Ophiuchus - 13th Astrological sign
Riggs:
Quote from: mrgaldor on August 30, 2007, 12:05:36 AM
Quote from: Riggs on August 29, 2007, 11:38:38 PM
Quote from: mrgaldor on August 29, 2007, 10:39:45 PM
Im not big into astrology, but there are constellations all over they place. They overlap all over the sky. Breaking up into ages in a way is pretty arbitrary no matter how you do it from a purely geometric point of view.
theres about 88 constellations........the 12 used in the zodiac....well
If you wanted to you could find a lot more than 88 though by making new ones. Also, you could make them in such a way that theyll span over just about any areas of the sky you like.
this is in the ancient constellations.......
mrgaldor:
Quote from: Riggs on August 30, 2007, 12:13:40 AM
Quote from: mrgaldor on August 30, 2007, 12:05:36 AM
Quote from: Riggs on August 29, 2007, 11:38:38 PM
Quote from: mrgaldor on August 29, 2007, 10:39:45 PM
Im not big into astrology, but there are constellations all over they place. They overlap all over the sky. Breaking up into ages in a way is pretty arbitrary no matter how you do it from a purely geometric point of view.
theres about 88 constellations........the 12 used in the zodiac....well
If you wanted to you could find a lot more than 88 though by making new ones. Also, you could make them in such a way that theyll span over just about any areas of the sky you like.
this is in the ancient constellations.......
Yeah I know.
Reannan:
Quote from: McAirman on August 30, 2007, 12:11:18 AM
The Mayan 2012 is our 2007. :)
Carry on.
No, no. You don't get off that easy. 'splain, Lucy. You can't come in here and make a statement like that and just let it lie. It's just wrong.
prander:
He means that the Julian-Gregorian calendar which uses 0 as the time of Christ's birth for the point between BC and AD (and hence "BC" - Before Christ and "AD" - Anno Domini), which is supposed to be based on the birth of Christ is actually 5 years off as it's since been established that Christ would actually have been born in what, in our (Julian-Gregorian) calendar, is 5 BC. So if we were to adopt that as the actual time of Christ's birth, 5 BC would actually be 0, 5 AD would actually be 10 AD and 2007 AD (now) would actually be 2012 AD.
Riggs:
Quote from: prander on August 30, 2007, 12:46:58 PM
He means that the Julian-Gregorian calendar which uses 0 as the time of Christ's birth for the point between BC and AD (and hence "BC" - Before Christ and "AD" - Anno Domini), which is supposed to be based on the birth of Christ is actually 5 years off as it's since been established that Christ would actually have been born in what, in our (Julian-Gregorian) calendar, is 5 BC. So if we were to adopt that as the actual time of Christ's birth, 5 BC would actually be 0, 5 AD would actually be 10 AD and 2007 AD (now) would actually be 2012 AD.
lil over 3 months to go.........looks like a no show ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page