Mathieu Ossendrijver has proposed a solution to the origin of the exaltation degrees. With the exception of the Sun’s exaltation at 19° Aries, the remaining planetary exaltations are linked to the positions of Babylonian Normal Stars—that is, to specific fixed stars within the sidereal zodiac.

While the connection between the exaltation degrees and the Babylonian system is not a new discovery (see Gavin White’s Babylonian Star-Lore, Solaria Publications, 2008, Appendix 16, p. 308), Ossendrijver’s contribution is to match each exaltation degree precisely to an individual fixed star.

https://www.academia.edu/129893294/The_ ... _preprint_

To note, the Sun's specific exaltation degree of 18Aries54 is the square root of 360.

RegulusAstrology wrote:

While the connection between the exaltation degrees and the Babylonian system is not a new discovery (see Gavin White's Babylonian Star-Lore, Solaria Publications, 2008, Appendix 16, p. 308), Ossendrijver's contribution is to match each exaltation degree precisely to an individual fixed star.

https://www.academia.edu/129893294/The_ ... _preprint_

It's not possible to read this paper it seems unless one is a member of the Academia site. Could you possibly list the stars the author connected to the exaltation degrees? Thank you.

P.S. Gavin White's books are a wonderful and unique knowledge source on Babylonian astrology and astronomy for astrologers! There is nothing like his books anywhere else in our universe. All his books are illustrated with his own unique art work. The books are treasures.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 5:49 pm It's not possible to read this paper it seems unless one is a member of the Academia site. Could you possibly list the stars the author connected to the exaltation degrees? Thank you.

Hi Therese: I've sent you the PDF of this paper via private email.

wstarter wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:37 pm To note, the Sun's specific exaltation degree of 18Aries54 is the square root of 360.

The number usually given for the Sun's exaltation is 19 deg., but that's the square root of 361. I never noticed that. Maybe they only wanted whole numbers.

But if we're going to allow numbers with fractional parts, 18 deg 54 minutes is 18.9, and 18.9 squared is only 357.21, i.e. 357 deg 13 min. Why not use 18 deg 58 min? That's 359 deg 44 min, a lot closer.

--stargeezer

Thank you, AJ. The paper is a lot more detailed and academic than I expected. I wasn't able to read it today, but will do so tomorrow.

Is the Academia site worth joining? For years I've been getting notices that various people have mentioned my name, but I needed to join to "view my mentions." I think I assumed that the site went all over the Internet collecting articles and papers, then charged for reading and printing them. Am I missing something?

Therese Hamilton wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:53 am Is the Academia site worth joining? For years I've been getting notices that various people have mentioned my name, but I needed to join to "view my mentions." I think I assumed that the site went all over the Internet collecting articles and papers, then charged for reading and printing them. Am I missing something?

Hi Therese: Your skepticism about Academia.edu is totally understandable. That said, the idea that they collect articles from across the internet and charge for access isn’t quite accurate. Researchers upload their own work to the platform, and while reading papers is free, you do need to create a free account to download or upload content.

The real monetization comes from their premium subscription—around $99/year—which they push pretty hard. Premium features include things like seeing who mentioned your name, tracking profile views, and accessing advanced analytics. In my experience, the free version is more than enough for accessing most papers or sharing your own work. The “someone mentioned you” emails are marketing tactics, and most of these mentions are either trivial or mistakenly triggered by similar names in unrelated fields.

If you decide to join, just be aware of some possible drawbacks. Academia.edu is a for-profit company, despite the ".edu" domain—which can be misleading, as it’s not affiliated with any academic institution. A free account gives you access, but it also comes with a steady stream of spammy emails, aggressive upselling for premium features, and questionable data practices. Most of the papers you'll find there are also available elsewhere—often on Google Scholar or through institutional repositories—without the added commercial layer.

Another thing to keep in mind is longevity. Because Academia.edu is a commercial platform, there’s no guarantee of long-term stability. If the company is sold, restructured, or shut down, your uploaded work could disappear without warning. That said, the site is widely used, boasting over 200 million users and more than 50 million uploaded papers. So while it can be useful for visibility, it’s wise not to rely on it as your sole archive for scholarly work.

If your goal is simply to find papers or keep up with citations, Google Scholar or reaching out directly to authors might be a better route. But if you’re actively sharing your own work and looking for more exposure, Academia.edu can be useful—as long as you’re aware of its limitations and business model.

Hope that helps!

I think you might be making your calculation based on the minutes going from 1-60 as opposed to 0-59.

18 deg 54 minutes should get you 18.91666666667, squared to 357.840277778.

Perfectly precise? No, but certainly curious, especially in lacking a star based rationale for it's exaltation degree.

stargeezer wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 1:03 am

wstarter wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:37 pm To note, the Sun's specific exaltation degree of 18Aries54 is the square root of 360.

The number usually given for the Sun's exaltation is 19 deg., but that's the square root of 361. I never noticed that. Maybe they only wanted whole numbers.

But if we're going to allow numbers with fractional parts, 18 deg 54 minutes is 18.9, and 18.9 squared is only 357.21, i.e. 357 deg 13 min. Why not use 18 deg 58 min? That's 359 deg 44 min, a lot closer.

--stargeezer

AJ, you gave LOTS of help about Academia! Thank you. I'm sure the information you gave will be instructive to others as well.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 4:57 pm AJ, you gave LOTS of help about Academia! Thank you. I'm sure the information you gave will be instructive to others as well.

Thanks Therese.
I'm curious about your thoughts on Ossendrijver's paper, but only if you're up to it and don't mind sharing.

wstarter wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:53 pm I think you might be making your calculation based on the minutes going from 1-60 as opposed to 0-59.

18 deg 54 minutes should get you 18.91666666667, squared to 357.840277778.

Perfectly precise? No, but certainly curious, especially in lacking a star based rationale for it's exaltation degree.

I'm dividing 54/60, which gives me 0.9. What are you dividing by to get 0.91666666667? (See P.S. at bottom.)

And whether we square 18.9 or 18.91666666667, the result is 357.xxxx, more than 2 degrees less than 360. 19 is actually a better approximation than either of those. 19 X 19 is 361, which is only off by 1.

--stargeezer

P.S. added on 06/21/25: I did a little algebra and find that to get 0.91666666667, you would have had to divide 54 by 58.9090909088. An odd choice. Note that whether you count from 0 to 59 or 1 to 60, there are still 60 minutes in a degree.

Dr. H,

With all due respect, how are Prof. Ossendrijver's findings different from those of Rumen Kolev's previously published courses? As I understand it, Kolev had already presented similar conclusions in his research..