What is the exact date of the end of the Age of Piscis and the start
of the Age of Aquarius based on the position of the sun in the sky
exactly midway between the two constellations in the procession of the
equinoxes?

---

Request for Question Clarification by jackburton-ga on 20 Oct 2004 01:50 PDT

According to Dr Shepherd Simpson, 
 
"...in the year 2680 AD the planetary ruler of the sign of the old
Age, Pisces, and that of the sign of the New Age, Aquarius, are in
conjunction with the Sun, in Aquarius, on the very day of the Spring
Equinox!"
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyages/ageofaquarius.htm
 
Does that answer your question?

---

Clarification of Question by demetrious-ga on 20 Oct 2004 08:36 PDT

No. The Age of Aquarius goes from approximately 2012 to 4172 CE. I
want the EXACT date based on 1/2 the radius of the distance between
the two constellations as measured in degrees. A skilled astronomer at
a competent observatory should be able to figure this out quickly from
current observations.

For a full background in exactly what the known dates, values, and
numbers are click here:

http://www.bemyastrologer.com/age_of_aquarius.html

This source says 2379:

http://www.vermontel.net/~vtsophia/7AGES.htm

Sorry but from that web site I think you are asking for the impossible.  

From what you've written I think you are assuming that an Age lasts a
set period of time: one Platonic Month [of which twelve make a Great
Year].  And hence that's 30 degrees of sky per Age.  People commonly
assume this because of the analogy with the Tropical Zodiac signs. 
But Astrological Ages refer to the real constellations, which don't
have set sizes.  So the best you can do is try to determine where the
boundary is between the real constellations and then on what Vernal
Equinox date the Sun will reach this boundary.  That site seems to
show this happens in about 2600 AD.

P.S.  The Age of Aquarius CAN NOT start in 2012 - the Sun is still
very much inside the constellation of Pisces on that date.

Other useful pages on that site were:

The original defintion of an Astrological Age [from Jung]:
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyages/astrologicalage.htm

The defintion of a Platonic Month:
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyages/platonicmonth.htm

The problems with the Tropical Zodiac:
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyzodiacs/tropicalzodiac.htm

Sandy, what I'm asking for is clearly and easily possible and Dr.
Shepherd Simpson, the source that both Jackburton and you site, makes
this very simply evident once I read the rest of the links to Dr.
Simpson's site that you so kindly provided.

Think of it like this: We're neighbors. I'm in my living room and
every day I travel one foot towards your living room. How many days
before I cross over onto your piece of property? Simply measure the
distance between where I'm at and our mutual property line and I'll
have the answer. The only question is, where's that property line? A
land surveyor will tell me for certain based on maps entered into the
country recorders office and a physical confirming view of the actual
geography of our properties. He'll even put up a couple of stakes and
a rope confirming the accurate property line. It happens all the time.
Dr. Simpson makes this clear in Astronomical terms in his definition
of an Astrological Age.

What threw me off of Dr. Simpson's website in Jack's original guess of
2680 was the fact that Jack himself wasn't sure and if he understood
the question he should have been; he was offering up a conjunction of
planets, not a changing from one Astrological Age to another, and he
was doing it at a time when the sun was already clearly, and clearly
stated to be, far inside the constellation of Aquarius. On top of all
of that, it was far out of range with most of the estimates I've read
before.

But both myself, Jack, PinkFreud and yourself didn't read the rest of
of Dr. Simpons's definitions or at least correctly understand them. In
terms of acurately defining an Astrological Age in Astronomical terms,
Dr. Simpson's explanation is correct.

http://www.geocities.com/astrologyages/astrologicalage.htm

However, Dr. Simpson goes on to state on the bottom of the very page
that Jack first sites:

"OK, OK. Sorry! If you read the proper definition of an Astrological
Age, you'll know I'm cheating and that the Age of Aquarius has already
begun about 80 years before this [c 2600 AD]. But please forgive me, I
am an astrologer and, wow, it's a pretty amazing, rare, conjunction to
see!"

This is exactly the kind of boneheaded statement that scientist abhor.
Which is why I didn't want an astrologer's guess, I wanted an
astronomers confirmation of what is clearly obtainable.

Having called into question his own credibility, and himself admitted
that 2600 is still "about" right, I am now trying to confirm with the
UCLA Astronomy Department and the Mt. Wilson Observatory how far off
March 21, 2600 is from the actual EXACT DATE of the start of the Age
of Aquarius.

Dear Demetrious:

Ah... I can see now that you weren?t quite thinking what I thought you
were thinking!  I thought by quoting the dates you originally quoted,
you were falling for the Platonic month fallacy.  [Which lots and lots
of people do fall for, hence all those early start dates for the New
Age that Dr Shepherd Simpson quotes on his site.]

Once you accept Jung?s original definition of an Age, as quoted by Dr
Simpson, the question is then, as you say, where is the property
boundary between Pisces and Aquarius?  [I liked your analogy!]

In that analogy, what Dr Simpson seems to have done on his
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyages/ageofaquarius.htm page is take
the last star of Pisces and the first of Aquarius, relative to the
ecliptic, and halve the distance between them, to get approximately
2600 AD.  [The last brick of my house to the first of yours and divide
by two.]  So astronomers could accurately measure the distance between
the stars [beta-piscum and theta-aquarii on his map] and halve it to
get a more accurate date.

This is what you are after?

I suppose the final problem for any astronomer you contact will be
that Dr Simpson?s map shows a completely man-made definition of first
and last star: because what he?s quoting from Ptolemy?s star catalog
is just what a person, nearly two-thousand year ago, has decided the
first and last stars of the constellation figure are.

An astronomer may turn around to you and say that all the stars within
the ?box? of space we now call Aquarius are aquarii stars, not just
those of the figure, so how can anyone pick one in particular to be
the end-star of the constellation?

[Of course s/he might also say that constellations are completely
human-made constructs so why are we bothering to discuss Ages based on
them at all... :) ]

Been fun discussing this... 

It would be geat if you could post any results you get from astronomers...

Sandy