The above is the first major update of my macro-astrology ephemeris in seven years, which does not much affect plus or minus one thousand years or so from the present, but makes a significant effect outside those dates. For my previous version 6 ephemeris, I exclusively used a formula called Rigorous Precession that takes into account fluctuation in precession due to the Moon’s gravitational effect upon Earth, and while this provides a better estimate for precession of the equinoxes in real-time, it has a built-in ‘error’. For example, in version 6, I had the age of Pisces commence in 732 BC, but version 7, the age of Pisces begins in 715 BC – a difference of 17 years. The situation exponentially deteriorates the further away from the present is examined. In version 6, the Virgo age commenced in 14,153 BC, while version 7 has the Virgo age commence in 13,601 BC – a difference of 552 years. There will continue to be errors in version 7, as it is linear, whereas precession of the equinoxes is an erratic movement at the smallest possible level of observation. Version 7 standardizes each age to between 2147 and 2148 years, whereas in reality, each age is slightly shorter compared to the previous age. The main reason for this shortening is that the Moon is slowly but steadily getting further away from Earth, and this creates a dynamic change in precession. However, I believe that version 7 is far less inaccurate compared to the previous version 6.

I first created version 7 on 25th July 2020, but I had to further tweak it by 7th August 2020 and create version 7.1. At some stage, hopefully, an astronomer will provide improved calculations. There remains one minor discrepancy inasmuch, independent of this largescale ephemeris, I also use a nano-age ephemeris with nano-ages only being some 15 months each, and pica ages of 5 weeks. Version 7 indicates that the coming Taurus micro-age arrives in 2029, but my nano-age ephemeris has this same micro-age commencing in January 2030. However, the error involved is only around one month.

The above does not include the very important overflow periods, and if the overflow periods are not taken into account, a distorted perspective is achieved. The overflow periods never apply to quasi periods, but does apply to all other periods such as the ages, age-decans, sub-ages, sub-age decans and micro-ages displayed above, each period has an overflow into the following period of the exact same length. For example, the Age of Pisces (715 BC – 1433 AD) overflows onto the Age of Aquarius (1433 AD – 3581 AD) and the manifestation of Pisces archetypes in world affairs will be stronger in the Age of Aquarius than its own age – especially in the first half of the Age of Aquarius associated with the overlapping Pisces quasi-age (359 AD – 2503 AD). Currently, the world is in the Age of Aquarius (1433 – 3581 AD), Pisces age overflow (1433 – 3581 AD) and Pisces quasi-age (359 AD – 2503 AD). Even this brief analysis suggests that while Aquarius has been manifesting in the world since 1433, its manifestation remains in second place to the ongoing influence of Pisces – the sign of corporations, religions and medievalism.

For further details on the mechanics of the astrological ages, see Age of Aquarius for Dummies

Dear Terry,

I find your work on this fascinating.

Question – is there a libra micro age missing between 1955 and 1970 or am I missing something ?

Thank you, Brian

Sent from my iPad

>

Hi Brian, yes you are missing something – the correct method for dividing ages, sub-ages, micro-ages etc into 1/12th parts. Take a look at my explanation in “Age of Aquarius for Dummies” available at http://ow.ly/ZXBwr

You can also search for material on the dwadasamsa sub-division of signs, which is the basis of the subdivision of ages.

BTW, the missing Libra micro-age basically replicates how I originally rectified the Age of Aquarius, because the last sub-age in the Pisces age(715 BC – 1433 AD) is the Pisces sub-age (1254 – 1433), while the first sub-age in the Age of Aquarius (1433 – 3581) is the Capricorn sub-age(1433 – 1612). When I found these sub-ages in my original rectification, the ‘missing’ Aquarius sub-age told me that I had found the cusp of the Age of Pisces and Age of Aquarius.

Regards, Terry

Hello Mr. MacKinnell,

I am following your posts for couple of years now. And actually yesterday I was speaking about your theory with a friend.

I am still confused which ayanamsa are you using?, and which house system?

Are all your signs and constellations of equal sizes? What if there are more than 12 and they aren’t equal?

Is there any part of personal ephemeris, such as Transits to natal chart?, or some kind of business predictions?

Also, I recently seen articles from differing views saying that Age of Aquarius will commence in about 2160 CE and their description of Ages, Eras, Phases, seemed similar to yours, but it fitted with their timings with worldwide historical trends. And I know it fits to you with your timings as well, which is confusing.

Regards. F.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020, 05:56 Demystifying the Aquarian Age, wrote:

> Terry MacKinnell posted: ” The above is the first major update of my > macro-astrology ephemeris in seven years, which does not much affect plus > or minus one thousand years or so from the present, but makes a significant > effect outside those ” >

The ayanamsa I am using for the astrological ages was 37.5 degrees in 1970 or 40 degrees in 2149. However, I only use this ayanamsa for the astrological ages, whereas in Vedic horoscopes, I use Lahiri. There is not really a formal house system in the ages, but I do apply the whole house system to the astrological ages and their sub periods. In the Vedic horoscope, I use whole sign houses, as I also do in western horoscopes.

I use the sidereal zodiac of 12 signs of exactly 30 degrees each. The zodiacal constellations were always only symbolic, and their sizes etc were never meant to be taken literally. The Hellenistic Greeks figured this out about 2,300 years ago but many astrologers still have trouble digesting this.

For business predictions, see https://aquarianageeconomics.wordpress.com/

There are hundreds, if not thousands of claims for different starting dates for the Age of Aquarius. However, if you look for verification for most claims, you will find most astrologers have just plucked a date out of the mists of their collective delusions. I did not want the Age of Aquarius to start in the 15th century, but after years and years of research, this is the only possible century for the start of the Aquarian age. Historians mainly agree! If you look up history books, 80% will say that modernity arrived in the 15th century. Why astrologers cannot see this is that they are still enmeshed in utopian ideals about a world that even in one million years, is unlikely to exist.

The only way to eradicate confusion about the astrological ages is to firstly read as much as you can from as many different sources possible. Secondly, you need to see if you can use the ages yourself, either in correlating past events, present day events, or even making predictions. No one really understands horoscopic astrology without casting horoscopes and attempting to interpret them. The same applies to the astrological ages.

Regards, Terry

Terry, I’d really love to do lessons or a one-one-one courses and was hoping you still do them. I am currently saving up the money for it now and it’d take perhaps half a year, so no rush, but I’d be really glad if it were still possible to do as I am lacking so much in understanding about things like this, and things like pica ages. It’s all quite confusing and mathematical 🙂

Hi Lauren, I have not formalized any courses yet, but if you give me a more detailed description of what you actually need, I will see if I can do a post on it?

I was trying to work back in logic on how the pica ages work from a 2018 (or 2019) post that showed a chart of the pica age progression that year, and I assumed that each pica age lasted roughly 1 month, and that 3 pica ages within a nano age would last twice as long as that 1 month. The pica ages which lasted double would change each nano age by one shift (so in the last aquarius nano age, the 4th, 8th and 12th pica ages were double the length of an ordinary pica age of ~1 month; then in the capricorn nano age, the 5th, 6th and 1st pica ages lasted twice as long). I’m not sure if that made sense but I just assumed it, however I saw a recent chart that didn’t go this way and I am back to not understanding how they work.

Yes, I will clarify your above query ASAP. One of the problems with pica ages is that they are around 5 weeks long but the error level is plus or minus 4 weeks, so it all gets hazy and crazy at the pica age level – yet they can still be identifiable with a little patience. I have a spreadsheet whereby if I enter the start and end date, it provides me with an ‘ephemeris’ for all the sub-periods involved based on 12th sub-periods, decans and quasi periods etc. In my response, I will provide the ephemeris for the current Capricorn nano-age and following Sagittarius nano-age broken down into all the various sub-periods including pica ages!

Hi Lauren, the new post on pica ages is now available – see: http://ow.ly/ffhB50Dgz5r

Thank you very much Terry, I’ll be checking out the post 🙂