Hello Ed, Martin, Ren?

I like Ed's clear and simple principle to use the real position of the subject and the real positions of the objects, which would point to use of parallax (only significant for moon) but not of refraction or light time:
"My model is that it's the relative positions of objects to the native that matter (so I also use "true" rather than "apparent" positions - without correction for light time)"
I'm probably influenced by the fact that this is also what I've found, empirically, to work best (along with "ideal" horizon without local hills, etc).

I must have an earlier version of Kolev's program, as there's no option for secondary motion of moon, but since it doesn't have lunar parallax, and since Venus and Mercury secondary movement can also sometimes be significant, I'm leaving that program to one side for the present.

Ren?'s fiddling with Solar Fire (mean quotidian progressions and user-defined progressions rate to get primaries to angles with secondary motion) is very ingenious - I shall try that.

I can't get Concept to install under Vista, even when specifying to install with XP, W98 or W95 parameters and trying various other options. Something about full-screeen mode not being allowed. Never mind for now.

One thing that appeals to me less about interplanetaries is that they seem much further removed from anything real or visible: it seems something clear to look at a good astronomy program and notice that so many minutes after birth Saturn rises or Mars culminates in the sky, less so to work out that Jupiter arrives at a radial parallel to the position in local space where Mercury was, for example. There are alos so many of them, it always seemed to me anything could be justified retrospectively. But I should get round to examining them more carefully again.

Graham

Hello Graham,

One thing that appeals to me less about interplanetaries is that they seem much further removed from anything real or visible: it seems something clear to look at a good astronomy program and notice that so many minutes after birth Saturn rises or Mars culminates in the sky, less so to work out that Jupiter arrives at a radial parallel to the position in local space where Mercury was, for example.

Leaving parallels aside for the moment, interplanetary directions are like transits: one planet (or its aspect) arriving at the place previously occupied by another. The 'places' are defined differently, but in both cases are approximate (due to different latitudes in the case of transits, and different diurnal circles in the case of directions). Nevertheless, in my experience, both are effective.

There are alos so many of them, it always seemed to me anything could be justified retrospectively. But I should get round to examining them more carefully again.

It depends on how many significators, promissors and aspects you use, of course -- all of which have increased dramatically since the 17th century.

Hi Martin

It depends on how many significators, promissors and aspects you use, of course -- all of which have increased dramatically since the 17th century.

I was thinking of the 7 classical planets; even limiting to conjunctions and oppositions (which most astrologers don't), that's 7x6=42 x2=84 possibilities, whereas same for real bodies to ASC and MC (thus including DSC and IC) = 7x2x2=28 maximum (which most users of interplanetaries would also use, making 112 for them).

You're quite right about the comparison with transits - but there are plenty of those, too, which often seem to justify pretty well anything.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Granted, 7 planets are more than 4 angles. But keep in mind that a person would have to live for 360 years in order to experience all possible directions. Dividing the total number of directions by 4 or 5 would get us closer to an average life span (in the more fortunate parts of the world).

The main question, however, is whether directions to angles account for all (or even most) major event in life. In my own chart, and assuming that we are talking about direct directions, there are four (4) conjunctions to the angles, occurring at ages 7, 29, 62 and 68. The one at 29 did give a major result (incidentally, that was the Moon rising, with parallax and secondary motion), but there have been many other events, some far more important, without any angular hit.

I absolutely agree that transits ans directions/progressions (of whatever kind) are often used indiscriminately, to justify whatever happens to coincide more or less in time. In my opinion, a more useful approach is to determine the most important planets/points (overall, or for a particular area of life) from the natal chart, and to keep track of their directions.

3D wrote:...
What time orb do you give them?
What aspects? (I just looked at conjunctions and oppositions)
Is there a software calculating the planets? proper motion with interplanetary primary directions?...

Ren?,

Approximately 6 months either side of exact. Interplanetary directions last longer than angle or cusp contacts.

I use conjunctions, oppositions, squares, and less so semisquares and sesquares. I also use reflections around the angles, and consider them comparable to angle conjunctions in power.

The Concept program will do this. But it does not give lists of directions, only the directed positions that can be compared with a radix (all aspect within your specified orbs are listed).

- Ed

Martin Gansten wrote: To my knowledge, there is no software that makes allowance for secondary motion except for the Moon. The latter is included as an option in Rumen Kolev's software, but then he doesn't do parallax. (Ed, I forget: does your software include either of these options?)

Martin,

AstroFrames does not account for secondary motion - it's traditional directions, though someday I hope to implement what is in Concept. AstroFrames does allow selection of topocentric positions (either true or apparent) in its options menu.

As I mentioned, Concept does both. I haven't used Placidus in so long that I don't remember whether he accounts for parallax (I thought he did), and i do not remember it accounting for secondary motion.

- Ed

Graham Fox wrote:...
I can't get Concept to install under Vista, even when specifying to install with XP, W98 or W95 parameters and trying various other options. Something about full-screeen mode not being allowed. Never mind for now....

Graham,

This is why I'd eventually like to get its algorithms into my program, but I don't know whether I'll ever have the time.

The trick to using Concept on XP or Vista is to install Dosbox (google it). Once you've installed it, you should be able to run Concept under it, though you may need to fiddle a bit with the key mappings. If you do, PM me, and I can send you the mapping and startup files I use under XP. (Had to uninstall Vista on the machine I had it on, but I think the files will be the same).

Martin Gansten wrote:... The one at 29 did give a major result (incidentally, that was the Moon rising, with parallax and secondary motion), but there have been many other events, some far more important, without any angular hit.

I absolutely agree that transits ans directions/progressions (of whatever kind) are often used indiscriminately, to justify whatever happens to coincide more or less in time. In my opinion, a more useful approach is to determine the most important planets/points (overall, or for a particular area of life) from the natal chart, and to keep track of their directions.

I agree with this. Often it is not angle contacts, but activation of natal planetary configurations with "high potential" or reflections around the angles. You have to sift when predicting. Looking at a lot of charts for notable events gives a feel for what you're looking for.

- Ed

Ed wrote

haven't used Placidus in so long that I don't remember whether he accounts for parallax (I thought he did), and i do not remember it accounting for secondary motion.

Placidus doesn't use parallax or have a parallax option. My version (NK 4.1, copyright Dec 2000) doesn't offer any secndary motion option, but Martin mentions it having a secondary motion option for moon, so maybe he has a later version.

You can force Placidus (or any other program which offers custom keys) to take account of secondary motion by incorporating it into the key. For example, my natal moon has a secondary motion of 14?32'/day = 14.53? = 0.04036? per degree of earth's rotation (1/360 x 14.53). So for the moon's directions, if (secondary motion aside) I was using Ptolemy's key, I could use a key of 1.04036? = 1 year, or 1?=0.9612 years (that would be the coefficient to use in Placidus, for directions of the moon only).
In the event, since I also want to use parallax, this is not actually very helpful with Placidus...

Graham

Graham Fox wrote:Placidus doesn't use parallax or have a parallax option. My version (NK 4.1, copyright Dec 2000) doesn't offer any secndary motion option, but Martin mentions it having a secondary motion option for moon, so maybe he has a later version.

I do (4.91). The Customer Setup window includes the option 'Add Real Time Moon as Promissor', but without parallax, as you say. Also, in my opinion secondary motion should be taken into account even for the significator, as it will affect the semi-arc.

Hi Martin
You write:

Also, in my opinion secondary motion should be taken into account even for the significator, as it will affect the semi-arc.

This for interplanetaries, of course, as horizon and zenith do not have secondary motion. But surely this destroys the analogy with transits which you made earlier:

Leaving parallels aside for the moment, interplanetary directions are like transits: one planet (or its aspect) arriving at the place previously occupied by another.

Graham

Hi Graham,

You write:

Also, in my opinion secondary motion should be taken into account even for the significator, as it will affect the semi-arc.

This for interplanetaries, of course, as horizon and zenith do not have secondary motion.

Correct.

But surely this destroys the analogy with transits which you made earlier:

Leaving parallels aside for the moment, interplanetary directions are like transits: one planet (or its aspect) arriving at the place previously occupied by another.

I don't see why. It is just a matter of defining the 'place' in question, which we do (following Ptolemy) from the position of the significator in its own semi-arc. Assuming for simplicity's sake that the Moon as significator is on the ecliptic, at, let us say, 12? Aries in the 10th house, the question is: do we measure the semi-arc of 12? Aries or that of the Moon (which perhaps rose at 9? Aries, and will culminate at 13? Aries)? Irrespective of which model we choose, the promissor will be considered conjunct the Moon when it reaches the same point in its own semi-arc.