Guest guest Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 Refr:02020608 Send:D:\Email\bin\02020705.SAL Thursday, February 07, 2002 Bob: > > Well it is nice to know that my stuff is read, even collected. It is indeed good to know that ones writings are read. > The statement clearly states that American Astrology Magazine > was collected, not your articles. You implied that my articles were among those collected and that you read them. > > If you have all of the works by all of the Siderealists, > It is further clearly stated that the articles I have were the > ones printed in that collection of magazines. I did not claim to > " have all of the works by all of the Siderealists, " , please do > not try to rewrite my post. Thank you for clarifying that point. It is enough to know that the articles old and new are being read by another generation. My point is that posts like ours and the articles published in such magazines as AAM and Constellations allow the controversial points of view to be aired. > > " , please do not try to rewrite my post. I am not trying to rewrite your posts. > and is not the same method. Steps 6 and 7 in the article > clearly show that he uses the RAAS which my programs for > progressing lunar returns do not do. I delayed answering to talk to Ken Bowser about his article. He was using the Progressed Lunar Return.(PSLR) This is an adapatation of the old Progressed Sidereal Solar Return,(PSSR) method. He used the RA of the apparan t Moon(RAAM) to peg the duration of the lunar cycle the same way as the Right Ascention of the Apparant Sun (RAAS) is used in the Solar Return, to establish the ratio or anniversary second. However, the actual rotation of the angles is strictly a function of the Sun/Earth relation and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Moon in her motion. This changing relationship is expressed as the change in the RAAS over the duration of the month. Bowser understood the difference between these two functions and treated them accordingly. I believe that you have failed to do so and are using the wrong value. Over the years, I have come to doubt the validity of the PSSR or PSLR methods altogether. I think the whole premise is bogus. From a theoretical standpoint, the whole ratio approach seemed questionable. The rotation is an Earth/Sun relationship. The hour angle is mantained as the angles move forward because of the increase in the RAAS. This is a basic and direct astronomical relationship. In a pratical sense, neither the PSSR nor the PSLR give good results. The planets are off the angles, sometimes the equivlent of one or two days at the time of the event. More importantly, the PSSR does not give the progressed Lunar contacts that the SQ method gives. Likewise, the PSLR does not give the progressed Solar contacts that the SQ gives with the Lunar Return. > Please do not make any further statements like the one above > which make it appear as though I plagerized someone else's work. That was never my intention. I never implied any such thing. I was merely calling your attention to the fact that someone else had experimented with a similar concept. It happens all of the time. Case in point, the day that I solved the equations for the Astro*Carto*Graphy calculations, I saw the ad for Lewis's service in AAM. In actuality, the technique predates Lewis by several centuries. Indeed, Mary Austin and Garth Allen published maps using the same concept. But it was Lewis who saw how the computer could be enlisted to do the work. > Please do not belittle yourslf by using condescending language > like the above. It proves no superiority. I neither belittle myself nor you in what I said. I simply asked you to calm yourself. You came on a bit too strong in your post. We may need to turn down the heat and discuss the difference in viewpoint rationally and calmly like two colleagues, who differ in opinion. Can we do that? > You emailed me that you would respond to my post, I did not ask > you to drop anything. Not ever. I waited three weeks, which > seems like a reasonable period of time. If you did not have time > the courtesy of a one line post or e-mail letting me know does > not seem unreasonable to expect. I am sorry that I did not get back to you sooner, but I have been both busy and ill. Now that I am feeling better, I should be more prompt in my replies. Sidereally, Bert Fannin Editor of Constellations Online Sidereal Magazine http://www.ltastrology.com/constell.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 , " Bert Fannin " <bwfannin@e...> wrote: > Refr:02020608 > Send:D:\Email\bin\02020705.SAL > Thursday, February 07, 2002 > > > Bob: > > ... > > > then you are aware that Ken Bowser published an article on > > > progressing the Lunar Return USING THIS METHOD quite a few years > > > ago. > > > Please do not make any further statements like the one above > > which make it appear as though I plagerized someone else's work. > > That was never my intention. I NEVER IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING. I was > merely calling your attention to the fact that someone else had > experimented with a similar concept. WRONG. Those are your exact words, there in the posts for all to see. Originaly you use the words " USING THIS METHOD " which is not an implication, but a direct statement. The use of those words does not indicate use of a " similar concept " as you use in your last post. > > > I realize I have little or nothing to do but respond to your > > > posts. > > Please do not belittle yourslf by using condescending language > > like the above. It proves no superiority. > > I neither belittle myself nor you in what I said. I simply asked > you to calm yourself. Please read the line above written by you and take responsibility for what you said. > you came on a bit too strong in your post. We may need to turn down > the heat and discuss the difference in viewpoint rationally and > calmly like two colleagues, who differ in opinion. Can we do that? If you are willing to admit to what you say and take responsibility for it there may be a chance. If you cannot or will not do that, there will be no chance. Along with rationalization, and calmness, their must first be HONESTY. > > One last point. I am another generation to someone, the generation I am part of is in their 60s. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.