Skyscript Astrology Forum

The part that bothers me about your observation is that the directional arcs are based on oblique projections into the mundane sphere, while your arcs are based on right projections to the equator. The former necessarily involve geographic latitude, while it plays no role in the latter (and does not factor in the relationship between the horizontal and equatorial coordinate systems.

If the bodies involved were observable, you could see this difference in the sky.

- Ed

Ed F wrote:The part that bothers me about your observation is that the directional arcs are based on oblique projections into the mundane sphere, while your arcs are based on right projections to the equator. The former necessarily involve geographic latitude, while it plays no role in the latter (and does not factor in the relationship between the horizontal and equatorial coordinate systems.

- Ed

You mean the method I suggest? Yes it's the truth. And better to say "right projections *from* the equator" by the ecliptic circles of longitude. Really what happens in this way is we can reckon the pseudo-zodiacal positions thanks to a simple coordinate system transformation: equatorial to pseudo-ecliptic. But do not forget the frozen ecliptic is located in the local space. The new pseudo-zodiacal positions that arise during such a motion, change their coordinates in the horizontal system (the astrological local space). On the other hand, this is a basic rule: posizions in zodiac are what they are, regardless to the geographic coordinates.

Ed F wrote:If the bodies involved were observable, you could see this difference in the sky.

- Ed

Sorry: here I am not able to follow you. Can you tell me with different words?

Roberto

robhywolf wrote:

Ed F wrote:If the bodies involved were observable, you could see this difference in the sky.

- Ed

Sorry: here I am not able to follow you. Can you tell me with different words?

Roberto

Try this. Find two planets, one on the ASC and one on the MC (zodiacally). Use your method to move the one at the ASC to the MC degree. I'm pretty sure your resulting arc will (most likely) not be that of the diurnal semiarc of the ASC and MC zodiacal degrees.

- Ed

Ed F wrote: Try this. Find two planets, one on the ASC and one on the MC (zodiacally). Use your method to move the one at the ASC to the MC degree. I'm pretty sure your resulting arc will (most likely) not be that of the diurnal semiarc of the ASC and MC zodiacal degrees.

- Ed

Hi Ed,

Exactly. But this not what I am not able to get: this is just what I want avoid (And I don't know if I am 100% right). Again: in the current techniques we project the planets in zodiac and after, with a fictitious equatorial motion, pull them away from the ecliptic plane and analyze their mundane behaviour. The results? Go up with the geographical latitude. Have the projection of one planet over the ASC and, as you say, the projection of another on the MC. Suppose the distance between them 60?. It's very easy for them an arc of direction =100?. It depends on their AscDiff (or SemArc). Has this a meaning? See the example of my radix. Pluto and Saturn, 74? in zodiac, are in the same quandrant. Pluto, to reach Sat, needs 70? and Sat, to reach Pluto, needs needs 94?. I know: according to their motion in mundo nothing to say, but according to the common sense? What I did is an effort to keep the zodiacal projections on the ecliptic. In my example something like Plu->Sat = 75 and Sat->Plu = 65 (just to say), in agreement with the natural, conjugated equatorial and ecliptic arcs. Really they are two quite different techniques. Moreover, till now I have hinted only to the second incongruence (aspects in Zod PDs context), and for it the situation is even worst.

Now, if you read the post with my native example, I realized that *perhaps* a compromise is possible keeping the existing Zod PDs, with, *perhaps*, a small touch up. It's not easy. Retouching the use of the AscDif, both in Semiarc and Regio, *perhaps* we can get something "better", if "better" is the fit word. In any case I am aware a new method can be accepted or not, a change for a traditional one is surely inopportune.

Regards,
Roberto

Hello

The try to sew up the traditional PDs theory in zodiac is not a good idea for several reasons. First of all because they are a very clear technique: zodiacal positions evaluated in their diurnal motion according to their mundane positions. So, I?ll continue in my exposure to explain why, at least for me, they appear a little awkward. I?ll keep my birth data, already declared in my previous post.

IMPORTANT NOTE. We are not speaking of ?Zodiacal PDs in Chart? (see Morinus). This is a completely different technique. M. Gansten quoted me the basic principle of PD as formulated by Ptolemy: ?For a place is similar and the same position in the same direction with reference both to the horizon and to the meridian?. So, moving the celestial sphere, ASC and MC move as usually in zodiac. The planets are kept in their native mundane positions ?to shares the same proportional relationship to the horizon and meridian which they had at birth?.

The following analysis, perhaps boring but useful, will touch the *aspectual* PDs in zodiac, instead. For those interested to the conclusion only, I suggest to jump at the end of this post. I?ll use again Pluto and Saturn. PMP means Placidian Mundane Position.

A typical PD is, for example,:
[19] Z - SAT - D - (asp PLU)

If *PLANETz* is the PLANET projected in zodiac, according to the current theory we have

[20] The zodiacal promissor SAT = SATz
[21] The zodiacal significator (asp PLU) = (PLUz + aspect in Zodiac)

Then the [19] is better explicated as
[22] Z - SATz - D - (PLUz + aspect in Zodiac)

As usually, we have the arc when (SATz), moved according to the daily motion, reaches (PLUz + aspect in Zodiac) in mundo, i.e.
[23]SATz PMP= (PLUz + aspect in Zodiac) PMP

To understand the ?problem?, we must remember the [12] of my previous post
**************************************************
[12] Z - Sat - D - Plu ? (94.499) = 94.5? ........ to cover roughly 74? in zodiac (and 81? in mundo)
**************************************************
where we see that the arc of direction, to cover 74? in zodiac, reaches the value of 94.5? on the equator.
Already I put in evidence something is not so beautiful here (for me), but let?s accept the result. If so, to cover for example one different, zodiacal arc = 44? (just to say), in my opinion an arc of direction = (about) 94.5*(44/74) = 56? should be desirable. Of course, because of their *mundane* behaviour ,generally the zodiacal PDs will offer a different result.

We can verify this circumstance if, as aspect, use the semisextil (30?). So, the significator in [22], in the *brackets*, has the following parameters:
[24] Its Long = (PLUz + 30?) = 146? 22' 29" + 30? = 176? 22' 29"
[25] Its ecliptic mundane Position = (PLUz + 30?) PMP = 44? 31' 42" (2th house) (Morinus, User speculum)

Remember now the Saturn parameters in [1] and [4] we have
[26] Distance Sat-(PLUz + 30?) in zodiac: ZodDist = 220? - 176? = 44? (what we want)
[27] Distance Sat-(PLUz + 30?) in mundo: MunDist = 86? 37? - 44?31? = 42?

According to Morinus we have
**************************************************
[28] Z - Sat - D - Semisextil Plu = 48.974 (official result to cover roughly 44? in zodiac (and 42? in mundo)
**************************************************
Qualitative considerations:
As we can see, instead of the desirable, zodiacal, result:
[29] Z - Sat - D - Semisextil Plu = 94.499 * (44/74) = 56?
we have, of course, a result mundo oriented:
[30] Z - Sat - D - Semisextil Plu = 94.499 * (42/81) = 48,97?
The second, official result, even if in perfect agreement with its mundane definition, is not gratifying for a ?direction in zodiac?. In effect it?s quite ugly to see, for the same prom/sign couple (both located in the 1st quadrant):
[31] an equatorial motion = 94.5? to cover 74 zodiacal degrees ([12]) and, for the same couple,
[32] an equatorial motion = 49.0? (instead of 56) to cover 44 zodiacal degrees [28]
OK. Everything can be right if we remember what the Zod PDs are, but:

What did we do, really, starting from [21]? The answer is we replaced the original significator (Pz) with a new one (Pz+30) and for it (and SATz) we applied the mundane directions algorithms. To mix mundo and zodiac we have an heavy theoretical inconsistency that violates the general mundane PDs rule for which [20] and [21] would be:

[20] The zodiacal promissor SAT = (SATz) with its PMP = (SATz)PMP (the same)
[33] The zodiacal significator (asp PLU)PMP = (PLUz)PMP + aspect in Mundo =(PLUz)PMP + 30

------------------------------------------------------------
Using [20] and [33] we would have:
[34] (asp PLU) PMP = (PLUz)PMP + 30? = 5? 23' 29"+ 30? = 35? 23' 30"
And
[35] Distance (SATz)PMP-(asp PLU) PMP, in mundo,: MunDist = 86? 30? ? 35?23? = 51?
Solving the above PD (without the easy demonstration) the result is about:
************
[36] Z - Sat - D - Semisextil Plu = 58,9? (result to cover roughly 51? in mundo)
************
Strange to say even closer to the [29]
------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

To reckon an aspectual PD in zodiac we replace the significator with a new one (its aspect over the ecliptic). If we choose a different aspect, we have a further, different significator, with its own new, different proportional horizon. Basically, given a significator, each its aspect in zodiac leads to an arc of direction of its own, not related with a common mundane scenery. Doing so, to reckon the complete motion (arcs of directions) of one promissor towards one significator *in zodiac* we need an infinite number of significators, each of them being a certain zodiacal angular distance from the original radix position. Not only, given two couples of PROMs/SIGNs, with the same angular distance in radix, the two zodiacal PDs will have different arcs of direction, because of their different mundane proprieties (parameters). In other words a global representation of a continuous equatorial motion, related with a continuous set of DAs between one promissor and one significator is impossible, as impossible is an astronomical whole representation able to show, at the same time, the reciprocal positions between two couples of promissors and significators. Not to say the full set of planets we have in our astrological charts.

My question again: Are the Zod PDs full coherent? In the next post we?ll see the alternative technique.

Roberto.

Hello to everybody.

I hope the attached images will be kept according to my preview.

According to the logical PDs spirit, given a significator and a continuous, equatorial PDs motion, its aspects should be considered applied to the original significator *IN MUNDO* position. But doing so for the zodiacal aspects, any zodiacal meaning is lost. In my previous example:

[20] The zodiacal promissor SAT = (SATz) with its PMP = (SATz)PMP
[33] The zodiacal significator (asp PLU)PMP = (PLUz)PMP + aspect in Mundo =(PLUz)PMP + 30

I am not so presumptuous to have demonstrated the Zod PDs, as they are, are completely unfounded but we have seen that a continuous motion according to the Primum Mobile, able to satisfy a continuous ensemble of DAs in zodiac, is impossible to conceive. In my opinion, a full coherent PDS theory in zodiac must permit a continuous motion where:
*conjunctions between promissors and significators
*their aspects
*direct and converse directions (the converse regardless to their value)
*arcs of directions
have histories without interruptions.

The lack of such a theory does not permit an astronomical, whole representation able to link primary motion and positions in zodiac.

Let me repeat here the Ptolemaic PDs in Chart are non involved in our considerations: as already explained, they are a completely different technique.

Keeping in our mind that according to the general PDs rules we need (for the terms l use the most modern meaning):
*The significators (points on the celestial sphere, local space referred, frozen in the position they had at the birth time)
*The Promissors (points on the celestial sphere, local space referred, in daily motion with the celestial sphere itself),
one possible manner to cover the existing gap is to consider the whole ecliptic frozen in the local space (i.e. the whole ecliptic regarded as significator) and the zodiacal PDs points the true planetary projections the real planets have onto it while the celestial sphere moves them. Basically what we do in this way is the traditional and obvious coordinate system transformation from equatorial to ecliptic, the same transformation the astrology has used in the centuries to cast the standard, traditional charts.

This is not a traditional technique, but is in agreement with all the ancient basic precepts, with all the theoretical pseudo-astronomical necessities and coherent with a global astrological scenery. In the screenshots the necessary math.
[/img]
By the way: going back to the DAs given in my example, reckoned with this method the ?strange? arcs become:
********************************************
[54] Z - Plu - C - Sat = 77? ....... to cover roughly 74? in zodiac (and 81? in mundo)
********************************************
[55] Z - Sat - D - Plu = 79? ....... to cover roughly 74? in zodiac (and 81? in mundo)
********************************************
[56] Z - Sat - D - Semisextil Plu = 49? to cover roughly 44? in zodiac
********************************************
(The last one in logic agreement with an aspectual DA = 79*(44/74) = 47?)
[/img]
Perhaps the above DAs sound a little more sensible.

As for any other astrological technique, the validity of this method is subject to the results obtained in terms of good percentage of real events happened on the hit dates. We?ll try to see something in the next post, using Morinus features. It will be quite interesting to see why, with this technique, *converse* zodiacal PDs are interchanged with the existing *direct* zodiacal PDs. For the moment note the *mundane motion* is from east to west, i.e. clockwise, while the *zodiacal motion* is *IN ZODIAC* that is counterclockwise.

Roberto

Hello.

To reduce the discourse to its essential concept, below I?ll ignore the directions with partial latitude.

In agreement with the classic PDs theory we can say:
Given the diurnal motion, the Mundane PDs analyze the angular connexions *In Mundo* between the dynamic positions the promissors have towards the steady significators, frozen in their native *mundane* positions, i.e. in the houses. The ?frozen? space is identified by the local horizon and the local meridian, with its twelve divisions according to the house system.
Given one *direct* arc of direction *in mundo*, the promissors follow the celestial sphere in its diurnal, *clockwise* motion. The motion is referred to the local space.
Below a my mundane PD.
[/img]
In agreement with my previous pots, for the new technique we can summarize:
Given the diurnal motion, the Zodiacal PDs analyze the angular connexions *In Zodiac* between the dynamic positions the promissors have towards the steady significators, frozen in their native *zodiacal* positions, i.e. in the signs. The ?frozen? space is identified by the position the ecliptic had at the birth, with its twelve divisions (signs).
Given one *direct* arc of direction in zodiac, according to the Ptolemaic indication and to the general astrological principles, the promissors follow the celestial sphere in its diurnal, *counterclockwise* motion, united to the ASC/MC positions, in the signs. The planetary motion is referred to the frozen ecliptic; the ASC/MC motion is referred to the true ecliptic.
Perhaps it should be more correct to refer the motion of the ASC-DES and MC-IC axis to the frozen ecliptic too, but these technique require time. It?s not so simple working for freeware programs. Anyway, below a my zodiacal PD according to the new method. What is more important are the planetary positions, and they are correct regardless to the ASC-MC placing (and to the other directed cusps).
[/img]
The above pictures for three reasons:

a)to show what happens to the planets with the direct/converse arcs
b)why, in the new technique, the arcs of direction are reversed if compared to their *similar* arc of directions we have in the traditional, tabled zodiacal PDs
c)because on 25-7-1989, time 12:40:00 my son was born.

About point c) note the directed Venus passing from Sag to Cap (position 0? 01? 40? Cap) in my radix 5th house. I used the simple, natural Ptolemaic key. I am more astronomer than astrologer, but if I am not wrong fire to earth means the action becomes reality, and the 5th place is just the sons area. No rectification was used.

Not so bad for a new, heretical technique. But this is not a public, known event. A personal, interested action could be possible for my part. So, let me show an analogue situation for a more famous and sad example.

Bruce Lee, my youth idol.
27 Oct 1940
Time 07: 12: 00
122? 25' W
37? 46' N
TIme Zone -8
Place: San Francisco, USA

His unlucky son, Brandon, was born on 1 Feb 1965
[/img]
Terrible to see, the south node is in the almost same transition (Ari to Tau, position 0? 28? 27?).

With this post I close my intrusion in this hospitable forum, with the intention to be back once my studies on the ancient astrological techniques will be more substantial. My aim was to indicate an opportunity, perhaps still unripe (the ASC/MC with the full domification directed on the frozen ecliptic). Something new, trying to respect the tradition. If somebody is interested to test this technique, the modern version of Morinus permits to do that.

Tom: thanks again.
Roberto

Thanks, Roberto, for the detailed presentation.

- Ed

thanks for sharing roberto - really interesting..

Hello again.

I received a few request to explain in which manner Morinus is able to display the charts I showed. So, the short explanation below.

Set:
Options\PDs in chart\Celestial\Full pseudo-astronomic\Sec. Motion

Better if the PDs options are set for some zodiacal PD(*), anyway recall:
Tables\PDs\.....
OK

Right mouse click on one tabled PD row, better if zodiacal(*)
Choose "PDs in chart: celestial"

On the pop up chart, right mouse click again:
Window\Comparison

Use the stepper dialog in date/arc mode to set one date or one DA
Click on "Show" (Do not click "OK" because in this way the stepper dialog disappears)

More instructions in the web page and in Morinus' help.

Roberto
(*) The current release permits to recall the zodiacal (Celestial) charts from one mundane PD row. I do not know if this possibility will be kept.

roberto,

you have explained this well and i am now able to see how one gets these alternative pages in morinus.. one can also see the positions with the mundane option in the primary directions but they are not overlapped as they are with the zodiac position in the chart you shared.. one can see with the 2 windows open how they overlap though.. thanks a lot for this! james

Hello to everybody.

After my thread on the Zodiacal PDs, I continued to investigate on on the topic.

I consider a must to report here the fruit of an illuminating conversation I had with a friend.

Yes, really the Zodiacal PDs are not a banal topic, at least for me.
Just to recapitulate, according to my previous posts:

-a) sometimes the arcs of directions are not shapely if compared with the astronomical, conjugated arcs in zodiac
-b) a global representation of a continuous equatorial motion, related with a continuous set of DAs between promissors and significators is impossible
-c) an alternative method, based on the native ecliptic regarded as global significator, was suggested

If ponts a) and c) remain reflections shareable or not, what I realized is the second point seems to be not completaly true.

The starting point are the Ptolemaic PDs in chart, in their two techniques: reckoned from the planets or from their ecliptic projections. To say the truth, and as public confession, during the development of their algorithms for Morinus, Martin Gansten tried to expound me the link between these charts and the zodiacal PDs but, for theoretical prejudices, I refused to to accept his explanations. To show what happens, I?ll call in help Morinus itself. The students that use Placidus or other astrological software will be able to find the proper analogies in their programs.

From my past posts:

To reckon an aspectual PD in zodiac we replace the significator with a new one (its aspect over the ecliptic). If we choose a different aspect, we have a further, different significator, with its own new, different proportional horizon. Basically, given a significator, each its aspect in zodiac leads to an arc of direction of its own, not related with a common mundane scenery. Doing so, to reckon the complete motion (arcs of directions) of one promissor towards one significator *in zodiac* we need an infinite number of significators, each of them being a certain zodiacal angular distance from the original radix position.

Well, what I understood with delay is:

-The zodiacal PDs *without latitude* (Semiarc, Regio, ?) are well depicted by the Celestial PDs in Chart reckoned from the planetary zodiacal projections (ecliptic feet)
-The zodiacal PDs *with the latitude of the significator* (Semiarc, Regio, ?) are well depicted by the Celestial PDs in Chart reckoned from the planets

Aspects included, if ?Aspects of Promissors to Significators? is chosen.

This is a very beautifl result, that permits to see in graphic mode the zodiacal PDs. Even if, perhaps, this is not completely true ?

First of all we must keep in mind that, passing the time, the line ASC-DES is steady the (local) space. So, in these charts, in comparison mode, the outer ring must be considered as the ?Significators ring?, while the inner ring is indeed the ?Promissors ring?. This is the reason why the promisors-significators roles are reverse if compared with the tabled Zod PDs. In this way, the setting we did, related to the aspects, has to be understood reverse too, as ?Promissors to aspects of Significators?. This is the manner generally aspects are used in astrology (think for example to the transits). Therefore, so far so good, and the explanation is quite simple because, casting the charts in this way, we replace continuously the position of the significators according to the quoted necessity (? an infinite number of significators, i.e. with continuity).
Second, for the same reason, if the *latitude of the significator* is chosen, this latitude is the *latitude of the promissor*

One problem remain, in my opinion, for a full compatibility. If we select in Morinus the option ?Promissors to aspects of Significators? (for the reason we said to be understood as ?Aspects of Promissors to Significators?), in the charts the aspectual arcs do not match always the tabled PDs in zodiac (sometimes with differences up to several degrees). In other words, the Ptolemaic PDs in chart can be regarded in two different ways:

-The first is written in the program help (the mundane peculiarities are kept during the motion)
-The second is an *almost* perfect capability to draw the traditional PDs in zodiac.

But *almost* means some difference remains, with the ineluctable, logical consequence that, probably, one of them is not ? full coherent :-). On the other hand, being these charts based on Ptolemy, surely they have the right to claim an alternative, own, traditional validity. Which of them the best? The answer in agreement with the practical results, of course.

And perhaps the question: ?Are the Zod PDs full coherent? is still without a satisfactory answer.

By the way, in Morinus the Terrestrial (astronomical) PDs in chart have not the above annoyances: conjunctions, aspects, paralles, rapts, whichever aspect: *all* in them is in perfect agreement with the traditional PDs in Mundo. But this is another matter.

Roberto