Hi Steven

The heliocentric perspective focuses upon perihelion (proximity to Sun) rather than perigee (proximity to Earth), so it's not that these points are now different, but that modern astronomers are less interested in them than they used to be. In the ancient system we were also looking to find the auge - the top of the epicycle - but I am pretty sure that would be the same as the modern calculation of the apogee. (Unless I'm very much mistaken )

I don't want to take the focus away from the main theme of the thread so maybe I'll start a new thread about this soon.

(I'd love to know more about your method though, when you have the time ...)

Thanks
Deb

Deb wrote
(I'd love to know more about your method though, when you have the time ...)

I ditto this!

Regards, Steve

I'm confused about the use of perigree /apogee here concerning mars. Doesn't mars revolve around the sun?


"Derivative terms are used to identify the body being orbited. The most common are perigee and apogee, referring to orbits around the Earth (Greek ??, g?, "earth"), and perihelion and aphelion, referring to orbits around the Sun (Greek ?????, h?lios, "sun"). "

Hello JulieYvonne

Looks like you're right - we're technically misusing the terms, using 'apogee' and 'perigee' in a non-conventional, but still logical, way.

I believe in astronomy what we're calling here 'perigee' would be referred to as 'closest approach', though god knows what the opposite of that is correctly termed - so far I think it's referred to as 'greatest distance'.

If anyone reading this knows, I'd like to know.

Regards

H.

It's indeed a bit confusing since we live in the heliocentric astronomy era. Apogee/perigee are now only applied to the Moon, for the planets aphelion and perihelion are used.

I believe in astronomy what we're calling here 'perigee' would be referred to as 'closest approach', though god knows what the opposite of that is correctly termed - so far I think it's referred to as 'greatest distance'.

I think you'r right Handn, my astronomy annual writes in similar way, close, far, greatest disctance, there are no real distinct terminologies I believe.

Mars was in opposition 29 January 2010, but closest to Earth 27 January.
If the planets' orbits were perfect circles these data would coincide but since the orbits are ellipses these differences occur. Mars is in aphelion 31 March, this is called an 'aphelic opposition', so quite the opposite of the close opposition of 2003 which was a 'perihelic opposition'.

Here's a list of Mars oppositions and closest approaches
http://seds.org/~spider/spider/Mars/marsopps.html , 'dist AU' is the distance to Earth measured in Astronomical Units (i.e. the distance of the Earth to the Sun approximately, 150,000,000km).

Hello Eddy

Thanks for writing about what your astronomy annual says and the terminology it uses, it's useful to know.

Regards

H.

Thanks for clearing that up, handn.

Getting back to the OP, I was a little startled that there was such a tepid response to the basic question of starting a job with mars Rx. Is this because astrologers here have no personal experience with the Rx, or that it is not the right question for this forum, or traditional sources are silent?

The retrograde cycle of mars is unique of the superior planets in that it does not trine the sun during its retrograde phase, forming only the quincunx and opposition. For this reason alone it is said to have an extremely unsettling and disruptive influence during the Rx phase. In addition, the relative rarity of mars Rx, compared to the other superior planets, would indicate it is a difficult energy to assimilate. We are not "used" to it.

Why would anyone want to begin anything under these conditions?

Thanks for sharing this example Steven, it's very interesting.

Here's the chart wheel.

Regards

H.

Rx is only a small part of the planets zodiacal state

I disagree strongly. I believe mercury, venus and mars are profoundly altered by retrograde status.

My point in this is that even had Mars been Rx, it has absolutely no relationship to the matter at hand and what was being started.

Surely you see the problem here? You offer an electional chart to prove mars Rx had no effect, but mars wasn't Rx. I don't understand how this chart supports your theory. In your chart mars is separating from saturn in the 12th house. Perhaps if mars had been moving back to conjunct saturn and perfect the square to jupiter we would have another marital story.

I can't comprehend the idea that mars has "absolutely no relationship" to beginnings, no matter what they are.

JulieYvonne wrote:

Rx is only a small part of the planets zodiacal state

I disagree strongly. I believe mercury, venus and mars are profoundly altered by retrograde status.

My point in this is that even had Mars been Rx, it has absolutely no relationship to the matter at hand and what was being started.

Surely you see the problem here? You offer an electional chart to prove mars Rx had no effect, but mars wasn't Rx. I don't understand how this chart supports your theory. In your chart mars is separating from saturn in the 12th house. Perhaps if mars had been moving back to conjunct saturn and perfect the square to jupiter we would have another marital story.

I can't comprehend the idea that mars has "absolutely no relationship" to beginnings, no matter what they are.

Julie, sorry for being blunt, but that's probably because you do not understand traditional astrology's most basic principles and general ideas.

But Paulo, how can you say that? It doesn't seem right to make such a sweeping assumption unless you personally know Julie's background. I can't see that being the inevitable conclusion of the point she made, which seems fair enough doesn't it? The example, interesting as it was, didn't actually feature a retrograde Mars. Maybe I am missing something? (I must admit I've had to read the comments quickly - out of concern that we don't make personal criticisms about individual abilities).

Rx is only a small part of the planets zodiacal state

I disagree strongly. I believe mercury, venus and mars are profoundly altered by retrograde status.

It is nothing to do with the zodiacal state, of course, which is why it is an accidental testimony rather than an essential one. But that doesn't mean it is not important. In a general sense retrograde motion is very significant in terms of what is happening to the planet's apparent movement and expressed influence; in context of course.

PFN wrote: Julie, sorry for being blunt, but that's probably because you do not understand traditional astrology's most basic principles and general ideas.

Hello Deb,

That's why I said probably. Still, supposing Julie does have the background and my assumption was hasty (for which, indeed, I would apologize) I still do believe she to be putting an emphasis on retrogradation that is over exaggerated. On her first post she said:

JulieYvonne wrote:I would never, ever start a new job with inner planets retrograde if it could be avoided, but, as someone said, if you can't control the date and you want the job, you're stuck (...) Mars retro for marriage is really unfortunate. Mars rules the procreative principle, so I hope they're in total agreement about the kid issue.

If the planet has no accidental or natural relation and does not afflict what you seek after, what's to fear? And if you're electing something and can seal it cadent without hurting important planet's, just like in the example Steven gave, you can avert it's evil (supposing the radix chart does not say otherwise, of course). Also, often retrogradation just unleashes something that may already be present in the natal chart, so you have to understand the proper context. To just say we should always avoid Mars or any other planet retrograde is absurd, cause it's not impossible or that rare to it's retrogradation bring about something good, despite the usual delay or suddenness related to it.

I do accept that Mars have correlation to the "initiation" of things, through the "principle of initiactive" (but not to the procreative one, that's the Moon and Jupiter territory, correct me if I'm wrong) but not always is he in charge or have that much say in "begginings". What if Saturn put too much pressure or Jupiter offered too much goodness? If my natal Mars or a transiting Mars is retrograde, I should and/or will just sit and wait? And if I do not, everything blows? It's less about Mars than other planets and their interactions most of the time (after all, it's 6x1). Instead of avoiding, it would be better if we understand what something especifically means beforehand, cause retrogradation can or can not be that important. It's the confluence of testimonies that will show the truth, not a single one.

That's not to say I do not believe retrogradation to be a debility, cause I do, but to state it's all this doom is to generalize things and worse, put a weight on it that it does not have by itself. And this idea is modern in my opinion, and widespread in a inconsequential manner as even in the tv news we see from time to time the dread of Mercury retrograde spreading like the fear of the H1N1.