Primary directions with proper motion ?

1
Hello

As Tom said at the beginning of the last thread on primaries:
"Primary directions are at least based on visual astrology, but you can go nuts trying to come up with a system."

Has anyone else tried bypassing all the trigonometry and just using a good astronomy program, to see after how long natal planets hit ASC, MC, DSC and IC? I've done this with the programs The Sky 6 and Redshift 3, and the results are very interesting - seem to be more accurate, especially for Moon, Mercury and Venus.

You just note how long it takes in real time for planet to reach the angle, then convert that time into years, taking either 4 mins = 1 year (solar day, which I think must be equivalent to using Naibod's key) or 3.99 mins = 1 yr if you want to use 1? of rotation on axis (i.e. 1/360 of sidereal day) = 1 year . (If you want to use natal solar rate, you have to to do a special calculation for the day in question.) I've found 3.99 mins (1? worth of rotation on axis) = 1 yr, ie Ptolemy's key, to give the closest "hits".

You also may need to decide if you want to allow for refraction (hardly any difference), and horizonal irregularities (not sure about this one, so far I'd say the best results seem to be got taking the "ideal" horizon, though I need to do more work to have a clear opinion).
Lunar parallax is a factor at ASC and DSC (not at IC and MC), but a good astronomy program allows for this automatically, whereas Rumen Kolev's Placidus doesn't (Solar Fire and others will calculate primaries to angles with parallax, but of course without taking proper motion into account).

Anyway, it's a nice way of getting back in touch with what's happening in the sky if you go outside and look on a clear night!

Graham

Re: Primary directions with proper motion ?

2
Graham Fox wrote:Has anyone else tried bypassing all the trigonometry and just using a good astronomy program, to see after how long natal planets hit ASC, MC, DSC and IC? I've done this with the programs The Sky 6 and Redshift 3, and the results are very interesting - seem to be more accurate, especially for Moon, Mercury and Venus.
I have done the same with Solar Fire. Secondary motion (in the zodiac) will affect timing for the faster planets, particularly the Moon. And of course the real crux in primary direction is interplanetary directions, not directions to the angles.
You just note how long it takes in real time for planet to reach the angle, then convert that time into years, taking either 4 mins = 1 year (solar day, which I think must be equivalent to using Naibod's key) or 3.99 mins = 1 yr if you want to use 1? of rotation on axis (i.e. 1/360 of sidereal day) = 1 year . (If you want to use natal solar rate, you have to to do a special calculation for the day in question.) I've found 3.99 mins (1? worth of rotation on axis) = 1 yr, ie Ptolemy's key, to give the closest "hits".
1? of RA takes 3m 59.33s, and by Naibod's measure corresponds to approximately 1.01456 years. Therefore, the number of minutes after birth corresponding to 1 year according to Naibod would be approximately 3.93.
You also may need to decide if you want to allow for refraction (hardly any difference)
I wouldn't say that. Refraction can change the time of a direction to the Asc/Desc by more than a year.

4
Thanks Martin and Ed for your replies.
Martin is right about Naibod key : my 3.99 minutes = 1?=1 year is simply a more precise version of the 4 mins=1?=1yr, i.e. key of Ptolemy, based on a 360 division of the sidereal day.
Also right about refraction : I did these experiments some time ago, and I know it was because I'd decided not to use refraction. But not because there was no difference, but because it seemed less accurate. So (curiously perhaps) I found (very provisionally) that an "ideal" horizon gave better results than a real local one as the eye would perceive it.
Not sure I see why interplanetaries should be the real crux of primaries, as most experts seem to agree that hits to the angles mark the most major events and the closest timing (e.g. Kolev, Dani?le Jay, Sepharial). But it's true of course that my method of using an astronomy program doesn't work easily for interplanetaries.
Will try Concept some time, but even the site warns that it is awkward to use!
Graham

5
Hello Graham,
Not sure I see why interplanetaries should be the real crux of primaries, as most experts seem to agree that hits to the angles mark the most major events and the closest timing (e.g. Kolev, Dani?le Jay, Sepharial).
By 'the real crux' I meant 'the most difficult problem', as everyone agrees on the basic method of directing to the angles, but differ on directions between planets.

That said, the idea that angular hits mark the most major events is rather modern and, in my opinion, incorrect. Angular hits are the most time-sensitive, however, and therefore best suited for rectification work. If they appear to give the closest timing, it is often because the chart has been rectified from them.

6
Graham wrote
Has anyone else tried bypassing all the trigonometry and just using a good astronomy program, to see after how long natal planets hit ASC, MC, DSC and IC?
Yes I have and it has become my favourite way to do Primary Directions to the Angles. I?m using 4 Minutes clock time equals one year @ 365.24219 days.

I have 2 tools; one is Solar Fire where I convert the time key 4 min = 1 year to a factor of 0.00000761 and insert it into the ?Rate for User Progressions?. The Chart Angle Progression type must be Mean Quotidian. Then, in the Animation modus, I choose User Progressions. On the Page, I insert an item (points list flexible) showing the RA, Azimuth and Altitude. Altitude zero is rising/setting, Azimuth 0? or 180? is culminating/anticulminating.

The other one is an Event List from the STARLIGHT software showing the exact time of the rising/culminating etc. of a planet or star. I copy the Event List and paste it into an Excel Sheet that converts this into years and the date of the hit with the key 4min=1year.

I also take the ideal horizon, no correction for altitude of the birthplace (that?s neglectable), no geocentric correction to latitude, no refraction.


I am quite convinced by now that the proper motion of the planets and especially the moon should be considered.
Where I am still researching is whether the Parallax or the ?normal? moon gives better results. I don?t have enough charts with the directed moon rising or setting at a certain age ? and the aspect should lie in the past of course! - The difference can be more than a year.

Has anybody else got more experience with the parallax?


I don?t use Interplanetary Directions much. While I?m very fond of the Primary Directed Angles, I prefer Secondary Progressions or Solar Arc Directions for the Planets. As a side effect, I can avoid ?the real crux?.:)

Very interesting subject :'

Ren?

7
3D wrote:I am quite convinced by now that the proper motion of the planets and especially the moon should be taken into account.
I definitely agree.
Where I am still researching is whether the Parallax or the ?normal? moon gives better results. I don?t have enough charts with the directed moon rising or setting at a certain age ? and the aspect should lie in the past of course! - The difference can be more than a year.

Has anybody else got more experience with the parallax?
I have, from my own chart as well as others, and it supports the use of parallax correction. In other words, the time of actual moonrise after birth seems to be the important thing.
I don?t use Interplanetary Directions much. While I?m very fond of the Primary Directed Angles, I prefer Secondary Progressions or Solar Arc Directions for the Planets. As a side effect, I can avoid ?the real crux?.:)
:) I can testify to the power of interplanetary primary directions, though. Indeed, I am living through a major one right now.

8
Graham Fox wrote:...
Will try Concept some time, but even the site warns that it is awkward to use!
Graham
I have a "draft" user guide that's a bit more helpful that I can send. PM me if/when you're interested.

- Ed

9
3D wrote:...
Has anybody else got more experience with the parallax?
...
Ren?,

I use proper secondary motion as you mentioned, but also use topocentric positions. I do not use refraction - you're guessing it anyway. My model is that it's the relative positions of objects to the native that matter (so I also use "true" rather than "apparent" positions - without correction for light time).

Seems to work well. I became convinced of the efficacy of parallax correction back in the 70's, and haven't found any reason to change that opinion since.

- Ed

10
Martin Gansten wrote:...

:) I can testify to the power of interplanetary primary directions, though. Indeed, I am living through a major one right now.
Likewise. I recently survived a cancer that timed very closely to Sa directing to Pl. I see the effectiveness of these directions all the time.

- Ed

11
Hi Martin and Ed,

Thank you for your feedback on the parallax. I?m happy to hear that both of you use topocentric positions. I favoured them for theoretical reasons. I think you would agree that it is only meaningful for the moon, the effect can be neglected for the planets and the sun.

The light time is interesting, I thought a lot about it. It seems that there is either a constant flow coming from the planets, or that there is an instant resonance in the solar system. What about the light from distant stars that don?t exist any more?

You are both very positive about interplanetary primary directions.

What time orb do you give them?
What aspects? (I just looked at conjunctions and oppositions)
Is there a software calculating the planets? proper motion with interplanetary primary directions?

I think I will have a new look at them?..

Ren?

12
Hi Ren?,
You are both very positive about interplanetary primary directions.

What time orb do you give them?
What aspects? (I just looked at conjunctions and oppositions)
Is there a software calculating the planets? proper motion with interplanetary primary directions?
I am still experimenting, but I tend to be rather traditional, which is to say generous with time orbs (the results of directions typically manifest in the year that they perfect) but restrictive with the points and aspects I include (the seven traditional planets and five major 'aspects' including conjunctions). But there are points on which my mind still isn't made up, such as mundane aspects -- my hunch is that mundane squares to angles and angular planets are useful, whereas mundane sextiles and trines are not. Also, the jury is still out on parallels. :)

To my knowledge, there is no software that makes allowance for secondary motion except for the Moon. The latter is included as an option in Rumen Kolev's software, but then he doesn't do parallax. (Ed, I forget: does your software include either of these options?)