. It is .. *real* .. a real, and significant, reference ... to this work I'm doing. And I'm showing .. my work is showing .. this "matrix" is showing ...sir ... that "prime meridian location"_does_matter .. it is_not_arbitrary!! Yes .. that's contrary to your acceptance of old information. Well .. this is_new_information .. and it is self-evidently true.

KryssTal Reply: All ideas must be subject to scrutiny. If they are strong they will survive that scrutiny and become stronger. If an idea is so fragile that it cannot survive scrutiny then it must be suspect. You seem to have taken my comments on a personal level. I am only imparting information.

The earth has a coordinate system that is used for locating points. This coordinate system was invented by humans so that navigation calculations can be made in a simple manner. This system is composed of two coordinate parameters.

The first parameter is Latitude which is zeroed on the equator. The equator is a line around the earth between the two poles. The poles are real points because the earth's axis of rotation passes through them. The equator is thus a natural line around the earth. the world's climatic regions are clustered around this line. The Tropics are 23 and half degrees north and south of the equator. many of the world's deserts are gathered around the lines of the tropics. 23 and a half degrees from each pole are the polar lines within which you will get the midnight sun at certain times of the year.

The second parameter is Longitude. Lines of Longitude are at right angles to the equator. But unlike longitude, there is no natural place to put the zero meridian. This is simply a mathematical property of sphere. If I could change it to make you happy I would but I can't. Because a zero was needed, London was chosen. Well, actually, the London suburb of Greenwich. The zero of Longitude passes through Greenwich. There reason for this is because at the time, the Greenwich observatory was the world's leading observatory for stellar map making. Stellar maps could be used to help navigating on the earth. Paris vied with London for the zero meridian but London got the nod from the international community. Any zero could have been chosen as long as people agreed with it. The earth itself has none of these Longitude lines on its surface, they are merely a map makers' convenience.

You need to get 'up to speed' .. really !! In case it hasn't "hit you", yet, sir ... we are finding out that_someone_way, way back .. many thousands of years ago .. had much more knowledge ..and much more_advanced_knowledge ... than we do today !!!!!!! (-;

KryssTal Reply: This is an assumption on your part. Human knowledge has been growing exponentially in recent times. The ancients were not a stupid as many people assume but the growth of ideas only began taking off when data was studied systematically. This process (called science) is only a few hundred years old.

www.krysstal.com/astrhist.html

The evidence is now apparent for this !!!

KryssTal Reply: Your evidence appears to consist of playing with coordinate systems until the figures fit.

By the way ... the reason I used the phrase, "our" ecliptic ?? I used that because "our" ecliptic is_not_the only ecliptic in this galaxy. There are many planets .. some having already been actually 'discovered and publicly announced' .. orbiting many other "suns" in our galaxy. So .. "our" ecliptic is NOT the "only ecliptic" in our 'perspective', anymore, sir.

KryssTal Reply: Any planet that orbits any star will have a path or orbit. Any satellite (natural or artificial) that goes around any planet will also have an orbit. The Earth's orbit around the Sun is called the ECLIPTIC. The ecliptic is the proper name given to just one orbit: the Earth's around the Sun. Therefore there is only one ecliptic; whatsmore it is our ecliptic. It's like mountains: there are many of them. One is called Everest. Everest is not a generic name for mountains, it is the name of one individual mountain. No Nepalese would refer to it as "our Everest" or talk about other Everests in other countries. Well actually, they would refer to it as SAGARMATHA. The Tibetans would call it CHOMOLUNGA. But I digress....

www.krysstal.com/language.html

Michael Morton Reply: This is pathetic !! Gimmie a break !! In this distorted "logic" and twisted semantics of yours .. I shouldn't refer to the equator of Mars as its "equator" !!?? You seem to delight in playing semantical games, with an air of condescension added, as a smokescreen to hide your stupidity.

KryssTal Reply: Mars has an equator (which you are quite correct is called Mars' equator) and it has an orbit around the Sun. But its orbit is not called the ecliptic; that name is reserved for the Earth's orbit around the Sun. This is not semantics; it is the definition of the word, ecliptic. Why are you so angry with me for giving you the correct definition of the ecliptic?

And .... ALNITAK as "our" celestial prime meridian "marker" .. is_NOT_arbitrary. It was designed this way .. by ancestors of "ours". Yes .. designed and planned .. by "intelligent beings" .. very similar to us.

KryssTal Reply: This is a little surreal. As I said, with any coordinate system based on a sphere, there is no natural zero for longitude or its equivalent. And who is "our", you make it sound like a sect. Knowledge is either verifiable or not.

We are only beginning to discover our true roots, sir.
We are only beginning to discover our true ancient heritage.

Our prime meridian through The Great Pyramid is_not_"arbitrary".

KryssTal Reply: It is.

And neither is the one at Greenwich.

KryssTal Reply: So is this.

And neither is the one through 'The D&M Pyramid' at Cydonia on Mars. No .. not arbitrary ... far, far from it.

KryssTal Reply: Astronomers have defined coordinate systems for all planetary and satellite objects. In all cases, the zero latitude is easy: it lies between the poles. All objects rotate on an axis so there is always an equator and poles (latitude). However, the zeros for longitude are always chosen by convention. For Mars, it is a prominent feature. For Jupiter it is more difficult as the surface is gaseous and so not permanent. Venus had to await radar mapping to see under its dense white clouds. Incidentally, look for Venus after sunset during March. www.krysstal.com/sky.html

Have a look at my website material, sir. Are you afraid to look at it ?

KryssTal Reply: I did.

PS From London, Sirius crossed the local meridian on 01/01/2000 at 12:05:30. Since the Earth rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours, it rotates 15 degrees in one hour. In 5 minutes 30 seconds the Earth would have rotated 1.375 degrees. Since the Earth rotates from West to East, Sirius would have been on the local meridian of all places on Longitude 1.375 degrees East (of Greenwich) at exactly midnight GMT at the beginning of the year 2000 (Western calendar). This line covers the UK, France, Spain, Algeria, Mali, Burkina Fasso, Togo and Ghana. The closest it comes to Egypt and the Pyramids of Giza is over 2000 miles.

Michael Morton Reply: I KNOW the party-line dogma, man !! You write to me as though you assume I'm very "un-educated" .. when you have no justification for that assumption nor any justification for your disgusting condescension. (Yes, I read the next paragraphs, in which you go through an elementary, long-winded "explanation" of latitude and longitude_as if_I have no idea what the terms mean .. ??!! .. Where is your head at, anyway ??!).

KryssTal Reply: You asked me for my comments and I gave them. I didn't approach you first, remember. I have not attacked you personally. You obviously thought I had some astronomical knowledge when you wrote but you haven't liked what I have responded with. The paragraph is basically a definition of the scientific method. My web site uses the scientific method. If you do not wish to use this method in our discussions, then you need to go elsewhere. And I don't mean that as an insult.

This point is critical because a spinning sphere has an axis of rotation and a line that bisects that axis but it has no other point of reference. This point is key to the whole discussion: that is why I laboured it. After all we were discussing longitudes.

Why don't you try reading/studying some of my work .. *before* assuming that your own "scrutinizing process" has not failed to take certain important, significant information and/or parameters_into account_before labeling the work as "fragile" or "suspect" ?

KryssTal Reply: I did read your page. I would not comment on something I hadn't read.

On a personal level .. yeah ... I care a lot about this work I'm doing ...I care a hell of a lot. I've put thousands and thousands of hours into this concentrated effort .. over a 10-year period. So it's hard for me to be the "stoical, aloof, party-line type" of 'researcher' that you seem to "respect".

KryssTal Reply: Yes, but an idea's veracity is not dependent on how much time is put into it. It depends on evidence. You must be aloof to evaluate data properly and impartially. This again is the scientific method.

You need to get 'up to speed' .. really !! In case it hasn't "hit you", yet, sir ... we are finding out that_someone_way, way back .. many thousands of years ago .. had much more knowledge .. and much more_advanced_knowledge ... than we do today !!!!!!! (-; And I hope you get your 'mind blown' from here to eternity.

KryssTal Reply: I'm sorry but there is no evidence for this. Scepticism is an essential part of science. Without it, science does not work. You need to hear all comments about your ideas and then devise ways of proving the sceptic wrong. Shouting and swearing at a sceptic is not part of science. You do your case and you work a disservice by this kind of attack.