Zodiac Changes

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 10:27 AM

I like how you changed your post several times while I was replying, I made sure to give you a few minutes to get all your edits in...

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

You argue a moon cycle is 29.5 days, so how does the gregorian calendar make sense then?

Our calendar is based on the Earth's revolution around the Sun, which unfortunately is unrelated to the Moon's revolution around the Earth. It is thus impossible to reconcile both into a single calendar as the Moon won't cycle an even number of times in a year.

On top of that, it is 27.5 days according to pretty much all other systems.

Lets go over these calendars one by one:

The synodic month is the time it takes for the Moon to return to return to its initial position relative to the Sun. Since our orbit is circular, the Moon has to go a little bit "further" each time, hence the longer, 29.5 day period. This is the cycle that is responsible for the Moon's phases and is directly visible to anyone on the Earth just by looking up at the Moon.

The draconic month is the time it takes for the Moon to return to a point where it crosses the Earth's orbital path around the Sun, called a node (~27.2 days). This is not something that you can determine just by looking up, you need some pretty advanced math or a computer.

The tropical month is the time it takes the Moon to return to the same ecliptic longitude which is measured from the equinox (~27.3 days). If this doesn't make any sense to you... well it doesn't make sense to most people. It's an astronomy term that nobody ever uses.

The anomalistic month is the time it takes the Moon to return from an extreme point in its orbit (perigee or apogee, closest or furthest approach to the Earth). These extreme points shift with precession. The apparent size of the Moon changes during this cycle (~27.6 days) so it useful for predicting the qualities of an eclipse, but that's pretty much it.

The sidereal month is the only other kind of month that makes any sense to the layman. It is the time it takes the Moon to return to a position relative to the celestial sphere or background stars (~27.3 days). Some cultures in Asia used this as the basis of their month, but since the sidereal month doesn't follow the Moon's phases, the synodic month (~29.5 days) was much more popular in ancient history and today.

So using 28 days make more sense. 13x28 is 364, you only need to add one more day, whereas the gregorian calendar is a total mess.

So adding days in a 13 month year is fine but it's a chore in a 12 month year? What about leap years, did you account for that? CAN YOU HANDLE ADDING MORE DAYS??? What really is a mess is trying to divide a 13 month year into... anything. Like I said, 3 months to a season, 6 months to a half-year, these make sense. 12 is a very mathematically friendly number, 13 is not.

What you are doing is defending an artificial installation which true purpose is to surpress the masses by hiding the fact that we are in synchronization with nature

The 12 month calendar has been around for over 2500 years, get over it. The Gregorian calendar was invented to account for the fact that the Julian calendar wasn't accurate enough with its leap years and that we were losing days (the seasons stopped matching the calendar).

to hide the fact that even womans menstruation cycles of 28 days are in synchronization with nature.

Ask any woman, their menstrual cycle is faaaaar from a constant 28 days.

It is to hide the inherent mathematical logic of the natural cycles on which the native religons were based, both in Europe and in America. That is the true idea behind the gregorian/julian calender introduced by our roman oppressors.

The Julian calendar replaced the 12-month Old Roman calendar and added a new system of leap years. The Gregorian calendar replaced the Julian calendar to improve the accuracy of leap years. It was also created by a pope in the 1500s more than 1000 years after the Roman Empire crumbled. It also wasn't immediately accepted. Britain didn't start using the calendar until almost 200 years later and Russian only started using it in 1918. Your knowledge of history sucks.

How do you explain the number 13 then Spartiate? I'm still waiting for your explanation.

It's a number, comes after 12 and before 14. How do you explain a triangle?

Up until you have completely ignored this point of the 13th zodiac sign, which is pretty much what this topic is about.

First of all, you haven't talked about the 13th zodiac sign at all up until now.

Second of all, I made a post about it on the previous page.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

To be fair, each sign of the zodiac is a constellation that lies on the ecliptic (the imaginary line that the sun/planets follow across the sky). The dates of each zodiac sign are when the sun lies within the boundaries of each constellation. I think Ophiuchus wasn't used because it doesn't have any particularly bright/notable stars.

What of it?

Anyway I'm talking about historical and mathematical facts here

Which you are both not very good at.

I still fail to see how you can argue with this.

My grasp of history and mathematics is better than yours.

EDIT: You seem to have edited your post again since I started this one, oh well...

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 10:34 AM

No, my grasp of history and mathematics is obviously better than yours as you had no clue about the 13 moon calendar system which was used by native relgions both in Europe and America and as you deny the inherent mathematical logic behind this system. There is nothing left to discuss about that and you again ignored the whole point of the discussion, the origin of the number 13. Why is there a 13th zodiac sign?

Also, my dick is bigger than yours.

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

No, my grasp of history and mathematics is obviously better than yours as you had no clue about the 13 moon calendar system which was used by native relgions both in Europe and America and as you deny the inherent mathematical logic behind this system. There is nothing left to discuss about that and you again ignored the whole point of the discussion, the origin of the number 13. Why is there a 13th zodiac sign?

I addressed all of this in my above post which you probably didn't read like everything else on this forum.

Also, my dick is bigger than yours.

source

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 10:41 AM

Your answer to the origin of the number 13 was "how do you explain a triangle"?

I could as well argue against a wall. The only difference is that a wall doesn't deny historical and mathematical facts.

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 01-20-2011 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The Celts were insignificant barbarians that were completely annihilated by the Romans, from which Western culture is based. Who gives a shit about what some tribe living in mud huts used millennia ago, their culture is dead today. As I have said, the Romans used a calendar of 10, then 12 months.

Whoa, I'm a Celt here. The Celts think that the Romans are barbarians, getting drunk and having orgies then tossing their babies in the garbage and repressing women. Meanwhile the Celts were living in nice sustainable villages and women were equal to men and there were even women chiefs. The whole village raised the children and they were not abandoned. It wasn't until the Romans decided they wanted the Celt's gold did they wipe them out.

King Arthur is a good celtic legend about the celts standing up to the Romans.

Anyway, no calendar is perfect. Both 12 and 13 months have their advantages and disadvantages. Chayba, I have been trying to get everyone to start having an 8 day week. We get a longer weekend. But nobody listens, so I let it go.

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 10:46 AM

Are you drunk? What the hell kind of question is "what is the origin of the number 13"??? Honestly what do you expect me to answer, or rather what is the answer you are looking for?

13 (thirteen) is the natural number after 12 and before 14. It is the smallest number with eight letters in its name spelled out in English. It is also the first of the teens – the numbers 13 through 19 – the ages of teenagers.

Happy??

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 10:46 AM

I'm not trying to change the system Dannon, I'm arguing about the origin of the number 13. Where does the 13th zodiac sign come from? Why not 12?

Spartiate did you even read the topic title? Do you even understand the subject of the topic? Its about zodiac changing from 12 into 13 signs.

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Whoa, I'm a Celt here. The Celts think that the Romans are barbarians, getting drunk and having orgies then tossing their babies in the garbage and repressing women. Meanwhile the Celts were living in nice sustainable villages and women were equal to men and there were even women chiefs. The whole village raised the children and they were not abandoned. It wasn't until the Romans decided they wanted the Celt's gold did they wipe them out.

King Arthur is a good celtic legend about the celts standing up to the Romans.

Anyway, no calendar is perfect. Both 12 and 13 months have their advantages and disadvantages. Chayba, I have been trying to get everyone to start having an 8 day week. We get a longer weekend. But nobody listens, so I let it go.

There is no such thing as a true Celt today, you are most likely mixed with Roman and Germanic blood. Rome also hated the Gauls (Celts in what is now France) because they invaded and sacked rome early in its history.

Battle of the Allia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Spartiate did you even read the topic title? Do you even understand the subject of the topic? Its about zodiac changing from 12 into 13 signs.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

To be fair, each sign of the zodiac is a constellation that lies on the ecliptic (the imaginary line that the sun/planets follow across the sky). The dates of each zodiac sign are when the sun lies within the boundaries of each constellation. I think Ophiuchus wasn't used because it doesn't have any particularly bright/notable stars.

That's the third time I post that, wake the f up.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 10:52 AM

How exactly does the fact that Rome also hated the Gauls because they invaded and sacked rome early in history explain the change of 12 zodiac signs into 13? You are again going off-topc and completely ignoring the point of the discussion.

edit: So your explanation that you're defending so vehemently is that "it didn't have any particular bright/notable stars"? That is why there are 12 instead of 13 zodiac changes? Is that really the argument you are making here?

Brilliant argumentation.

How could I possibly counter that?

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

edit: So your explanation that you're defending so vehemently is that "it didn't have any particular bright/notable stars"? That is why there are 12 instead of 13 zodiac changes? Is that really the argument you are making here?

Brilliant argumentation.

How could I possibly counter that?

I should be risen to sainthood for having the patience to deal with you.

First of all, the topic of thread as found in the OP is that some people's zodiac signs have shifted to an adjacent one in one system of astrology.

Some of us talked about why different systems of astrology use 12 or 13 zodiac signs.

I explained how every zodiac sign was originally a constellation on the ecliptic, and that Ophiucus must have been ignored because it is a fairly dim constellation and 12 is a nicer number than 13.

I don't give a shit if there are 12 or 13 zodiac signs, I don't follow astrology.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 11:02 AM

I did. I can't believe you think you're actually making a good argument by saying "it didn't have any bright or notable stars". This argument is totally subjective. While my arguments are based on undeniable historical and mathematical facts, you're just talking out of your ass.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't give a shit if there are 12 or 13 zodiac signs, I don't follow astrology.

If you don't give a shit why bother arguing?

You're like "I don't give a shit about zodiac signs or astrology yet I will argue about the subject for 2 pages long". Ok. Make some sense?

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 11:08 AM

Once again look up... I'm just going to start double posting if you keep posting after my edits.

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If you don't give a shit why bother arguing?

You're like "I don't give a shit about zodiac signs or astrology yet I will argue about the subject for 2 pages long". Ok. Make some sense?

We were arguing about how many months there should be in a year.

Are you on crack.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Once again look up... I'm just going to start double posting if you keep posting after my edits.

You are blaming me for posting after your edits, and then you ask if I'm on crack? I think this discussion is over. I'm done.

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 11:17 AM

Did I get Chayba to shut up?

It's like he avoided my arguments one by one until nothing was left to avoid.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 11:30 AM

So you want me to shut up, but at the same time, not avoid your arguments? Logical contradiction spotted. I didn't avoid any argument, and if you really want me to shut up, I suggest you simply stop replying to my posts. Problem solved. But ok, obviously you're just talking out of your ass here as nothing that you say is making any sense anymore.

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 01-20-2011 11:33 AM

I agree that the reasons that the 13th sign wasn't included was because:
a) 12 is much more harmonious with the seasons and mathematically
b) It isn't a major constellation with any bright stars
c) It is a small constellation and the sun didn't spend an equal amount of time going through that sign

Chayba, you never cease to amaze me.

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 11:33 AM

I'm just trying to keep you talking until you say something that will get you banned.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm just trying to keep you talking until you say something that will get you banned.

So basically you just admitted you're just trolling? That is exactly what people get banned for on here. Are you trying to get yourself banned?

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 11:41 AM

If you call making clear, detailed and informative posts while having you ignoring my points, derailing the thread and insulting me trolling, then yes.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If you call making clear, detailed and informative posts while having you ignoring my points, derailing the thread and insulting me trolling, then yes.

Trying to get me banned on purpose, is trolling. And you just said yourself that you are trying to do that. I'm just repeating what you said.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I agree that the reasons that the 13th sign wasn't included was because:
a) 12 is much more harmonious with the seasons and mathematically
b) It isn't a major constellation with any bright stars
c) It is a small constellation and the sun didn't spend an equal amount of time going through that sign

Chayba, you never cease to amaze me.

I'm simply amazing, that is what I do, amaze people. It's my second nature.

Anyway, thanks for summing up the argumentation, but I don't think those are valid reasons to ignore a part of the sky. How is that scientific?

"Hey guys you see that part of the sky rigt over there, the stars aren't that bright.. and on top of that, the number 12 is nicer than the number 13. So lets completely ignore that part of the sky and pretend it didn't exist."

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 01-20-2011 11:46 AM

It Isn't scientific. It is astrology, not astronomy. It is mathematical.
Please try to stop arguing about arguing Chayba, and stick to the topic.
It is a waste of our time to read through your posts.
You have derailed this thread.

**ChaybaChayba** · 01-20-2011 11:50 AM

Yeah I have derailed the thread, I was talking to myself all this time, and my last post wasn't on topic at all

If it is a waste of time to read my posts, put me on ignore. Problem solved.

**Dannon Oneironaut** · 01-20-2011 11:57 AM

I am sick of you filling up threads telling us to ignore you.
It is your responsibility to handle yourself responsibly.
If I put you on ignore the threads are still ruined. Problem not solved.

Your last post was on topic, but we had already gone over that over and over again for pages.
Go ahead and print up the calendar you want to use, then try to sell it.
Nobody is telling you to ignore a constellation.

Go back and reread. Educate yourself on tropical astrology and sidereal astrology.
What element and what modality and what house will you assign to the 13th sign?
What are its attributes?
How are the angles going to work with other signs?
Astrology is less about constellations and more about planets and sacred geometry.
Are you going to decide what element and what planet rule the sign?

**Spartiate** · 01-20-2011 12:13 PM

Dannon, you say some really whacked out shit sometimes, but at least you seem like a positive, respectful and laid back person, somebody that would be fun to hang out with... unlike Chayba who seems to infuriate anybody that spends five minutes talking to him with his passive-aggressiveness and childlike arrogance. I just thought you should know that even though we don't see eye-to-eye on so many issues

.

I'm going to sleep. Chayba, since this thread will probably be closed when I wake up, feel free to insult me and put words in my mouth while I can't reply.