All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 21, 2021 - Clif High
31:03
AstroWoology - Explorers' Guide to SciFi World

Discussion about numbers, years, stars & inexactitude.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello humans.
This is the 21st of September, which is the autumnal equinox.
So it was fitting to do a little talk about astrowoology and stuff.
Okay.
I really should do that one separately.
I will.
So I've been using a number of 2780 for the period of a great age, or for a month in a great age.
The great age.
Okay, so this would be like for the age of Pisces or something, right?
The great age is the 26,000-year loop that the sun makes through the procession, through the zodiac.
This is about astrowoology, after all.
So we'll deal with the zodiac.
A lot of people are bitching at my number, and they're citing various numbers of 2160, 2610 even, 2240, and other ranges in there.
Now, I use 2780 because I've actually looked at Dr. Bot, B-H-A-T, he's a mathematician in India, looked at some of his calculations and done my own calcs.
So we can start with a base number that everybody is sort of familiar with, which is this 2160.
And so that would be defined as an age, which is the precession of the equinox through the house of the zodiac.
So let's see if we can get this understood.
We have to examine our solar system in relation to the larger universe, the larger galaxy, in order to determine that there is a zodiac.
The zodiac is a constant, is a slicing of the visible sky through the arc of the Earth circling into 12 segments that we identify with various memes, basically, or metaphors or avatars, right?
So Pisces, the fish, Aries, the ram, Taurus, the bull, Aquarius, the guy with the pouring the water, the knowledge.
Those things occur because our Earth does not orient itself vertically relative to the universe.
How would you know anyway?
So to our stars, we're not oriented vertically.
We're off at a cant.
This can't, this slight cant, is called the precession.
Today, we are in what is called the precession of the equinoxes into the autumnal equinox.
These are days where the light and the dark are the same.
They're almost exactly the same.
This is what we're going to get into is don't trust numbers.
So the Earth rotates and it wobbles.
it wobbles around this point of the precession because we don't align vertically relative to the vast stars the fixed stars as we as so we're not we're not sitting there spinning like that We're sitting there spinning like this as Earth spins.
This is an exaggeration of it, but that's the effect.
Because we do that, we scribe an arc, so to speak, in the night sky that is like this relative to our precessional point.
If that makes any sense, right?
Relative to our processional point, we angle through the night sky, and so we divided this up into 12 chunks, and we label these chunks with the various little avatars, and that's our zodiac.
Now we place the zodiac.
It's useful, it's used in the placement of the other planets relative to where they are relative to the other zodiac.
So we can say that, you know, Jupiter's in Capricorn or something like that, right?
And Jupiter has not actually moved out to the Capricorn galaxy.
It's not associated, hasn't shifted at all.
Its position has shifted, or we have shifted relative to its position simultaneously such that from our viewpoint.
So this is all from viewpoint.
So all of astrology and all of astronomy is necessarily from our viewpoint.
This is where we start getting into something that's really tricky.
And we start compounding our trickiness as we go forward.
Okay, so Jupiter moves into Capricorn.
Well, we've shifted our, in our orbit, our rotation is such that if we're looking and Jupiter is over here, it has Capricorn in the background.
And so we say Jupiter's in Capricorn or, you know, Mars is in Aries, which is its home area, this kind of thing.
So we plot these against the planets as well.
So these are basically our reference points.
These derive, the zodiac derives, it is thought, from navigation aids, both on land and on sea, because the fixed stars represent things you can walk towards at night.
So you can guide yourself at night.
You can sail towards it at night.
And so we developed a mythos around all these fixed stars.
And for convenience's sake, we divided them up and so on.
And because we're humans, we got into the math of it all, the slicing and dicing.
We like categorizing and sorting.
And so we just kept applying it and slicing and dicing.
And here we are today with some very complex numerics around the precession relative to the fixed stars, relative to our own sun, relative to other planets.
All the other planets and all the other stars and all the galaxies have their own issues with precession.
Okay, so now why do I use the 2780 number as opposed to the 2160?
Well, there's a couple of reasons.
If we go with the 2160 number, you get to the point where you discover that one degree of movement in this 360 degree panoply through the zodiac equals 72 years of precessional transit.
But these are the things that affect astrowoology numbers, right?
That depends on the rotation of the Earth.
The year actually depends on the rotation of the Earth.
And so the Earth has variously, we know, been rotating at 270 days in a year, 294 days in a year, 308 days in a year, and now all the way up to 365.25, right?
So we've got various different year lengths.
At what point was all of this calculated?
Well, if we go back, we find that indeed there were variance in the annual, in the number of days in our year, even back as far, minute variance, but nonetheless variance.
And that affects the procession and where we might be seeing ourselves in.
This gets to the other issue, but it goes all the way back to Greeks and even earlier.
Okay, so there's writings in Sanskrit that reference years that are over 320 days to a year, but not 365, right?
So it becomes difficult.
And then here's the other issue.
How do we know, for instance, what age we are in?
What are we plotting against?
It's not like there's a fixed anything in the universe that we can measure ourselves against, which is what we get into some of the other issues with the numbers.
So the year has been something that we have to take into account.
That it's not always been, we don't, we're assuming it's always been the same angle of precession, but we don't know for sure.
So we know that there's been deviations in the zodiac over time, and ancient peoples didn't have the same zodiac as us.
Some of that may have been relative to their conceptualization or their memetrics that they applied to slicing and dicing the night sky.
But other aspects of that were not.
Okay, so did they have a different constellation set relative to ours?
And perhaps so.
And this is where we get into the fuzziness.
Okay, so I like the fuzzy math.
All of my WebBot stuff was done in what's known as fuzzy set theory.
And it works very well if you understand the concepts and you don't get hung up in the numerics.
And that's where too many people do.
So I've been taken to task for not using 2160 as the definitive length of an age because I don't find that the length of an age can be defined.
I think it can only be approximated.
All of materium is an approximation.
There are no, the more we strive for precision and numerics applied to our reality, the more we see that it can't actually apply.
We can come close, but that's about it.
So, back to the zodiac and the ages here.
We have a couple of issues, right?
So, first off, how do we plot ourselves against the night sky?
And then, are we plotting against a historically accurate zodiac?
And is our modern zodiac taking into account changes in the overall precession of the Earth, the rotation, etc., over time relative to that historical zodiac.
And so I don't know that astro-astrology does this.
And then there's other issues to this as well.
So there are two kinds of astrology.
They call them Western.
Well, there's actually three kinds.
There's Chinese, there's sidereal, which many people call Hindu, and then there's Western.
But all three of these have basically the same flaw.
And that is that they are all plotted on the concept that we have the Sun, and then we have all of the planets out here, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, etc., all rotating in a plate around the Sun, as though we're all going to rotate around the Sun on this Sun's equatorial plane.
So that's where all of our astrology numerics derive from, is from this flat plate model.
And that's inaccurate.
Now, Dr. Bott, B-A-H-T, this, I think he did, he's last century, a famous Hindu mathematician in last century.
Okay, so he did a lot of work relative to plotting this and came up with some interesting deviations that you can use.
Now, what I'm going to tell you does not necessarily affect your daily astrology kind of chart thing, right?
Because those are plotting the planets against this background that we define as these chunks of the night sky that we call the, you know, the houses or whatever, right?
So it won't affect those that way, but the base of that astrology is affected by this.
Because here's our big issue.
It's all a question of perception.
And so when someone says, we actually have to ask ourselves, are we in the age of Aquarius?
If so, how do we know?
And how was that determined?
And so a lot of people are still bitching and moaning and saying, no, you're not in the age of Aquarius until 300 years from now.
And you're not in the age, or that we've been in the age of Aquarius since 1968.
It's like, no, it doesn't quite work that way.
The issue is where marks one age difference from another.
And how do we know that Earth has transited?
And do we care if the rest of our solar system is transited in there with us?
And so these are some complex issues because here's what we're facing.
This plate model is inaccurate.
We know that this is inaccurate because of the last Venus transit of the Sun proved definitively that we are actually not in this model, that we are in this model back here.
And so we are actually spiraling around the Sun, behind it, as it moves through space.
And so our movements are much more like this, okay?
And so this affects us because If you're up here, if you conceive of things up here and you figure you're in Earth here, there's a couple of things you should understand.
If you actually looked at the plate model, Earth could never, we could never see the outer planets.
It would be such, because we would be obscured by the sun, our passage around the sun and the other planets way the hell out there, we would only see them intermittently.
We could not, you can't see with the sun and if this is the earth, we can't, from Earth, we can't see a band like that because of the light coming down and obscuring things.
So we can only see out here.
So if any of the outer planets were moving out here, and they're very, very, very fucking slow, they could move in their orbit out here such that if this plate model were accurate, you could have people live on Earth that would never see the outer planets in their lives because they would be born and die before those planets came around to where they would be visible given that plate model and the obscuring of light provided by the sun.
And so that's one of the things, right?
You would be able to see the outer planets out here away from the sun, even only in some circumstances because of the shadow effect that is also caused by the sun on our viewing in a plate model.
We don't have those issues.
We can always see the outer planets.
We can sail to them with our spaceships and so on because they're backwards from us.
They're trailing behind us.
So we can always see them.
They're not obscured by the sun's light.
So this is how we actually travel through space, and our sun is traveling through space, dragging all of our asses along.
So our sun's moving.
So as the sun moves, therefore we should probably say, well, really, Earth can't be in the age of Aquarius if the sun isn't in the age of Aquarius, right?
So we would have to have the sun transit some kind of a thing.
That would be sidereal.
That's where you do your astrology based on the sun as the center of everything, as opposed to Earth being the center of everything, which would be the Western or the Chinese version of astrology.
So in this model here, if it were flat like this, you have an issue where you can say, okay, we're in this house here.
Let me get another color.
We're in, you know, we're in Pisces here.
That would be Aquarius.
Well, it's actually going backwards, but Pisces and then Aquarius.
Okay, so we're in Aquarius now.
We could say that that occurred because we have this angle of view, right?
We could actually see relative to the area of space that we define as Aquarius.
This gets into something else, okay?
So let me get back to that in a minute.
But this model right here is inaccurate because this view would necessarily change as you rotated around the sun.
As you swung around this giant arc around the sun, you're going to necessarily change that.
So you would wander in and out of Aquarius based on how you were progressing around the sun until the sun had gotten to such a position that all of the planets were flat, planed over here under Aquarius, so to speak.
It's difficult to conceptualize two-dimensionally, but you can see it if you really plot it out.
The issue otherwise, though, is that there is a difference in the amount of time relative to this model here and this model.
The difference in the relativity of time is both when we get into the age of Aquarius and how long it takes us to transit.
All right, so because we're in this kind of a situation where we've got to have this like conical view.
So we've got to look at it like that, so to speak.
Our sun's in transit.
We're going to be in the age of Aquarius as the sun itself and its procession and our procession are all rotating here, sweeping the night sky as we're progressing through some area of space, heading into some other different area of space.
And our precessional arc is going to be relatively different from back here within the cone of the sun, as that processional arc would be different from out here on a flat plane of the sun.
That difference can account for several hundred, maybe even 1,200 years in positional relativity to the perceived, because we have to see it in order, because all of this is based on old guys sitting around on their campfire and throwing some hemp on there and getting laid back and looking up at the stars at night, way ancient times, and saying, oh, look, there's a goat up there, right?
Or, hey, there's a bull over there, that kind of thing, right?
Okay, so it's all visual.
So there are no markers.
There's no buoyan space we're going to go by that says, you know, this is the Aquarian zone, this is the Aquarian zone, clang, clang, clang.
Doesn't happen that way.
So we're going to fight about this for some considerable period of time.
Now, so relative to our flawed flat plate model, I think we're in Aquarius now simply because all of the planets are on the same half of this cone over here relative to the Sun.
The Sun is transited, and we've had this conjunction on December 28th, 2020 of Jupiter and Saturn relative to the Aquarian space and the rest of us, okay, in a sidereal fashion.
So I dispute that Western astrology is of any use at all.
Maybe it's okay in a vague sense with, you know, are you going to have a decent influence today?
Or is it, you know, good data by real estate, that kind of stuff.
Maybe there's something applicable there.
But in the general sense of doing deep, serious astrology on, you know, the conflict of nations, the progress of whole races of people, that kind of thing, you've got to do it sidereally.
And because of the nature of the fact that we're in this giant cone and it's the whole cone that's progressing into, as a comet drags us as debris, progressing into Aquarius, not just our particular planet here.
Now, I think we're in Aquarius because of that conjunction.
So I've done some reading in Sanskrit and translated Sanskrit, and some of the ideas that I read sometime back were very striking relative to this particular issue.
There's this big tome on mathematics, giant thing.
I mean, it must have two or three volumes each of 600 pages, all in Sanskrit, can't read a word of it, but I read some of the passages, some of the chapters that had been translated, and they were talking in there about the inexactitude, about the philosophy of numbers.
It was just really quite fascinating, actually.
And they related it to the inexactitude of astrology, not based on this model, but based on just on this model and the inexactitude of knowing where we were relative to any of the astrology, the astrological markers in the fixed sky.
And they bring up another point.
And that is that we do not know what is a fixed star.
That is, in my way of thinking, no star is fixed.
They are fixed relative to us and our shortness of our lifespans and the collective shortness of our lifespans.
So some stars, like the North Star, Vega, etc., might move over the course of several thousands of years according to human perception.
So it would not be one single human that perceived the movement.
It wouldn't happen in your lifetime.
And so how would we determine that?
Well, we would determine that by noting in our graphs and charts and so on that, you know, this North Star was this particular star and now it isn't.
And, you know, five or six hundred years from now, 700 years from now, whatever, someone notes that, oh, no, that's not the North Star.
Those people must have been really stupid.
There would be a big fight about it.
And then they would say, no, the North Star actually moved.
We've got a new fixed star.
Well, so you see, these stars are not fixed.
We assume them and label them fixed relative to our understanding, but that's as far as it goes.
And then here's another aspect of this, the unknowing aspect of this, the woo of it all, right?
We are plotting, according to our eyesight, on little tiny bits of light that strike our eyes, whether it's through telescopes or whatever enhanced imagery now.
Nonetheless, we're plotting all of the astrology and so forth based on light that we determine to be within relationship to another chunk of light, basically, is how we're mapping things.
If we were to do that, and we had two points, and we had point A and point B, and we could assign these, you know, say that this was the Sirius star, A, or Sirius, and it's the Sirius star cluster.
And so we've got Sirius A and we've got Sirius B. And these are both stars.
And we determine that there is X amount of difference between them.
Well, and this number is, number is X, okay?
And so that's right now.
All numbers are works in progress because obviously if we go forward in technology and are able to refine our vision, we'll get a better number than x.
We'll get x point something or we'll get y.
Maybe it's that much different.
And obviously, if we degrade in our technological capacity, we won't give a shit or we'll get something even more sloppy.
And it will suffice at the time that we demand it out of universe.
But they are not absolutes.
They are only relative to our understanding of that moment.
And this actually goes to the idea of the zodiac itself and also a lot of the woo-woo stuff, right?
So you will see in woo-woo land people saying, oh my god, I'm a transiting soul from Pleiades, or I'm walking from Andromeda, or I was abducted by somebody from Zeta Reticuli.
It's like, okay, that's fine.
It's 100% horseshit on the identifiers.
If nothing else, it's 100% horseshit on the identifiers.
And here's why.
Pleiades, all right, those are the seven sisters.
These are navigable stars.
There's a difference between fixed stars and navigable stars.
Navigable stars are intensely studied because they were commercially viable getting across deserts or oceans.
Fixed stars, not necessarily, but fixed stars were used in reference to them.
So we have the seven sisters.
We have all of these constellations we use as navigation.
You can track Orion and follow it based on where you are on the planet and determine and reach other points of the planet just based on where you see Orion in the night sky.
But all of these constellations are massively fucking huge.
So Pleiades is what we call the seven sisters.
We think right now that those seven that, okay, and so that's a constellation, all right?
It's a constellation as seen from Earth.
It's not a galaxy or anything.
It's a constellation, and it is a series of stars, or it's seven bright star groups.
Okay, so it's seven star groups, not seven individual stars.
And we think that we've measured that there are 110 million light years between the planes of the seven sisters.
So from our perspective, we're down here in Earth.
We're looking up at these seven sisters and we see them in the sky.
We see them all in a flat plane relative to us.
We see them all like this.
We see them this way.
However, they are in fact like this.
And there is a difference of 110 million light years between the first and the last relative to if we had to go there.
And then there's a giant spread of the distance here.
So there are literally billions of planets there.
So if someone says they're from the Pleiades, then you're going to have to say, okay, which of the fucking seven sister star clusters, which are the suns in those star clusters, which are the billions of planets around those suns, right?
So it's a little bit vague.
It'd be like, it's very much like saying, oh, I'm from over there.
Anyway, so that kind of stuff gets me.
And then also you hear people saying, oh, well, you know, blah, blah, blah, walk in from Andromeda.
It's like, wait a second, guys, you know, Andromeda is a fucking galaxy.
You know, it's not a planet.
So anyway, so you've got to be careful of the numbers.
Relative to the flat plane model, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, obviously not too scale.
Let's put Mars as well.
Okay, so relative to the flat plane model, our zodiac angles look like this is the difference.
And so you can see from Earth's perspective that we would have a different approach to when we might spiral into or out of a particular age.
And then there is the people on Earth saying, well, I can see that we're clearly, I can clearly see it.
And somebody else says, well, I can't see it.
And then two days later, oh, yeah, there it is.
I can see it now.
So did the other person just have more acute eyesight?
You know, were they using a better metric, a taller gnomon, a stick for measuring?
You know, exactly.
So on astrovoology, you can't trust the numbers.
So I don't give a shit about numbers.
I never get bent out of shape about it.
The only time it really matters is if I'm building something or measuring something, and then I only measure to the exactitude required to get the conclusion, because unless I'm building something, then I require the exactitude of measurement to accomplish that particular task.
But I'm not going to worry about it.
You know, if I'm cutting wood, because I know there's an expansion of wood relative to the moisture in the air and so on, you're always going to have to have a gap.
So you're never going to want to cut it exactly to fit the space.
Based on the amount of wood and the amount of swell for that wood, you have to have the appropriate size gap.
So there's this like good enough for the job and don't drive yourself crazy about it kind of aspect of numbers.
All right.
And so that's really about astrowoology.
I think I'll cut it off and make the other one separate because then I can go into some other stuff.
And so this was just a nice light deviation and I'll get into some of the heavier stuff in another video that I'll record here right away and upload two of them.
So this is just a strange day, guys.
We got up early and I got a bunch of stuff done.
So I got out here early and I'm going to go and do some tractor work in a bit, but I've got tea and I've got another little task ahead of that.
So I'll do this other video because I needed to get these two off my mind.
Get onto some other stuff.
But anyway, so don't get hung up on numbers.
Even in magnetics, you know, and even in energy transfer, you know, there's the drop off one quarter of the distance squared rule, right?
That's an approximate.
It never is going to be exact.
The more you try to be exact, the more you will find out you can't be exact, and you'll also try then to drive yourself crazy, trying to find out how inexact you are, which is, of course, another attempt to become exact and precise.
Humans aren't supposed to be precise.
It's a fuzzy world out there.
And we just need to do good enough for the job and then get on with the next one.
▲
Export Selection