Skyscript Astrology Forum

Triwheel of the 2001 WTC attack + it's H9 onto 4th July 1776 (midday): And finally a quadriwheel of all four: 4th July 1776 midday > WTC-1993 > WTC-2001 > H9 of latter: Graham

Graham wrote:

Terese wrote:
Addey didn't exactly suggest generating a tropical harmonic and remapping it sidereally. He suggested (based on his preliminary research) that harmonic waves measured from the vernal point produced peaks in sidereal signs.

Graham wrote:
I think it must be the same thing, as his diagram in the book shows.

As time allows, I'm going to look over Addey's books before comparing your charts. I have four of his books. Can you give the page number of the diagram you mentioned and the name of the book?

Your charts are very clear now. Thanks!

Therese
You gave the page number yourself, a few posts back:

He diagrammed this on page 196 of Harmonics in Astrology.

You can see the waves, starting from a point (the VP) which is not at the beginning of sidereal sign boundary but somewhere inside two of them, marked on the scale.
Graham

first off, i agree with therese on this: harmonics and research into harmonics is an area of study that is worthy of much more attention.

this isn't happening in the astro community from what i can tell. john addey did a lot of in this area and david hamblin added to it. david hamblin released a book 'The Spirit of Numbers' A New Exploration of Harmonic Astrology - 2011 the wessex astrologer books which is a continuation of a study into harmonic astrology that some might find worth reading.

regarding the quote from page 196 of john addeys book 'harmonics in astrology'.. this is a quote taken from a 10 page chapter(19) titled "Tropical v. Sidereal". i would like to quote his comments that i think offer a quick summation of his thinking in these 10 pages.

in reference to the controversy over the 2 different zodiacs, he takes an agnostic position..

"In the light of the concept of harmonics one can see where some of this confusion( debate over the 2 zodiacs) arises. Part of it, evidently, comes simply from the over emphasis on the twelve-fold division and the neglect of other valid divisions which must be just as strong if, in a sense, less basic. But another distorting factor comes from that view of the ecliptic which sees it, astrologically, as twelve box-type sectors (where each sign has a uniform quality from start to finish) instead of a complex of wave forms.

It is this last error which undermines- indeed, invalidates- the work of Bradley and others who have followed in his footsteps, seeking to justify the Sidereal Zodiac on the basis of greater statistical significance of solar emplacements in the sidereal signs as opposed to the tropical."

regarding the picture on page 196. this involves the use of the 5th and 7th harmonic cycle and is a more nuanced conversation that requires one have a copy of the book at hand as opposed to being told about it 2nd hand..

James quotes Addey:

another distorting factor comes from that view of the ecliptic which sees it, astrologically, as twelve box-type sectors (where each sign has a uniform quality from start to finish) instead of a complex of wave forms

This is also, I think, a major problem with the Indian varga harmonics (and non-harmonic divisional charts), and the Indian approach to aspects etc: everything's in separate boxes, and with harmonics, which exaggerate orbs etc, you can easily miss and ignore a very close conjunction etc. A slightly wrong ayanamsa, in sidereal, would also throw things way out. Indeed, since harmonics magnify differences in ayanamsa, they might be used to choose the best one, as Therese has suggested.
The distortion (as Addey sees it) is also strongly present in Western traditional astrology, which as I understand it, also generally considers signs to be pretty tightly defined "boxes", even if aspect orbs are sometimes allowed to cross sign boundaries (unlike in Indian).

I agree that the stuff in Addeys' book can't be discussed at second hand, and I've been using it rather out of context. I just took it, really, as a precedent for using something else than 0? Aries sidereal (or 0? Taurus like Fagan) as a starting point for calculating a harmonic: i.e. the VP, whihc at least everyone can agree is a significant point on the ecliptic. This led me a bit by chance to notice some interesting tropical configurations.

Graham

graham,

i thought it was interesting how addey pointed out that not only is tropical 0 aries - intersection of the ecliptic and the celestial equator, it is also very close to the intersection of the ecliptic with the plane of the galaxy ( now said to be about 29 gemini - according to addey in this same book 1976).. he also mentions the solar apex, the point in the constellations towards which the sun and its system of planets is moving and this is said to be about 2 degree capricorn.. a similar possibility is the galactic centre positioned, evidently, at about 26 1/2 sagittarius... this info is all on page 200 of the same book as well giving more emphasis to approx 0 cardinal/tropical.. perhaps from a purely astronomical pov, there are more then a few reasons for more of an emphasis on 0 cardinal/tropical if one also considers these reference points as having relevance..

Graham wrote:

This is also, I think, a major problem with the Indian varga harmonics (and non-harmonic divisional charts), and the Indian approach to aspects etc: everything's in separate boxes, and with harmonics, which exaggerate orbs etc, you can easily miss and ignore a very close conjunction etc. A slightly wrong ayanamsa, in sidereal, would also throw things way out...

What this amounts to is that the Indian varga charts are not harmonics in the way that John Addey understands them. Another big research area then. There's a lot to reply to on this topic, but I don't have the time at the moment. I'm thinking of ways harmonics in groups might be studied using the research program JigSaw which didn't exist when John Addey was alive.

Graham wrote:

(To get that I had to trick SF into calculating a sidereal harmonic which starts not from 0? Aries sidereal, but from the SVP, 6?13 Pi, and thus leaves this the same in radix and harmonic)

Graham, can you explain exactly how you did that? It can be done manually, of course, by adjusting the tropical 9th harmonic degrees, but how did you get Solar Fire to do it?

Hello James
It's tropical 0? Cancer/Capricorn, the solstice points (90? from the intersection of the ecliptic and the celestial equator), not 0? Aries (the intersection itself), that are now also very close to the intersection of the ecliptic with the plane of the galaxy (Addey says about 29 Gemini/Sagittarius tropical, astonomers Meuss and Smelyakov calculated this to fall at 270? in May 1998, and some time in 1998 seems to be the consensus).
Addey also mentions the solar apex and the galactic centre itself as possible valid starting points for sidereal harmonic phases, but prefers the galactic equator/ecliptic hypothesis as being the intersection of another great circle with the ecliptic.

Since we're talking about finding a valid sidereal starting point for sidereal harmonics, I don't see how an emphasis on 0 cardinal/tropical is relevant - this current coincidence is purely incidental in sidereal terms. In 1000 years time the galactic equator (and the other points you mention) will still intersect with the ecliptic in the same places sidereally (allowing no doubt for very minimal wobble or proper movment, depending on how and with respect to what they are measured). But their tropical coordinates will then be well in the middle of the cardinal tropical signs, moving towards the fixed ones.
Graham

Therese - I explained it in laborious detail in the first post of this thread. Here is the relevant passage:

Because software only gives the 0? Aries start as an option, we have to "trick" it into "fixing" the VP on the date in order to calculate the harmonic, just as in the example above, we fixed the ascendant and worked out a H9 in relation to that.

I decided to try it with an event chart which has a very accurate timing: the WTC attack. I've used the Krishnamurti ayanamsa, and Solar Fire. First I cast the base chart, for 8:46:30, the time the first plane struck the north tower (the earlier given time of 8:48 was later revised when checked). I noted the KM SVP on the date (6Pi13'15") and worked out how to to get that to function as the base: just as 0? Aries does with our default harmonics, 6Pi13'15" must come up the same in H9 as in radix. Because it is a long way from 0? Aries (the calculation could also be done from 0? Leo, which also give 0? Aries navamsa, conventionally), it's easier to first work out how to force the program to give a 0 point at 0 Pisces: 3?20 back from 0? Aries, at 26?40 Pisces, i.e. the navamsa just before Aries. We then add 1/9th of 6?13'15", so that once the harmonic has multiplied it x9, it will be back to the true radix VP. So 26?40' + 41'28" = 27Pi21'28" : this is one of the three points in the zodiac that the program can use to calculate the harmonic from on 9/11, "as if" it was 0 Aries. So the SVP for 1900, in the SF preferences panel, has to be adjusted by adding 27Pi21'28 + the difference between the 2001 and the 1900 SVPs (as per Krushnamurti), i.e. subtract 6?13'15" and add 7?38'10" = 28?46'23". This is then to be used in the custom 1900 SVP line in SF preferences, but only to cast the chart to be used the generate the H9. The H9 is then compared to the original radix, and a number of interesting conjunctions and placement swaps turned up.

Graham

Graham F wrote:
Since we're talking about finding a valid sidereal starting point for sidereal harmonics, I don't see how an emphasis on 0 cardinal/tropical is relevant - this current coincidence is purely incidental in sidereal terms.
Graham

graham, good luck finding a 'valid' starting point! my understanding of harmonics has no relationship to zodiac signs regardless it being sidereal or tropical. but if you think you might be able to find a valid starting point using a this unique astrological approach of harmonics - good luck!

Graham wrote:

Therese - I explained it in laborious detail in the first post of this thread. Here is the relevant passage:

Well, that explains it. I often don't remember posts more than a day previously, and am not able to read on-screen paragraphs longer than five or six lines. When writing for on-screen viewing, it's always best to break up long paragraphs for the benefit of older eyes.