Magherita - the print out below seems to indicate Placidus was set for placidus directions -



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Sorry Martin,

Chart data appears a few posts above

08-18-1947 11:03PM Los Angeles, CA 118.25N 34.07W

Using Regiomontanus still gives an arc of 45.616 for the moon C conj DSC

arcs for the other planets remain close to morinus...but off enough to make the difference a matte of years

august47 wrote:the print out below seems to indicate Placidus was set for placidus directions

The resolution is very poor, but all I can see is the word PLACIDUS in the upper left-hand corner. Isn't that just the name of the software? In any case, Placidean or Regiomontanian makes no difference for directions to the angles.

Chart data appears a few posts above

Right, sorry I missed that. Casting the chart and comparing the directions to your list, it seems clear that in Kolev's 'ZG' latitude is assigned to the aspects by the method of Bianchini. You can get this with Morinus, though there is still a slight discrepancy between the two programmes:

Moon converse conj DSC
Placidus - arc = 37.48849
Morinus - arc = 45.616

With the proper settings, Morinus gives an arc of 37.318. Have you checked that the Asc, the long/lat for the Moon, and other relevant values show up the same in both calculations of the radix?

LTrine Moon dir ASC
Placidus - arc = 4.83545
Morinus does not find this! only a converse trine at 1.222!

That is definitely a bug. Setting Morinus to semi-arc calculation, it calculates the direct direction with an arc of 4.920 degrees. It should be the same even if you change to Regiomontanian. (Rob, are you listening in?)

Hi Martin,

I now get the same 37.318 as you report - not sure why there is still some discrepancy - can't understand how two programs could calculate different values for the lunar and asc lat/long??

Many thanks for your help and I am a fan (and owner of your excellent work on this) I am a little surprised at the use of Bianchini - reading your comments on this, it would seem to be more mainstream than I previously appreciated.

btw - Rob (I understand is the author of Morinus) gets a big - really a terrific program (just wish there were a print button somewhere) I would be interested to find out about my little "bug" and if it makes a diff to anyone else but me.

I'm not familiar with the Placidus program, but I believe my astrologer said he uses Placidus semi-arc - note the formal program & copyright notice in the upper left - the large type I take to refer to the type of primaries...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

What does it mean L and R?

margherita

margherita wrote:What does it mean L and R?

Left and right, that is, sinister and dexter.

august47 wrote:I now get the same 37.318 as you report - not sure why there is still some discrepancy - can't understand how two programs could calculate different values for the lunar and asc lat/long??

They might, if one used less exact formulae. But I just double-checked, and Placidus, Solar Fire and Morinus all agree on these values. So I don't know what the problem might be. Moreover, I now get these values for the Asc to the sinister trine of the Moon (with latitude acc. to Bianchini) by direct motion:

Placidus: 4.84
Morinus: 4.788
By hand: 4.767

The difference amounts to 3-4 minutes of arc, or a few weeks of life. I would consider it negligible.

I'm not familiar with the Placidus program, but I believe my astrologer said he uses Placidus semi-arc - note the formal program & copyright notice in the upper left - the large type I take to refer to the type of primaries...

If so, it doesn't match the fact that Argoli and Gaurico (indicated by the ZG) used Regiomontanian directions... My personal feeling is that this software is too idiosyncratic to be very user-friendly.

I'm glad you like the book. Perhaps you should consider the course.

Unfortunately, I don't have Placidus installed right now (and don't know whether it would work on Windows 7 anyway), because its help is generally pretty detailed.

I took a look at Rumen's second volume where he has a short section on interplanetary zodiacal directions. The Gaurico reference definitely has to do with how the declination for aspect points is determined, but he really was completely unclear as to what specific method was being used. It seemed it would be one of:

The declination of the aspect point on the ecliptic (but isn't this just "0 latitude")?

or

The declination calculated by using the latitude of the promissor and the longitude of the aspect point.

- Ed

Ed F wrote:Unfortunately, I don't have Placidus installed right now (and don't know whether it would work on Windows 7 anyway), because its help is generally pretty detailed.

Most of it works, but not the help function...

I took a look at Rumen's second volume where he has a short section on interplanetary zodiacal directions. The Gaurico reference definitely has to do with how the declination for aspect points is determined, but he really was completely unclear as to what specific method was being used.

Recalculation indicates that it is the Bianchini method. If aspects were not taken in the ecliptic, they were normally taken in some other great circle, not in the latitude circle of the aspecting planet. (The latter method would mean that a planet and its opposition would hit the eastern and western horizon, or the upper and lower midheaven, at different times.)

When carefully calculated, the Bianchini method causes a slight change in the longitude of a sextile or trine (a matter of minutes of arc). I am not sure if that would be enough to cause the small discrepancy between the two programmes.

I also get the 4.788 arc now - I used 118.15W and 34.3N (the directions prepared for me in Placidus used 118.25W and 34.067N - not sure why...please also direct me to your website - while I am preoccupied for the present with nastier - ie reality-based - issues, I'd like to think I may get some time for loftier pursuits before my ticket gets punched for good...

august47 wrote:I also get the 4.788 arc now - I used 118.15W and 34.3N (the directions prepared for me in Placidus used 118.25W and 34.067N - not sure why...

Sounds like it just converted the minutes of arc to decimals.

please also direct me to your website - while I am preoccupied for the present with nastier - ie reality-based - issues, I'd like to think I may get some time for loftier pursuits before my ticket gets punched for good...

I generally operate under the assumption that astrology is reality-based. My website is easy to find: it's martingansten.com.