Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Hello I'm a total newb and just beginning Fagan's Primer of Sidereal Astrology. I've come across something that is hanging me up, the Solar Apex.. On page 3 of the cited work Fagan says: " The direction in the galaxy taken by the Sun is known as the 'Solar Apex'. The astrological world is greatly indepted to garth Allen for bringing to its notice the latest determination of the position of this point in space... " He then goes on to treat the SA as a point. Question: If the SA is the direction in the galaxy taken by the Sun, would that not be a circle centered on galactic center? How can a direction be a point? Thanks Liath Macha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Hi Liath, Maybe it's best not to get bogged down in that particular detail. I can't remember where I read it, but since the Primer was written, the Solar Apex has been shown not to relate to the sidereal zodiac. Maybe someone can respond to your post in more detail. Therese , " Liath Macha " <liath.macha wrote: > > Hello > I'm a total newb and just beginning Fagan's Primer of Sidereal Astrology. > I've come across something that is hanging me up, the Solar Apex.. > > On page 3 of the cited work Fagan says: " The direction in the galaxy taken > by the Sun is known as the 'Solar Apex'. The astrological world is > greatly indepted to garth Allen for bringing to its notice the latest > determination of the position of this point in space... " He then goes on to > treat the SA as a point. > > Question: If the SA is the direction in the galaxy taken by the Sun, would > that not be a circle centered on galactic center? How can a direction be a > point? > > Thanks > Liath Macha > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 Fagan is correct in treating it as a point. Consider this definition from http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#solarapex, the Astronomy Knowledge Base. <<A point on the celestial sphere toward which the Sun and the solar system are moving with respect to the local standard of rest at a rate of about 19.4 km per second (about 4.09 AU per year).>> However, the apex value Fagan is referring to is a good example of Garth Allen / Donald Bradley's sometimes slipshod research. The report on the apex Fagan and Bradley were excited about was originally published in a monograph from the Leander McCormick Observatory at the University of Virginia, though I don't know where Bradley picked up in it, since he never gave a reference. This apex value was massively different from most apex values before or since, because, as it was reported in another monograph from the same place soon after, it was due to some obviously embarrassing mathematical errors. Bradley thought the " real " apex was around 0 of sidereal Capricorn, but it is actually around 7 Sagittarius. I do think there are reasons to be interested in the apex, but they have nothing to do with what is reported in the front of the Primer. It's otherwise a good book, but that particular bit of information is very dated. Ken Irving , " therese92003 " <eastwest wrote: > > Hi Liath, > > Maybe it's best not to get bogged down in that particular detail. I > can't remember where I read it, but since the Primer was written, the > Solar Apex has been shown not to relate to the sidereal zodiac. Maybe > someone can respond to your post in more detail. > > Therese > > , " Liath Macha " > <liath.macha@> wrote: > > > > Hello > > I'm a total newb and just beginning Fagan's Primer of Sidereal > Astrology. > > > I've come across something that is hanging me up, the Solar Apex.. > > > > On page 3 of the cited work Fagan says: " The direction in the > galaxy taken > > by the Sun is known as the 'Solar Apex'. The astrological world > is > > greatly indepted to garth Allen for bringing to its notice the > latest > > determination of the position of this point in space... " He then > goes on to > > treat the SA as a point. > > > > Question: If the SA is the direction in the galaxy taken by the > Sun, would > > that not be a circle centered on galactic center? How can a > direction be a > > point? > > > > Thanks > > Liath Macha > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 Thanks for clearing this up, Ken. has changed its format, and the screen doesn't come up that allows me to take you off moderation. This will delay any message you post here. This goes for anyone who is being moderated. The entire format has been changed--messed up, I'd say. Therese At 02:09 AM 5/27/06 -0000, Ken Irving wrote: >Fagan is correct in treating it as a point. Consider this definition >from http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#solarapex, >the Astronomy Knowledge Base. > ><<A point on the celestial sphere toward which the Sun and the solar >system are moving with respect to the local standard of rest at a rate >of about 19.4 km per second (about 4.09 AU per year).>> > >However, the apex value Fagan is referring to is a good example of >Garth Allen / Donald Bradley's sometimes slipshod research. The report >on the apex Fagan and Bradley were excited about was originally >published in a monograph from the Leander McCormick Observatory at the >University of Virginia, though I don't know where Bradley picked up in >it, since he never gave a reference. This apex value was massively >different from most apex values before or since, because, as it was >reported in another monograph from the same place soon after, it was >due to some obviously embarrassing mathematical errors. Bradley >thought the " real " apex was around 0 of sidereal Capricorn, but it is >actually around 7 Sagittarius. I do think there are reasons to be >interested in the apex, but they have nothing to do with what is >reported in the front of the Primer. It's otherwise a good book, but >that particular bit of information is very dated. > >Ken Irving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 Thanks for this long needed catch up regarding that old 0 Capricorn. _______________________________ kirving2002 wrote: > Fagan is correct in treating it as a point. Consider this definition > from http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#solarapex, > the Astronomy Knowledge Base. > > <<A point on the celestial sphere toward which the Sun and the solar > system are moving with respect to the local standard of rest at a rate > of about 19.4 km per second (about 4.09 AU per year).>> > > However, the apex value Fagan is referring to is a good example of > Garth Allen / Donald Bradley's sometimes slipshod research. The report > on the apex Fagan and Bradley were excited about was originally > published in a monograph from the Leander McCormick Observatory at the > University of Virginia, though I don't know where Bradley picked up in > it, since he never gave a reference. This apex value was massively > different from most apex values before or since, because, as it was > reported in another monograph from the same place soon after, it was > due to some obviously embarrassing mathematical errors. Bradley > thought the " real " apex was around 0 of sidereal Capricorn, but it is > actually around 7 Sagittarius. I do think there are reasons to be > interested in the apex, but they have nothing to do with what is > reported in the front of the Primer. It's otherwise a good book, but > that particular bit of information is very dated. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 For way more information than I'm sure anyone could ever want on this subject, I have now found the actual original references online, in a site called The NASA Astrophysics Data System. Just a glance at the two publications will show just how far off Bradley was, as his first excited reference to the " new " Apex was circa 1957-1960 in American astrology. However, the volume in which the value he liked was given was actually published in 1937, and is found at: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ nph-iarticle_query?journal=PMcCO & volume=0007 & type=SCREEN_THMB I'm breaking this long URL in the middle, so it won't get wiped out by the system. Now, the follow-up publication in which the Apex value Bradley liked was FIRMLY WITHDRAWN (and sheepishly, at that), was published in 1948: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ nph-iarticle_query?journal=PMcCO & year=%3F%3F%3F%3F & volume=..10 & letter=. & db_key=AST & page_ind=5 & plate_select=NO & data_type=GIF & type=SCREEN_GIF & classic=YES This was a decade or more before Bradley dredged up the original 1937 value from somewhere, and dumped it on the astrological universe without so much as a hint of where he got it. I'm taking the time to lay this out, because I've been telling this story for 25 years or more, and yet that Apex keeps coming around. This is certainly in part because of the technical nature of the Apex, but also because the astrological references to it are more easily available than the astronomical references which give the correct picture. I found these in the University of Arizona science library, but haven't had access to them since 1984. If you like technical reading, have at it with the above URLs (these are tifs of the original pages), but if you are just curious, go there and look at the title pages and maybe the introductions of the two publications as a means of getting a better idea about how bogus Bradley's promotion of this Apex number was. I don't think he meant it to be that way, but he was smart enough (an accomplished amateur astronomer) and able enough that he could have followed up on it, rather than just running it with it because it fit a favored hypothesis. Okay, enough of that . . . Ken , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > Thanks for clearing this up, Ken. has changed its format, and the > screen doesn't come up that allows me to take you off moderation. This will > delay any message you post here. This goes for anyone who is being > moderated. The entire format has been changed--messed up, I'd say. > > Therese > > At 02:09 AM 5/27/06 -0000, Ken Irving wrote: > >Fagan is correct in treating it as a point. Consider this definition > >from http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#solarapex, > >the Astronomy Knowledge Base. > > > ><<A point on the celestial sphere toward which the Sun and the solar > >system are moving with respect to the local standard of rest at a rate > >of about 19.4 km per second (about 4.09 AU per year).>> > > > >However, the apex value Fagan is referring to is a good example of > >Garth Allen / Donald Bradley's sometimes slipshod research. The report > >on the apex Fagan and Bradley were excited about was originally > >published in a monograph from the Leander McCormick Observatory at the > >University of Virginia, though I don't know where Bradley picked up in > >it, since he never gave a reference. This apex value was massively > >different from most apex values before or since, because, as it was > >reported in another monograph from the same place soon after, it was > >due to some obviously embarrassing mathematical errors. Bradley > >thought the " real " apex was around 0 of sidereal Capricorn, but it is > >actually around 7 Sagittarius. I do think there are reasons to be > >interested in the apex, but they have nothing to do with what is > >reported in the front of the Primer. It's otherwise a good book, but > >that particular bit of information is very dated. > > > >Ken Irving > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.