Need Help With an Astronomical / Astrological Question

[GreNME]

Before you read on, I want to point out that I neither believe in astrology nor to I think that the Zeitgeist conspira-religio-antiestablishmentist film has anything in the way of scholarship or credulity. I also am not prepared to re-type all of the arguments others and myself have pointed out to people in the conspiracy theory sub-forum, so anyone wishing to defend it can go to that thread and pick up the conversation where it has been left off so far.

What I'm looking for here is a resource, whether it's software or a website or a book (or whatever), that can help me work out the position of a few constellations in reference to the horizon from a certain group of locations at various points in history, including today. There are tons of software out there that can give me positions of stars or positions of constellations, and some of those can give me a basic view of where the horizon line would be, but I need to be able to cross-reference that with the position of the sunrise and sunset on each of the days I want to choose throughout history.

This has to be possible, since the software I've been able to find (for free) have been able to give me loads of information. The problem I keep hitting is that none of them give me the complete information, and all of them display way too much information for my needs, making the specific things I'm looking for that much more difficult.

So, before I begin printing off copies of the results I've been able to nudge out of the different software and sites I've been using, and then trying to merge all of those data while simultaneously expunging the order of magnitude more of unnecessary data, I wanted to know if I'm going about this the wrong way and if there is a better and more straight-forward way. I'm perfectly willing to work with what I have and follow due diligence, but I want to make sure I'm not following a circuitous route to get somewhere that I could have gotten through a straighter and more elegant path.

I'm assuming this falls under the banner of "general skepticism" because it doesn't necessarily fall comfortably into conspiracy theory or religion, and I'll be damned if anyone but some adherents to astrology consider it anything resembling a science. If the mods disagree, let me know where you decide to move it.

Thanks.

 

[Hokulele]

How far back in time do you want to go? A few of the programs out there either do not go back very far, or are notoriously inaccurate once you try dates more than 400-500 years ago.

 

[GreNME]

So I've been finding.

I want to go back to the turn of each millenia for the last 3000 years, as well as use this year's positioning. Is there a way to account for drift to get an approximation of positions? I could always start with four stars in relation to the sunrises and sunsets for the dates and that would be sufficient for at least the main gist of my thesis, but even those are going to require me figuring out how much difference in position there would be over incredibly huge distances (and location of observer's point of view).

The more I look at the variables involved, the more the original claims I am thinking are bunk are looking like a wild astronomical goose chase.

 

[Hokulele]

I hate to say it, but you may be better off doing your own calculations by hand if you are trying to be that specific. This is a good book if you are just crunching numbers.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521356997/ephemeriscom-20

The Meesus is way more complete, but may be too much considering what you are trying to do.

http://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Algorithms-Jean-Meeus/dp/0943396611/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2

Can you give me a specific example of what you are trying to calculate? I may take a crack at it just for fun, although I have done any serious ephemeris generation since my college days, so may be a little rusty.

 

[GreNME]

Well, the main one I am trying to concentrate on first is the contention I first found in the zeitgeist movie that seems to claim that seems to claim that the belt of Orion and the (binary) star(s) Sirius line up to point directly where the sun rises on the final sunrise of the Winter solstice. It claims this is astrological knowledge as proof, but I already have a pretty good idea that this claim is bunk for a few reasons:

1. It would all depend on the relative position of the viewer to the sky at the time to support such a contention, since even if this was so on one general area it wouldn't be so in most of the others. It is for this reason I want to try to figure out the relative positioning from the PoV of a few different places to show the differences. I'm currently thinking of beginning with three locations-- Jerusalem, Rome, and Giza, though I am considering adding Bejing and locations in North America, subSaharan Africa, and India as well.
   .
2. The positions of the stars as compared to today aren't going to be exactly the same as they were 1000, 2000, and 3000 years ago. Sure, they'll be somewhat similar, but being able to show the variances would go a long way toward adding certainty to the argument against this claim if only because those who make this claim like to use typical astrological "baffle them with BS" methods of "explaning" the positions. This aspect will be key in actually pointing out the falsehood of the claim.
   .
3. I don't believe that this claim is reflective of the positions of the stars I mention even today (from what I've been checking), but the couple of hundred years I've been able to alter the positioning using software like the free "StarChartGL" software or a few online pages hasn't given me any definitive data on whether the difference in positioning today is significant enough that it might have been a claimable assumption at some point in history, hence my desire to figure out at least three key times in history and then see if it's possible to approximate the mid-points from there, which would go a long way toward giving a clearer picture of how much this claim was made up out of thin air.

Honestly, though, this very well might be a wild goose chase on my part. The reality is that even the three stars in the belt of Orion don't "line up" in a real manner, so the claim is already dubious in terms of accuracy in that regard. This is why I've been trying to look for a resource to see if there are ways I can chart this using the crunching ability of my computer instead of figuring out the equations and just using the computer as a calculator.

 

[Pyrts]

Since the constellations don't actually rotate as a group through their position in the sky, you can use modern data to prove that the belt's pointing anywhere is bunk.

In other words, Orion of 22,000 years ago may have the stars shifted but it'll still be in the same rough configuration as it is today. It won't twist around 90 degrees.

There's other problems with the constellations: the ancients didn't interpret the patterns the same way we (via the Romans) did. For instance, the Egyptians apparently saw Scorpio as a sphynx, and they saw Orion as two different constellations. In addition, the "boundaries" of where the constellations are in the sky is vague. In modern times we do have them well defined, but in ancient times they weren't. This was (in some systems of astrology) solved by dividing the sky into 12 or more equal parts and assigning a constellation to "rule" over it.

But, Zeitgeist is just full of baloney.

 

[GreNME]

Since the constellations don't actually rotate as a group through their position in the sky, you can use modern data to prove that the belt's pointing anywhere is bunk.

Yes, but the way they appear from certain vantage points would change slightly, would it not? Moreover, the position as relative to the sunrise is what I'm looking for, and there should be slight variations over the millenia, no?

In other words, Orion of 22,000 years ago may have the stars shifted but it'll still be in the same rough configuration as it is today. It won't twist around 90 degrees.

All I need is a few degrees plus-or-minus. That's why I'm trying to figure out whether I'm chasing a wild goose on this.

There's other problems with the constellations: the ancients didn't interpret the patterns the same way we (via the Romans) did. For instance, the Egyptians apparently saw Scorpio as a sphynx, and they saw Orion as two different constellations. In addition, the "boundaries" of where the constellations are in the sky is vague. In modern times we do have them well defined, but in ancient times they weren't. This was (in some systems of astrology) solved by dividing the sky into 12 or more equal parts and assigning a constellation to "rule" over it.

Are there some good references I can use for this that lay this out clearly (for transferring this information to others)?

But, Zeitgeist is just full of baloney.

Of that there is no doubt.

I'm looking for a clear methodology for exposing this certain part of the baloney.

 

[Octoparrot]

Check out freeware called Stellarium. You'll get it from vvv.stellarium.org v=w naturally. I'm not sure how accurate it'll be when calculating distant past.

Other option would be Starry Night which is really accurate, but has depressing price tag. Of course someone might have dropped his copy to intrawebs....

 

[GreNME]

Unfortunately I can't pick myself up a copy of Starry Night from a "dropped" copy due to personal limitations, but I'll look into the cost-benefit ratio of finding a copy for a discount. I'll also take a look into Stellarium.

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, the main one I am trying to concentrate on first is the contention I first found in the zeitgeist movie that seems to claim that seems to claim that the belt of Orion and the (binary) star(s) Sirius line up to point directly where the sun rises on the final sunrise of the Winter solstice.

This is actually a more interesting question than it seems on the surface. Unlike zodiac signs, constellations not on the ecliptic are not as subject to variances by precession, especially when you are comparing them to fixed targets such as equinoxes and solstices. This is why Egypt used the rising of Sirius with the Sun to determine the flooding of the Nile rather than any lunar or other ecliptic-based observations. This is kind of a neat historical article about Egyptian zodiacs and precession. It also gives a bit of a warning about trying to apply information out of context.

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVI4/buchwald.html

What makes this a very odd claim, however, is to state that the belt plus Sirius points directly there on the "final sunrise of the Solstice". First off, that phrase really doesn't mean anything. Do they mean the last sunrise before the solstice? The first sunrise after the solstice? The Winter Solstice is a moment in time, not an extended period involving several sunrises. In addition, the belt doesn't line up with itself, and Sirius is quite out of line if you want to use the term "directly". It could be off as much as 10-15 degrees, and most people would consider that to be close enough.

I haven't bothered to watch the whole movie, but if you can give me a time stamp, or an accurate quote, I could look into it further.

 

[GreNME]

This is actually a more interesting question than it seems on the surface. Unlike zodiac signs, constellations not on the ecliptic are not as subject to variances by precession, especially when you are comparing them to fixed targets such as equinoxes and solstices. This is why Egypt used the rising of Sirius with the Sun to determine the flooding of the Nile rather than any lunar or other ecliptic-based observations. This is kind of a neat historical article about Egyptian zodiacs and precession. It also gives a bit of a warning about trying to apply information out of context.

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVI4/buchwald.html

That's an awesome link. Thanks for that!

What makes this a very odd claim, however, is to state that the belt plus Sirius points directly there on the "final sunrise of the Solstice". First off, that phrase really doesn't mean anything. Do they mean the last sunrise before the solstice? The first sunrise after the solstice? The Winter Solstice is a moment in time, not an extended period involving several sunrises. In addition, the belt doesn't line up with itself, and Sirius is quite out of line if you want to use the term "directly". It could be off as much as 10-15 degrees, and most people would consider that to be close enough.

I haven't bothered to watch the whole movie, but if you can give me a time stamp, or an accurate quote, I could look into it further.

Here is the text from their "interactive" (rife with self-referencing) transcript:

First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt. These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings. The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings "follow" the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise -- the birth of the sun.

Good luck trying to decipher what they mean there, as what I've stated is about as close as I can figure of what they are supposedly trying to say. If I take a look at the film again I'll get you a time stamp.

 

[dacium2007]

Keep in mind there is still great debate of the possible axial changed and other effects that may have happened over the last 3000 to 5000 years. Several published papers show a graph of some sort of orbital value that I don't remember much about and how it abbrubtly shifts indiciating either dating is wrong on ancient documents or that there was some sort of **** in the earth moon system or the earths angle or rotation. I would take it with a grain of salt going back any further than 1500 AD when real publishing began and numbers could be trusted.

 

[leonAzul]

This is actually a more interesting question than it seems on the surface. Unlike zodiac signs, constellations not on the ecliptic are not as subject to variances by precession, especially when you are comparing them to fixed targets such as equinoxes and solstices. This is why Egypt used the rising of Sirius with the Sun to determine the flooding of the Nile rather than any lunar or other ecliptic-based observations. This is kind of a neat historical article about Egyptian zodiacs and precession. It also gives a bit of a warning about trying to apply information out of context.

Which makes the question even more interesting, since Sirius is roughly aligned with Gemini, meaning the time of year it would seem to proceed before the rising Sun would be just before the Summer Solstice. I guess it would therefore also be visible in the East just after sunset around the Winter Solstice.

 

[Cuddles]

Redshift is one of the best astronomy programs around. I haven't used it for the last couple of versions, but I think it's pretty accurate at past and future positions.

 

[Hokulele]

First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt. These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings. The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings "follow" the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise -- the birth of the sun.

Well, they are being vague enough that it doesn't really mean anything, no surprise. If they wanted to be astronomically (and astrologically!) correct, they would pick an actual time and location. You can use any modern date to show how the point on the horizon indicated by the stars in Orion's belt changes drastically if you look from hour to hour, or from latitude to latitude.

Do they ever provide a reference for the "Three Kings" claim? I have heard them referred to as the "Three Marys" by many Central/South American catholics, but not the kings. You would probably know the history better than I, however.

Historically speaking, it is (probably) intentionally vague in that they do not indicate whether they mean the constellation points there on the current Dec. 24th, back when they chose Dec. 25 as Christmas, or back in Egyptian times. It would point in different directions on each date. Plus, do they mean corrected by the Gregorian reform or not? Big difference in dates there!

Last thing to note, the stars in Orion's belt do not line up "directly" with Sirius, although it is close enough to use this as a guide for identifying Sirius for modern people unfamiliar with the constellations. I don't believe they ever lined up exactly, but would have to do some heavy math to prove it. As a fun live test, have 3 or more people point to the horizon where they think the stars point. I guarantee you will end up with differences of 15 degrees or more! Without a precise location, time, and measuring device, this set of directions is almost completely meaningless.

 

[GreNME]

Well, they are being vague enough that it doesn't really mean anything, no surprise. If they wanted to be astronomically (and astrologically!) correct, they would pick an actual time and location. You can use any modern date to show how the point on the horizon indicated by the stars in Orion's belt changes drastically if you look from hour to hour, or from latitude to latitude.

This is my assumption as well, and I want to expose it as much as possible. This seems to me no different (though less accurate) than even cold reading or vague palm-reading exercises.

Do they ever provide a reference for the "Three Kings" claim? I have heard them referred to as the "Three Marys" by many Central/South American catholics, but not the kings. You would probably know the history better than I, however.

The bible itself refers to three magi visiting the nativity of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, but not in the other gospels. The general consensus places the authorship of that account near the end of the First Century CE, though it could have been as late as the early Second Century as well (either way, it was written pretty early on). The movie attempts to connect the gospel account of the magi to the stars of Orion's Belt (through convoluted means), and so on and so forth, connecting it to the Winter Solstice to make the tired argument that the story of the birth of Jesus was built around the solstice observance-- which, according to the film, supports the case that Christianity (and every religion) are based on astrology. I've not seen an 'examination' like the one in the movie-- and I've looked at its sources (and even argued with one author)-- that accounts for the incongruent fact that the solstice celebration wasn't chosen as a time for observation in the late Third / early Fourth Century CE, nearly two hundred years later and after more than one early Christian leader had posited numerous other dates as the possible or probable times for the birth account. They seem to overlook this two hundred years of conflicting or incongruous data, most likely because it doesn't fit into the hand-waving taking place in the movie before describing the interpretive quote I showed you.

Historically speaking, it is (probably) intentionally vague in that they do not indicate whether they mean the constellation points there on the current Dec. 24th, back when they chose Dec. 25 as Christmas, or back in Egyptian times. It would point in different directions on each date. Plus, do they mean corrected by the Gregorian reform or not? Big difference in dates there!

Oh, that's a huge one I will be pointing out! They use a modern astrological system (based on the Ptolemaic model, as far as I can tell) and that alone is askew from the actual astronomy, which leaves a huge hole in the claim since both astronomy and astrology varied greatly from place to place in the early centuries, usually in matters of accuracy compared to the astronomy. Further, the constant references to December 25th are the absolute funniest claims in the film, since historically solstice celebrations began when the solstice begins, which is three or four days earlier. In fact, any of the solstice-birthed dieties in antiquity were typically born in the days before the 25th-- for example, the Roman Mithras (based on the Persian Mithra) was supposedly on the 21st until roughly the Third Century CE, right around the same time as 'guess who' (Josh C. himself), though the Persians (Iran) still to this day have a celebration on none other than the 21st of December.

Basically, all of their claims seem to be 'close enough for horseshoes' until you actually examine the claims, and then another picture that is completely different than their astrology-as-religion-maker claims begins to surface.

Last thing to note, the stars in Orion's belt do not line up "directly" with Sirius, although it is close enough to use this as a guide for identifying Sirius for modern people unfamiliar with the constellations. I don't believe they ever lined up exactly, but would have to do some heavy math to prove it. As a fun live test, have 3 or more people point to the horizon where they think the stars point. I guarantee you will end up with differences of 15 degrees or more! Without a precise location, time, and measuring device, this set of directions is almost completely meaningless.

Well, I've gone back about 500 years in several mapping programs and their relative positions remained pretty much the same "close enough" estimation as you describe, which is why I'm looking for a way to find a reliable methodology for displaying this in a presentation form (probably text, but who knows? everyone is youtubing nowadays) as well as show how even that "close enough" approximation isn't accurate enough to claim that it points to the solstice... outside of astrology proselytizing, at least.

 

[Elvis666]

What I'm looking for here is a resource, whether it's software or a website or a book (or whatever), that can help me work out the position of a few constellations in reference to the horizon from a certain group of locations at various points in history, including today. There are tons of software out there that can give me positions of stars or positions of constellations, and some of those can give me a basic view of where the horizon line would be, but I need to be able to cross-reference that with the position of the sunrise and sunset on each of the days I want to choose throughout history.

You can try Cartes du Ciel for the PC which can be found at www.stargazing.net/astropc/index.html. (Sorry, I can't quote URL's yet). I've used it to match diagrams from Sky and Telescope for supposed configurations for the star of Bethlehem, so I think it works for that long ago. The documentation says it is good from 3000 BCE to 3000 CE for the planets and -20000 to +20000 for the celestial sphere. It's free and I prefer it to the commercial planetarium programs I've tried.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, I've gone back about 500 years in several mapping programs and their relative positions remained pretty much the same "close enough" estimation as you describe, which is why I'm looking for a way to find a reliable methodology for displaying this in a presentation form (probably text, but who knows? everyone is youtubing nowadays) as well as show how even that "close enough" approximation isn't accurate enough to claim that it points to the solstice... outside of astrology proselytizing, at least.

Ah, in that case, your best bet may be to reference one of the pages on Proper Motion (Google the phrase and you will get a ton of hits), as well as Parallax (here is an example of what I am talking about, and here's another). Basically stars do change their position over time, Sirius being one of the those that has been tracked historically (from Ptolemy's Almagest). You can see this pretty easily by referencing a star chart that uses the positions calculated for the 2000 epoch, and then compare that to a star chart using the 1900 epoch. IIRC, Sirius was calculated to have moved by about a half a degree over a roughly 2000 year period. To put things in perspective, the Moon's apparent diameter is about a half a degree. You can probably find an on-line copy of the star listing from the Almagest and plot a picture showing the location calculated by Ptolemy, and compare that to the position shown by the 500 years you tracked in your software.

 

[GreNME]

Hokulele, that's great to know. Do you know if the same can be applied to the stars in Orion's Belt? I was pretty sure there was a slight drift, but I wasn't sure how to chart it. I can get myself a decent approximation (I doubt I'll be perfectly accurate) using the method you describe. Also, if challenged I can always refer back to Ptolemy and compare it to today for people who want to check themselves!

That last part is significant because I do want to present everything as independently verifiable as possible. I'm big on encouraging others to try for themselves.

Also, everyone: thanks a bunch for all the software suggestions! I've tried a few, but haven't gotten to them all yet. All the ones suggested so far seem to be really great.

 

[Hokulele]

I am not sure if Ptolemy catalogued the stars in Orion's belt, I would have to go do some digging. They all have Arabic proper names (Alnitak, Alnilam, and Mintaka) if you are looking them up. In addition, you may want to throw in the star positions calculated by Tycho Brahe, as they are close to your 500-year mark, and are famous for their accuracy. It also gives those people interested another easily researched and verified data point.