Talk:Thema Mundi

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Astrology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fibonnaci number sequence is relevant to the ordering of the thema mundi[edit]

Astrologer Russell Ohlhausen identified the fibonnaci sequence embedded in the progression of rulerships: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHRg_IUPpU

Mythical horoscope?[edit]

When the article calls the 'Thema Mundi', a "mythical horoscope", what does it mean? I can understand two possible meanings:

its mythical because the claim that the world began with the horoscope in this position is factually untrue
its mythical because the planets / sun / moon could never actually appear in this position

Obviously, meaning (1) is meant, but I'm not sure whether or not meaning (2) is meant as well.

Assuming meaning (2) is not meant, one would assume that, if you believed that the world actually began with this horoscope, then its recurrence would be considered to have particular import, no? If that is the case, how often would this horoscope actually occur? What have been the historical reactions to or interpretations of its occurence? --SJK (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what was originally meant, or what any sources that may exist would say, but (2) is certainly true of the solar system in its current configuration: the elongation of Venus is never more than 47° or so, while this chart has it in sextile to the Sun (60°). For such a wide aspect to be possible, Venus’s orbit would have to be considerably larger in proportion to the Earth’s.

Regardless, no configuration of more than two bodies (including the equinox & ascendant for the purpose of a chart like this) can ever recur exactly, because none of the major planets’ orbital periods (including those of the Moon around the Earth and of the latter’s rotation) are exactly commensurate.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your second point, assumes that spacetime is continuous not discrete. SJK (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, except in a highly abstracted or idealized model. Since the number of discrete steps in an orbit must be very large, the least common multiple of any two (or more) is likely to be many orders of magnitude greater. Accordingly the period of exact recurrence could easily be long enough, say in the millions of years, that secular changes in the solar system would alter the pattern before any cycle could be completed. Even supposing the planetary orbits to be have more long-term stability than current models indicate, time-scales greater than the age of the system–or the lifespan of the Sun–are clearly of theoretical interest only.—Odysseus1479 19:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]