URTH |
From: m.driussi@genie.com Subject: (urth) Zodiac 101 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 97 01:19:00 GMT [Posted from URTH, a mailing list about Gene Wolfe's New Sun and other works] Reply: Item #3438330 from URTH@LISTS.BEST.COM@INET00# Nutria, If your Urth is "flipped" in such a way as to include Cygnus in its zodiac, then we are no longer talking about the more mundane polarity shift I thought we were talking about. Cygnus is not currently anywhere near the ecliptic (the band which the sun and all the planets "appear to move along during the year"--just the sort of "primitive" thinking astronomy still relies on, and what Wolfe was pointing out by never using "sunrise" and "sunset," for example) . . . to force it onto the ecliptic (and thereby a zodiac candidate) would appear to involve stripping a few gears of the solar system machine. (Cygnus is currently what we might call the anti-Gemini or anti-Cancer; but that sounds too permissive. !Even precession of equinox does not change the twelve zodiac signs--it only alters the seasons that the signs appear in!) At that point, having fixed Swan into a new zodiac, would it also be possible to still have Polaris as the North Star? I'm not sure, offhand--I'll let you work it out! <g> If the constellation names have changed then it is unfortunate that they didn't change into entirely new names, since I was able to find nearly all of them--under their present day names and positions, of course. <g> (Add another challenge--not only does Polaris have to be the North Star, but it also has to be called "the Octans," aka, the sorta South Star!) Astronomy is a pretty wild science, and for my money it is nowhere so head-spinning as where it relates to Earth . . . seasons . . . years. I've invested (or paid out) a lot of time looking into just this angle re: Urth/Swan, and my conclusion was--not on Urth. But I'm always willing to look at the work of others. =mantis=