Too expensive for me but im willing to provide my birthdata and events if you`re willing to rectify my birthtime. My father appeared to be quite sure of the time but we never know

Mike N wrote:Hi again

I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr? s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment. .

Probably you read Michael Wackford's article: Topocentric Houses: Loose ends and Unrapt parallels. You can find it in the articles section.
Like so many astrologers Michael Wackford didn't understand the construction of this house system and I can understand him.
Since its first publication in 1963, Topo system was attacked over and again. Wendel Polich, who discovered the system together with Nelson Page, wrote to Alexander Marr that this system is trigonometrically highly technical and only very few people can understand it. (How many highly skilled mathematicians can really understand the solution of Andrew Wiles to the Fermat's last theorem or to the solution of Grigori Perelman to the Poincare conjecture?)
Wendel Polich was not only a professor of mathematics but a man with extraordinary powers of concentration.
One thing is clear: without the Topocentric houses my program Polaris wouldn't be able to work.

http://astrowisdom.net/articles/new-top ... system.htm

see here

Isaac Starkman wrote:One thing is clear: without the Topocentric houses my program Polaris wouldn't be able to work.

At astro.com my topocentric chart has exactly the same cusps as in Placidus.

Isaac Starkman wrote:

Mike N wrote:Hi again

I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr? s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment. .

Probably you read Michael Wackford's article: Topocentric Houses: Loose ends and Unrapt parallels. You can find it in the articles section.
Like so many astrologers Michael Wackford didn't understand the construction of this house system and I can understand him.
Since its first publication in 1963, Topo system was attacked over and again. Wendel Polich, who discovered the system together with Nelson Page, wrote to Alexander Marr that this system is trigonometrically highly technical and only very few people can understand it. (How many highly skilled mathematicians can really understand the solution of Andrew Wiles to the Fermat's last theorem or to the solution of Grigori Perelman to the Poincare conjecture?)
Wendel Polich was not only a professor of mathematics but a man with extraordinary powers of concentration.
One thing is clear: without the Topocentric houses my program Polaris wouldn't be able to work.

According to R. Smit Topocentric houses have already been tested:

I am fully aware of the topocentric House System. We already experimented with it in the seventies. So there is nothing new about it. And the socalled topocentric primary directions are not topocentric - they are the standard primary directions which were already in use long before World War II. The only difference lies in the time key

Isaac Starkman wrote:

Mike N wrote:Hi again

I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr? s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment. .

Probably you read Michael Wackford's article: Topocentric Houses: Loose ends and Unrapt parallels. You can find it in the articles section.
Like so many astrologers Michael Wackford didn't understand the construction of this house system and I can understand him.

Hello Issac

The study I thought I had seen would have involved using this model of space/time division to see if correct birth times could be obtained. It would be irrelevant to a critical researcher, or sceptic/scientist. whether a house system had any coherent or persuasive astronomical / astrological
integrity. Only once the data supported the hypothesis would this be of interest.

I did read your comments on George W's blog. Can you confirm that if 500 people with verified birth times, so we can anticipate they are mostly accurate within 10 minutes, were found and 35 events for each provided you would be certain Polaris would find the time within the hour. This appeared to me to be your position.

My view at the moment is there would be many ways to test this system usefully with a large enough sample. You could undertake it with less than 500 but the smaller the sample results in a less persuasive conclusion.

Atleantean thinks 500 would be difficult to find. I believe in many countries times are recorded on the BC or available from the hospital.

My main concern would be if Polaris provided unimpressive results this could be explained away by the lack of objective events. I did note however your, and Atlantean's, observations that in some cases fewer events can be sufficient. I hope you, Atlantean and Smit can agree on a test and await the outocme with interest. I would anticipate a mutual agreement that 20 (+/-5 )events is sufficient.

The discussion about odds is something of a red herring at this stage, in my opinion.

Dmause

I am fully aware of the topocentric House System. We already experimented with it in the seventies.

Can you let us know who "we" are? Secondly if you have studied astrology for 40 years how come you are asking beginner level questions in the nativity section and do not seem to know what mundane astrology is?

I thought that this forum asked its members to display some commitment to the study of the subject

Matthew

Hello Mike N

Re: "The discussion about odds is something of a red herring at this stage, in my opinion."

There's nothing red-herring-ish about it, if you understand the math.

If I go to flip a coin 5 times (50% chance heads, 50% chance tails) and you tell me that you can tell me that it will be heads five times in a row, then IF IT COMES TO PASS, then the odds that were "defeated" were (1/2)^5 [= 0.03125]. Fish don't enter the picture.

It's the same with the odds of finding the "right minute" in the day. Since there are 1440 minutes in a day and we are considering ONE of them to be correct, then the odds HAVE TO BE 1 in 1440 or 1439:1 AGAINST, depending on how one wants to express it.

When Polaris (one time) gives the correct minute, then it (by definition) has defeated 1 in 1440 odds. Since each birthtime is obviously mutually exclusive, then the formula becomes:
...where N is the number of times that Polaris correctly gives the birth minute in N consecutive attempts.

If we "accept" a larger margin of error, say +/- 5 mins, then there are 144 of those ten-minute-periods in the day and so it is the same formula, but with 144 as the divisor, instead of 1440.

This is the mathematical probability. We can't change the formula because we don't like it or perhaps don't fully understand it.

If we are flipping a coin five times and you say the first one is heads, you have "defeated" 50% odds, because it could have been heads or it could have been tails. You got the one right out of two possibilities. Now, if you say the first one is heads AND the second one is heads, then (0.5 * 0.5) or 0.25 are the defeated odds in your doing so. Third one also heads? 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 and so on.

Is there some part of this that isn't clear? I want us to be on the same page here or the "test" is pointless, because the significance will not even be understood.

Now let's examine a "test" scenario...

Let's assume that we are given a three hour period in which the birthtime is contained. To get within +/- 5 mins is 1/18, because there were 180 minutes in those 3 hours and we are looking at a ten-minute block of time, so 180/10 = 18. Now, let's assume this exact test is replicated a number of times....

Polaris tries once and succeeds, 5.6% chance, defeated.

Polaris tries second test and succeeds, 0.31% chance, defeated.

Polaris tries third test and succeeds, 0.017% chance, defeated.

Polaris tries fourth test and succeeds, 0.00095% chance, defeated.

Polaris tries fifth test and succeeds, 0.000053% chance, defeated.

The point in all of this (commentary) is that hundreds of tests in the sample are in no way needed. Even giving a +/- 5 min margin and a three hour search window, FIVE demonstrations already shows Polaris beating (basically) infinitesimal odds. ie. with each Polaris success, the odds that it could do so quickly approach ZERO

What might make it easier to "appreciate", imagine that I am standing before you and I tell you that I am thinking of my birth minute and I ask you to tell me what it is. When you do so, (assuming no cheating), then THAT IS QUITE SOME ACCOMPLISHMENT. If I then ask you my Wife's birth minute and you tell me that one too, then YOU HAVE JUST DONE THE AMAZING! In no way, would it take 500 times of you doing it in order for it to be impressive. Hopefully, you can see that.

Before any test should be done, it is necessary that we understand the significance thereof...

Peace

there is a large article in which the first results of the very large study of time twins, I talked about, are mentioned and discussed:

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

[]

Can you let us know who "we" are? Secondly if you have studied astrology for 40 years how come you are asking beginner level questions in the nativity section and do not seem to know what mundane astrology is?

I thought that this forum asked its members to display some commitment to the study of the subject

Matthew[/quote]

That`s a quote from Smit . I thought it was clear
I don`t think the question about Mercury-Saturn is a beginners question. There seems to be too many interpretations about the conjunction and maybe too much anything goes. Saturn blocks and restricts, so I`d expect someone like Steve Irwin to have some comunication blocks. That`s not obvious but then, I don`t know details about his early life

Watch this:

"For indeed the differences between the signs which contain Mercury and the moon, or the planets that dominate them, can contribute much to the character of the soul:"
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos III chap 13

That is a quote.


So how about checking both these planets before looking at Saturn. That was me.

Matt

matt23z wrote:Watch this:

"For indeed the differences between the signs which contain Mercury and the moon, or the planets that dominate them, can contribute much to the character of the soul:"
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos III chap 13

That is a quote.


So how about checking both these planets before looking at Saturn. That was me.

Matt

Because Saturn is Lord of Mercury, both in Aquarius semi-sextile Pisces Moon