Skyscript Astrology Forum

spock wrote:Successful rectification tends to validate astrology.

Yes, and for this reason it is important that rectifying experiments are done.

For me as a sceptic inquirer it is a way to test astrology (astrological claims) using statistics.

If only one astrologer can predict/reconstruct consequently and correctly against odds birth-times, his unique method /used algorithms makes without doubt a case for astrology.

Just as only one Newton or Einstein were needed to change the paradigms and status of natural science. Even if not all physicists were that brilliant. In the same token, only one effective astrologer could chance our perspective on astrology. And his students could learn/benefit from it.

For astrologers, the art of rectification is both a way to test and improve astrological techniques. A well rectified chart should explain astrological events better than an approximate chart that could have an incorrect rising sign (one third of Astrodienst according to forum member Dr.H. in a personal writing )

In my case, as an ADB-editor wanting to test astrology using statistics, it implies introducing uncertainty about the birth-time, and give rectifiers a chance tot guess the approximate BC time. Doing this using a 24 hours time-span seems to be (current state of the art) a mission impossible, but using an 8 hour time-span Isaac Starkman hit the chords.

Rectifying a chart candidate Eelco Van Kleffens
http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1463854570
http://www.astro.com/wiki/astro-databan ... 4995[quote]
21 May 2016 Svi retrieved BC's from the municipal archive and uploaded it to Astrodienst. He made a +/- 4 hours mistake when entering the data, so the time span of this entry is from 2 PM to 10 PM for a rectifying experiment. This time we have no contest. Take your time to find out which planets should be found on the cusps.

30 May 2016: Starkman rectified to 16.55.28 LT (16.35.56 GMT) Asc 16Gem 35'. [/quote]

This was a hit.

Please join the Viva la astrology / SAT "contest" in Discussion: Other branches of astrology
http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?board=english_3

The most current Rectifying a chart candidate Willem de Sitter
http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1466637562
http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1466637562#13

Thank you very much for the result and explanation. I have entered your expected time so that users can watch what Asc 26Aqu30' implies for the many documented events. The BC will be published in the fourth week of July.

A reply of Dr. H. is expected in the 3th week of July. I hope some more astrologers and amateurs like me will test their rectifying astrology software and skills on this interesting person..

And try to hit the chords like the ancients once did.

Henry Purcell: Strike The Viol (Christina Pluhar & L'Arpeggiata)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25xOdEkIRLg

http://opera.stanford.edu/Purcell/Fairy ... retto.html

Trio: May the God of Wit inspire,
The Sacred Nine to bear a part;
And the Blessed Heavenly Quire,
Shew the utmost of their Art.
While Echo shall in sounds remote,
Repeat each Note,
Each Note, each Note.

Chorus: Now joyn your Warbling Voices all.

Atlantean wrote:One problem with Waybread's method #2 should be obvious...

The AA-rated database, is tremendously x:00, x:15, x:30, and x:45 heavy! ie. Even though AA-rated, pure mathematical probability informs us that they CAN NOT be correct. Real birthtimes do not congregate around even 15 minute intervals of time.

James

Larxene wrote:@Atlantean:

Can someone get some summary statistics on the AA Astro-Databank charts? I might be able to do it if I know of a way to download all the data...

Hi James and Larxene,

I did a summary statistics on the cca 15.000 AA Astro-Databank birth time records and even the X:00; X:15; X:30; X:45 birth times are pretty disproportionate.

36% (!) of all AA-rated birth time records are X:00;
15% of AA-rated birth time records are X:30;
6% of AA-rated birth time records are X:15 and X:45;

Here is a quick list of the other birth times:

All AA: (15908)
===
X:00 (5755 / 36.18%)
X:01 (60 / 0.38%)
X:02 (41 / 0.26%)
X:03 (59 / 0.37%)
X:04 (49 / 0.31%)
X:05 (302 / 1.9%)
X:06 (48 / 0.3%)
X:07 (61 / 0.38%)
X:08 (59 / 0.37%)
X:09 (34 / 0.21%)
X:10 (510 / 3.21%)
X:11 (60 / 0.38%)
X:12 (74 / 0.47%)
X:13 (58 / 0.36%)
X:14 (60 / 0.38%)
X:15 (925 / 5.81%)
X:16 (43 / 0.27%)
X:17 (66 / 0.41%)
X:18 (72 / 0.45%)
X:19 (41 / 0.26%)
X:20 (506 / 3.18%)
X:21 (77 / 0.48%)
X:22 (71 / 0.45%)
X:23 (58 / 0.36%)
X:24 (54 / 0.34%)
X:25 (329 / 2.07%)
X:26 (43 / 0.27%)
X:27 (59 / 0.37%)
X:28 (67 / 0.42%)
X:29 (47 / 0.3%)
X:30 (2418 / 15.2%)
X:31 (73 / 0.46%)
X:32 (61 / 0.38%)
X:33 (53 / 0.33%)
X:34 (59 / 0.37%)
X:35 (305 / 1.92%)
X:36 (44 / 0.28%)
X:37 (70 / 0.44%)
X:38 (70 / 0.44%)
X:39 (28 / 0.18%)
X:40 (454 / 2.85%)
X:41 (47 / 0.3%)
X:42 (73 / 0.46%)
X:43 (73 / 0.46%)
X:44 (48 / 0.3%)
X:45 (953 / 5.99%)
X:46 (63 / 0.4%)
X:47 (49 / 0.31%)
X:48 (58 / 0.36%)
X:49 (45 / 0.28%)
X:50 (393 / 2.47%)
X:51 (90 / 0.57%)
X:52 (60 / 0.38%)
X:53 (55 / 0.35%)
X:54 (38 / 0.24%)
X:55 (282 / 1.77%)
X:56 (61 / 0.38%)
X:57 (58 / 0.36%)
X:58 (70 / 0.44%)
X:59 (69 / 0.43%)

thanks petr9.

The classification used by Lois Rodden and Astrodienst is explained here.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Help:RR

It is essential to have accurate data from which to draw accurate conclusions in astrological studies. Lois Rodden has created the Rodden Rating system to classify data reliability.
Since data are always volatile, no rating system is infallible and data are often updated when new information comes to light. The AA, A and B data are fairly stable. The C and D data are the one's that tend to change with the continued upgrades to the Astro-Databank

.
If you read the text well, the classification is based on the reliability of the source, not on the precision in time that the sources gave.

Accuracy and Rodden Ratings
AA, A, and B data are the only data that should be used in astrological studies. Data rated "AA" (from birth certificate or birth record) are the most accurate obtainable. Data rated "A" (from memory) are usually accurate, but there are exceptions. Politicians and entertainers are notorious for giving misleading birth dates and times, except when consulting their astrologer. "B" data (from biographies) are similarly accurate because authors who give times are likely to have obtained the data from the subject, the subject's immediate family, or from a birth record.
Data rated "C" (Caution) are not reliable, since they have no direct link to their source. In all cases where there is no source or data classification, the data can only be considered hypothetical.

So a rounded AA BC time from the 19th century - when almost all birth-record times were recorded for whole hours - should have a time-span of at least an hour. A more precise C-time without source that popped up somewhere in the astrological literature, maybe because it seemed to be "working", could be mentioned in the sources.

But a rectified, speculative, but somehow "working" birth-time cannot be considered a priori as reliable. As the reliability of the predictive methods used still have to be proved.

For this reason, the reliability of the indeed often imprecise, but well documented sources, and not the results of progressions, determine the accuracy in Rodden Ratings dealing with the historical reliability of birth-times.

And this subject is difficult enough.

Rodden Rating for autobiography
http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1439359363

AA just means: being most close to the sources.

Now suppose you have accurate data (access to The sources), and want to multiply them. That is the spirit of the real Data Collector. What do you more need? A type writer / copy mechanism, email/ internet etc , etc. You might write a book. Maybe your original book was by hand copied by others and others (your very needed maids). But some changes thus could occur in it: In the (re)production of well established facts.
This could be the sad story of many wholly (but later distorted/changed, but still maybe wholly) reproduced wholly books.

Sad end: AA does not deal with hourly or minute precision.
.