Looks Ptolemy thinks differently about conjunctions and aspects.
I am not sure whether it was this forum or another but there was a discussion if Conjunction is an aspect.

From what I understand, for aspects latitude is not necessary for conjunctions it is.

Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north

damon wrote:Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north

Sun always has a zero degree latitude so it the mercury that has to come closer.It should be something like the superior conjunction of mercury in 9 May 2000. 0349 hrs GMT
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/mercury1999.pdf

I think that would be a Cazimi.

PD

pankajdubey wrote:

damon wrote:Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north

[1] Sun always has a zero degree latitude so it the mercury that has to come closer.It should be something like the superior conjunction of mercury in 9 May 2000. 0349 hrs GMT
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/mercury1999.pdf

I think [2] that would be a Cazimi.
PD

[1] And this is why the quotation of Ptolemy does not help because he would accept any rate of latitude.

[2] But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16? or 17?minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:

pankajdubey wrote:

damon wrote:Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north

[1] Sun always has a zero degree latitude so it the mercury that has to come closer.It should be something like the superior conjunction of mercury in 9 May 2000. 0349 hrs GMT
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/mercury1999.pdf

I think [2] that would be a Cazimi.
PD

[1] And this is why the quotation of Ptolemy does not help because he would accept any rate of latitude.

[2] But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16? or 17?minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes

Come to think about it, isn't it a real power to be in the Sun's heart and still be visible

Logic is a very strange thing.

I thought that the latitude has to be within 16 minutes, so it has to be less than 17min.

In the ephemeris, only when the latitude is less than 16 minutes do you find this additional data:

superior conj 2000 May 09 03:49 18?b49?53 0?00?53
minimum elong 2000 May 09 03:47 18?b49?39 0?00?53
behind sun begin 2000 May 08 22:37 18?b21?38
behind sun end 2000 May 09 08:57 19?b17?43

starts on 2000 May 08 and end 2000 May 09 08:57


The trick is this-
save the linked file, open in adobe pdf, then Cmd+F or Ctr+ F for "behind sun" and will be ending with all superior conjunctions with mercury latitude less than 16 min.

eg: 2002

superior conj 2002 Nov 14 04:39 21?h37?49 0?-7?-37
minimum elong 2002 Nov 14 03:43 21?h34?03 0?07?29
behind sun begin 2002 Nov 13 18:10 20?h55?53
behind sun end 2002 Nov 14 13:16 22?h12?09

If you mean something more complicated than this , then I won't get it.

PD

pankajdubey wrote:

johannes susato wrote: But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16? or 17?minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes

Come to think about it, isn't it a real power to be in the Sun's heart and still be visible

pankajdubey wrote: I thought that the latitude has to be within 16 minutes, so it has to be less than 17min.

As you said, PD:

pankajdubey wrote: Logic is a very strange thing.

To be honest, here I do not know what you want to say.

pankajdubey wrote: In the ephemeris, only when the latitude is less than 16 minutes do you find this additional data:

superior conj 2000 May 09 03:49 18?b49?53 0?00?53
minimum elong 2000 May 09 03:47 18?b49?39 0?00?53
behind sun begin 2000 May 08 22:37 18?b21?38
behind sun end 2000 May 09 08:57 19?b17?43

starts on 2000 May 08 and end 2000 May 09 08:57


The trick is this-
save the linked file, open in adobe pdf, then Cmd+F or Ctr+ F for "behind sun" and will be ending with all superior conjunctions with mercury latitude less than 16 min.

eg: 2002

superior conj 2002 Nov 14 04:39 21?h37?49 0?-7?-37
minimum elong 2002 Nov 14 03:43 21?h34?03 0?07?29
behind sun begin 2002 Nov 13 18:10 20?h55?53
behind sun end 2002 Nov 14 13:16 22?h12?09

If you mean something more complicated than this , then I won't get it.
PD

Now you are joking because I know that you know that I do not 'mean something more complicated than this' !!!

My only point is, whether Coley is not right, when he, in his 'Key . . .', p. 96, claims:
"Cazimi is, when a Planet is in the heart of the Sun which is, when he is within 16 Minutes of his Body, in respect of Longitude and Latitude."

Johannes

. . . but many thanks for "the trick" anyway, PD.

konrad - here is a chart that conforms to what you are looking for..

perhaps some folks would like to make a comment about this chart based on their theories on cazimi, or planets out of sect in cazimi? i will reveal who this famous person is later.
fwiw - the latitude of mars is 00/51..


photo sharing websites

james_m wrote:konrad - here is a chart that conforms to what you are looking for..

perhaps some folks would like to make a comment about this chart based on their theories on cazimi, or planets out of sect in cazimi? i will reveal who this famous person is later.
fwiw - the latitude of mars is 00/51..

photo sharing websites

whatever you may say about
this person I can justify on the basis of Jupiter and Mars.
Someone whose fortunes changed after marriage? ?

The least you could say is, that Vx and Chiron on this Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques Forum are a little hazardous.

I suspect Coley's definition of cazimi being within 16" of latitude and longitude of the sun (thankyou Johannes) came from recent observations of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the sun. Here was visual proof that a planet in the heart of the sun was visible and had the power to overcome the brilliance of the sun.

The transits occurred when the planets were retrograde, of course, and it might have seemed a bit odd that a planet only had the power to overcome the sun when it was retrograde. However, we must remember that when Coley was writing, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe was in its dying days but was never-the-less still current. As the orbits of the Moon, Mercury and Venus were within the orbit of the sun (in the earth centred cosmology) it would be expected that future transits would be seen when Mercury and Venus were direct.

Geoffrey

Geoffrey wrote:I suspect Coley's definition of cazimi being within 16" of latitude and longitude of the sun (thankyou Johannes) came from recent observations of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the sun. Here was visual proof that a planet in the heart of the sun was visible and had the power to overcome the brilliance of the sun.

The transits occurred when the planets were retrograde, of course, and it might have seemed a bit odd that a planet only had the power to overcome the sun when it was retrograde. However, we must remember that when Coley was writing, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe was in its dying days but was never-the-less still current. As the orbits of the Moon, Mercury and Venus were within the orbit of the sun (in the earth centred cosmology) it would be expected that future transits would be seen when Mercury and Venus were direct.

Geoffrey

If this is not kept in mind then Lilly's calculation of accidental dignity scores will yield a zero(+5 for Cazimi and -5 for retrogression.) .

PD