
View previous topic :: View next topic 
Author 
Message 
Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010 Posts: 49

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:49 pm Post subject: 


Hi again
I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr’ s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment. If this Polaris software was used then it would be worth finding I'd have thought, assuming it exists.
Just to be clear with your idea Atlantean. How many events would you require and what would be the nature of these events. If the astrologer roughly 25% of the time came up with a time within the actual birth hour it would probably be worth repeating, being better than chance would amount to very little. If you were seeking the actual minute and ‘hit it’ 10 times and missed it 990 times I doubt anyone would take too much notice.
I think somewhere between 5001,000 subjects would be the sample size to aim for initially. 

Back to top 


Ed F
Joined: 22 Jan 2008 Posts: 301 Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: 


Isaac S used Polaris on my chart, starting with a 12 hour window, and ended up with a chart within one minute of my personal rectification (from 40 years of doing astrology) and 2 minutes from the BC time. He used 20 events if I remember rightly. I was pretty impressed.
 Ed 

Back to top 


Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010 Posts: 49

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 9:32 pm Post subject: 


Hello Ed
Yes this would clearly impress someone.
The criteria of 20 events (not easy to produce) and a 12 hour window looks ideal, we just need the 5001,000 people's data now. Putting in 5 possible times and asking the computer to find the accurate one should be sufficient. A result showing the birth time in 1st or 2nd place most of the time would be required I think. Perhaps an average below 2 would be seen as significant. I'm not great on Statistics.
I have been reading about it in the last few hours and would like to give it a go with a friends data, although I can only generate  at the moment  about 5/6 events from the list found here.
http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/dailyhoroscopepolarissoftwareacriticalanalysis/
Does anyone know what it costs?
I have already come across a few people who use it and it appears to be used to generate an income for some. If a large scale test found it lacked credibility this could prove inconvienient.  Also ethical issues involved here.  If Issac S agreed to it being tested this would be a commendable and brave decision. 

Back to top 


dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010 Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: 


Isaac told me Polaris can only be used in Win XP i`m afraid. I`ve got Win 7 

Back to top 


Atlantean
Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 389

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:13 am Post subject: 


Hello dmause,
Re: "Isaac told me Polaris can only be used in Win XP i`m afraid. I`ve got Win 7"
I am sitting at my laptop (Windows 7) looking at the Polaris screen.
If you have anything other than the lowend Windows 7, you can likely run Polaris directly on that machine, since it supposedly has a full Windows XP OS included. If you have the lowend version, as I do on my laptop, then you have to run it as a virtual machine using VMWARE software. (which is downloadable from the web and can be reused FREE using their virtual machine Player) [Windows XP operating system ISO or starterdisk required]
Peace


Back to top 


Atlantean
Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 389

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:35 am Post subject: 


Hello Mike N,
Re: "I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr’ s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment."
I would be interested in reading any commentary relating to Marr, Topocentric Primary Directions, or Polaris that you could find. Please share if you do find it.
I must comment, since my experience has been the opposite. I have used Polaris (and thereby Alexander Marr's methods) on many rectifications and have found it be a Godsend. Normally, Polaris requires quite a few events (if we're talking about a large search range) in order to do its magic.
You can read my Pat Nixon rectification article at http://www.jamesalexander.de/PatNixon.html and get a better idea about Polaris and some of these methods. (there are other rectificationrelated things on the website, but I am trying to make sure that this doesn't look like a shameless plug  I bring it up since there is some confusion about the methods and their efficacy)
Re: "How many events would you require and what would be the nature of these events."
The number of events needed depends on the size of the search range and in how well the true birthtime's (appropriate) Topocentric Primary Directions stand out against other possible birthtimes in that search range.
To explain it better...
Each rectification is different. Sometimes with a large search range and not so many events Polaris is able to quickly resolve the true birthtime. In some other cases, with many more events and a much smaller search range, it is still much work to resolve. In short, we don't know the difficulty until we roll up our sleeves and get into the work.
I am sure that the fundamental methodology is correct, otherwise, it would not be possible to directly input events from some celebrities and have Polaris take us directly to that birthtime. I rectified a chart of a fellow astrologer and (uncharacteristically) Polaris resolves his birthtime (matching the documented time to the minute) with only 3 events. Again, this IS a rarity that so few events leads us to the right time, but it shows the fundamental correctness of the algorithm.
Re: "...5001,000 subjects would be the sample size..."
That simply is NOT possible, it is far too many manhours to accomplish and it would be very difficult to find that many birthtimes (documented) that we KNOW are truly correct. The odds (in a 24 hour search) of Polaris (by chance) finding the documented (assuming correctness) time is 1 in 1440. Now (follow closely) for every single time that Polaris correctly leads us to the birthtime, there would have to be 1439 times that it failed in order for Polaris to be seen as operating at chance levels. Each and every time that Polaris takes us to the correct birthtime without there also being 1439 "failures", is that much MORE that Polaris is performing beyond chance levels.
To put it another way, assume that we have 30 cases (we have more!) where entering in the events from some celebrities' lives causes Polaris to correctly output the documented birthtime in a 24 hour search. The odds of this happening are (1/1440)^30, which is approximately ONE chance in 5,634,751,435,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. [ie. 5.634751435 * 10^94] (buying 3 tickets in three state lotteries and winning the jackpot in all 3 would be easier, oddswise)
Re: " Putting in 5 possible times and asking the computer to find the accurate one should be sufficient."
That's not how Polaris works. Polaris "simply" takes the events from someone's life and looks through the search range for the BEST (possible) BIRTHTIMES in terms of appropriate Topocentric Primary Directions for EACH event, but across ALL of the events. Period. In a normal rectification, we start examining those times through other reliable systems (including Secondaries, Progressed Sidereal Solar Returns, and sometimes Age Harmonics) in order to CONFIRM which is correct. For a test, it is enough that we show that Polaris "sees" which is the correct time (ie. rates it highest), so that the fundamental algorithm can be seen to be correct.
Again, each rectification is different. For Ken Haining, 3 events and Polaris leads right to his birthtime (ie. number one by some margin). For my personal rectification, with 19 events, the correct time (in a 24 hour search) doesn't make it into the top 10 "possible" birthtimes. For Pat Nixon (mentioned earlier), Polaris took 18 events and the correct time is number one. (realize that Pat Nixon was NOT a 24 hour search...we already knew that she was born some time shortly before midnight, so no point in looking in the afternoon!)
Re: "Does anyone know what it costs?"
$350. More info can be read at http://www.jamesalexander.de/PolarisSoftware.html
Hope this helped clarify some ideas you may have about the program.
By the way, I make NO MONEY from supporting the software. It is a labor of love because it makes my work so much easier!!!
Ed commented on the software, because he has "honed" his birthtime over 40 years of analysis. Polaris, and these attendant methods, leads us to his correct birthtime. As Ed said, he is "pretty impressed".
To me, this is the greatest proof that Astrology "works" and on terms that statisticians/mathematicians can understand, since the probabilities are very straight forward...
Peace


Back to top 


dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010 Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: 


Too expensive for me but im willing to provide my birthdata and events if you`re willing to rectify my birthtime. My father appeared to be quite sure of the time but we never know 

Back to top 


Isaac Starkman
Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 102 Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: 


Mike N wrote:  Hi again
I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr’ s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment. . 
Probably you read Michael Wackford's article: Topocentric Houses: Loose ends and Unrapt parallels. You can find it in the articles section.
Like so many astrologers Michael Wackford didn't understand the construction of this house system and I can understand him.
Since its first publication in 1963, Topo system was attacked over and again. Wendel Polich, who discovered the system together with Nelson Page, wrote to Alexander Marr that this system is trigonometrically highly technical and only very few people can understand it. (How many highly skilled mathematicians can really understand the solution of Andrew Wiles to the Fermat's last theorem or to the solution of Grigori Perelman to the Poincare conjecture?)
Wendel Polich was not only a professor of mathematics but a man with extraordinary powers of concentration.
One thing is clear: without the Topocentric houses my program Polaris wouldn't be able to work.
Last edited by Isaac Starkman on Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:59 am; edited 1 time in total 

Back to top 


dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010 Posts: 78


Back to top 


dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010 Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:06 pm Post subject: 


Isaac Starkman wrote:  One thing is clear: without the Topocentric houses my program Polaris wouldn't be able to work. 
At astro.com my topocentric chart has exactly the same cusps as in Placidus. 

Back to top 


dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010 Posts: 78

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:50 am Post subject: 


Isaac Starkman wrote:  Mike N wrote:  Hi again
I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr’ s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment. . 
Probably you read Michael Wackford's article: Topocentric Houses: Loose ends and Unrapt parallels. You can find it in the articles section.
Like so many astrologers Michael Wackford didn't understand the construction of this house system and I can understand him.
Since its first publication in 1963, Topo system was attacked over and again. Wendel Polich, who discovered the system together with Nelson Page, wrote to Alexander Marr that this system is trigonometrically highly technical and only very few people can understand it. (How many highly skilled mathematicians can really understand the solution of Andrew Wiles to the Fermat's last theorem or to the solution of Grigori Perelman to the Poincare conjecture?)
Wendel Polich was not only a professor of mathematics but a man with extraordinary powers of concentration.
One thing is clear: without the Topocentric houses my program Polaris wouldn't be able to work. 
According to R. Smit Topocentric houses have already been tested:
I am fully aware of the topocentric House System. We already experimented with it in the seventies. So there is nothing new about it. And the socalled topocentric primary directions are not topocentric  they are the standard primary directions which were already in use long before World War II. The only difference lies in the time key 

Back to top 


Mike N
Joined: 20 Sep 2010 Posts: 49

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:01 am Post subject: 


Isaac Starkman wrote:  Mike N wrote:  Hi again
I thought I had read a study which analysed Alexander Marr’ s Topocentric Primary Directions system with the results being unsupportive, but I can't find it for the moment. . 
Probably you read Michael Wackford's article: Topocentric Houses: Loose ends and Unrapt parallels. You can find it in the articles section.
Like so many astrologers Michael Wackford didn't understand the construction of this house system and I can understand him.

Hello Issac
The study I thought I had seen would have involved using this model of space/time division to see if correct birth times could be obtained. It would be irrelevant to a critical researcher, or sceptic/scientist. whether a house system had any coherent or persuasive astronomical / astrological
integrity. Only once the data supported the hypothesis would this be of interest.
I did read your comments on George W's blog. Can you confirm that if 500 people with verified birth times, so we can anticipate they are mostly accurate within 10 minutes, were found and 35 events for each provided you would be certain Polaris would find the time within the hour. This appeared to me to be your position.
My view at the moment is there would be many ways to test this system usefully with a large enough sample. You could undertake it with less than 500 but the smaller the sample results in a less persuasive conclusion.
Atleantean thinks 500 would be difficult to find. I believe in many countries times are recorded on the BC or available from the hospital.
My main concern would be if Polaris provided unimpressive results this could be explained away by the lack of objective events. I did note however your, and Atlantean's, observations that in some cases fewer events can be sufficient. I hope you, Atlantean and Smit can agree on a test and await the outocme with interest. I would anticipate a mutual agreement that 20 (+/5 )events is sufficient.
The discussion about odds is something of a red herring at this stage, in my opinion. 

Back to top 


mattG
Joined: 21 Sep 2007 Posts: 345 Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject: 


Dmause
Quote: 
I am fully aware of the topocentric House System. We already experimented with it in the seventies. 
Can you let us know who "we" are? Secondly if you have studied astrology for 40 years how come you are asking beginner level questions in the nativity section and do not seem to know what mundane astrology is?
I thought that this forum asked its members to display some commitment to the study of the subject
Matthew 

Back to top 


Atlantean
Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 389

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:08 pm Post subject: 


Hello Mike N
Re: "The discussion about odds is something of a red herring at this stage, in my opinion."
There's nothing redherringish about it, if you understand the math.
If I go to flip a coin 5 times (50% chance heads, 50% chance tails) and you tell me that you can tell me that it will be heads five times in a row, then IF IT COMES TO PASS, then the odds that were "defeated" were (1/2)^5 [= 0.03125]. Fish don't enter the picture.
It's the same with the odds of finding the "right minute" in the day. Since there are 1440 minutes in a day and we are considering ONE of them to be correct, then the odds HAVE TO BE 1 in 1440 or 1439:1 AGAINST, depending on how one wants to express it.
When Polaris (one time) gives the correct minute, then it (by definition) has defeated 1 in 1440 odds. Since each birthtime is obviously mutually exclusive, then the formula becomes:
...where N is the number of times that Polaris correctly gives the birth minute in N consecutive attempts.
If we "accept" a larger margin of error, say +/ 5 mins, then there are 144 of those tenminuteperiods in the day and so it is the same formula, but with 144 as the divisor, instead of 1440.
This is the mathematical probability. We can't change the formula because we don't like it or perhaps don't fully understand it.
If we are flipping a coin five times and you say the first one is heads, you have "defeated" 50% odds, because it could have been heads or it could have been tails. You got the one right out of two possibilities. Now, if you say the first one is heads AND the second one is heads, then (0.5 * 0.5) or 0.25 are the defeated odds in your doing so. Third one also heads? 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 and so on.
Is there some part of this that isn't clear? I want us to be on the same page here or the "test" is pointless, because the significance will not even be understood.
Now let's examine a "test" scenario...
Let's assume that we are given a three hour period in which the birthtime is contained. To get within +/ 5 mins is 1/18, because there were 180 minutes in those 3 hours and we are looking at a tenminute block of time, so 180/10 = 18. Now, let's assume this exact test is replicated a number of times....
Polaris tries once and succeeds, 5.6% chance, defeated.
Polaris tries second test and succeeds, 0.31% chance, defeated.
Polaris tries third test and succeeds, 0.017% chance, defeated.
Polaris tries fourth test and succeeds, 0.00095% chance, defeated.
Polaris tries fifth test and succeeds, 0.000053% chance, defeated.
The point in all of this (commentary) is that hundreds of tests in the sample are in no way needed. Even giving a +/ 5 min margin and a three hour search window, FIVE demonstrations already shows Polaris beating (basically) infinitesimal odds. ie. with each Polaris success, the odds that it could do so quickly approach ZERO
What might make it easier to "appreciate", imagine that I am standing before you and I tell you that I am thinking of my birth minute and I ask you to tell me what it is. When you do so, (assuming no cheating), then THAT IS QUITE SOME ACCOMPLISHMENT. If I then ask you my Wife's birth minute and you tell me that one too, then YOU HAVE JUST DONE THE AMAZING! In no way, would it take 500 times of you doing it in order for it to be impressive. Hopefully, you can see that.
Before any test should be done, it is necessary that we understand the significance thereof...
Peace
Last edited by Atlantean on Wed Oct 06, 2010 10:04 pm; edited 1 time in total 

Back to top 


dmause
Joined: 14 Sep 2010 Posts: 78

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:48 pm Post subject: 


there is a large article in which the first results of the very large study of time twins, I talked about, are mentioned and discussed:
http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf 

Back to top 




You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum



.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

