lihin wrote:
Even using Morinus i have, sadly, not yet been able to obtain the same results as Ms Margherita.

In order to have 8.27 Aquarius rising for Tom's coordinates you should write 23.40 as birth time

. Apparently Morinus cannot - yet - show the ecliptical value of its mundo position.

It is under tables/mundane position. I don't know if it is right, no idea As I said many times in a mundane position is not important the longitude, rather its hourly distance, its mundane position, as the name wants.

My question is, if this chart agrees to Ms Margherita's and other participants' in this thread in Morinus:

How, please, must the Morinus Primary Directions Options be configured to obtain results closest to Mr Worsdale's who lists, on page 85, 6 degrees, 59 minutes of arc for the direction "Moon to the Parallel of Mars in the Zodiac"? The value stated above, 5.398, is 1.6 degrees less, a temporal difference of about 1 1/2 years. This is, according to Mr Worsdale (see page 88 ), one of the key 'killing directions' of the nativity.[/size]

I believe it should be something relative to latitude. In my post above where I explained how the parallel is calculated, I used the under the pole with the latitude of significator, but the planet longitude to which Mars is arrived 23.6 Aries is taken without. I checked by hand, in order to have the same absolute value in declination, the point should have latitude 0 and longitude 23.6 Aries.

Both Morinus and Phasis fit.

I believe maybe Worsdale uses latitude or does not use the underpole directions, I don't know.

I tried under the pole without latitude and in this case the result is 7.33 - moreover this is not a parallel as Worsdale says, it is a contraparallel, because their declination are the same in absolute value, but different sign, the radix Moon is -8.59, the directed Mars + 8.59

margherita

i have a question on some of the terms being used here and am keen to understand primary directions better.. any help is appreciated. thanks.

meridian - is this term interchangeable with the prime vertical?

rapt parallel - is this term the same as contra parallel?

i am unable to get kents chart with 8 aq 27 ascendant to liverpool unless i adjust the time to about 23hr 26minutes 40" LAT using morinus software.. perhaps this seems like a mute point, but when examining primary directions these approx 3 minutes can alter the timing of these directions substantially..

for me to recreate the results that margherita gets using the same input, i get a different result date wise of 1822 10 22.. i am not sure why that is.. when i remove the option of significator latitude, i get a result that is even further removed for this same direction in parallel of 1824 10 01.. clearly small changes in the menu options for doing primary directions to find how they are the same as worsdales is no easy task! and, i suppose i still don't understand the basis for much of this. any feedback welcome..

margherita wrote:

I believe the difference is due to the latitude, I used underthepole with significator latitude.
Moon and Mars are iite because they are distant 6 hours.

margherita

Tom wrote:Primary directions are time sensitive, but our purpose is to see how they are used, not to overstate the obvious.

As I am very interested in the theme of this thread: - John Worsdale's Prediction Methods - I would appreciate if all those who are intersted how Worsdale computed in detail and which programme confirms his computings or how a programme is to be calibrated to do so, or whether Worsdale computed correctly at all or whether his methods are to be questioned, would do this in another thread, because these are predominantly technichal problems and of greatest interest of course, but not before having understood the purpose of this thread: viz. how Worsdale used primary directions. Including other tools as progressions and as Tom announced already at the beginning of this thread.

Johannes.

james_m wrote:
rapt parallel - is this term the same as contra parallel?

no, a rapt parallel is a contra/parallel formed with both planets directed; in the case of contra/parallel one is directed, the other is the natal planet as in Mars/Moon example

i am unable to get kents chart with 8 aq 27 ascendant to liverpool unless i adjust the time to about 23hr 26minutes 40" LAT using morinus software.. perhaps this seems like a mute point, but when examining primary directions these approx 3 minutes can alter the timing of these directions substantially..

I used latitude 53n22 long. 2w57, birthtime 23:40

for me to recreate the results that margherita gets using the same input, i get a different result date wise of 1822 10 22..

my settings were zodiacal under the pole with the latitude of significator, placidian key

margherita

Yes, the first step is to understand the primary direction. The second step, which is equally important is to know how to calculate. It does not make sense to examine the outlets Worsdale if we do not know if his calculations are correct.
Worsdale gives instructions for calculation of the pole on the page 15 to 16. He gives the example (James Attersall) calculating the zodiacal declination parallels on page 33, Sun to the parallel of Venus in the Zodiac. The result is 11 41. I controlled manually calculation according speculum Worsdale. The result is the same. Morinus gives when set to Placidus under the pole 11,675 = 11 41. The values ??are very similar speculum Worsdale. Manual check for parallels J.Kent example gives the same result as Morinus. The conclusion is that the calculation zodiacal paralell Worsdale for example J.Kenta (6 59) is wrong. Therefore, it is important to know not only the principle, but also the accuracy of the results. If you are interested, I can publish the procedure to calculate the zodiacal parallels according Worsdale.

Petr wrote:Yes, the first step is to understand the primary direction. The second step, which is equally important is to know how to calculate. It does not make sense to examine the outlets Worsdale if we do not know if his calculations are correct.

Yes, thats my opinion too - it is sometimes hard - for the poor mathematical gifted like me - to calculate the different kinds of PD's - but I think it's the onliest way to understand why five astrologers have six (correct) results for the same direction.

So I would recommend Martin Gansten's "Primary Directions Diploma Course"

Petr wrote:. If you are interested, I can publish the procedure to calculate the zodiacal parallels according Worsdale.

Yes. I'm really curious to know how Worsdale can get 6.59 ...

Morinus/Placidus calculations fits. It takes 5.39 for Mars to reach 23 Aries, a point with the same declination as the radix Moon.

6.59 is a mystery to me, let us know

margherita

Hi Margherita,

My bad English has caused misunderstanding. Morinus counted example J.Kent correctly( 5,39). Worsdale has a bad result(6 59).
The calculation will be tomorrow.

Yes, thats my opinion too - it is sometimes hard - for the poor mathematical gifted like me Confused - to calculate the different kinds of PD's - but I think it's the onliest way to understand why five astrologers have six (correct) results for the same direction.

In one of his booklets on Primary Directions, Rumen Kolev expressed it perfectly when he said something like this: "For the math phobic primary directions must seem like the hell itself."

Worsdale was definitely not math phobic. I'd like to post the information Worsdale published about the secondary progressions and solar return for Kent's last year and relate them to the directions as well - later today if possible.