Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 --- mquellas <mquellas wrote: > [JO]I'm still troubled with an earthquake which > occurred a > couple of years ago in Bhuj, India where thousands > died. An early warning of impending earthquakes > could > save lives and families. The CapSolar holds much > information > ---------- > [MQ]I'm assuming, as Therese did, that you mean what > is often listed > as the Gujarat Quake January 26, 2001 @ 3:16 AM UT, > epicenter > 23.39N 70.23E (as a heads up, USGS coordinates are > given in > degree.decimal notation, not degree.minute). FYI: Bhuj was the epicenter located in the state of Gujarat. According to the ACS Atlas in Solar Fire the coordinates are 23N16' and 69E40'. Why would I want to convert to a decimal format for astrological data input? Also why give UT when Local Time insures less chance of error with data input? http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/mapinnews/27012001bhuj.htm http://www.iitr.ac.in/acads/depts/earthquake/bhuj/index.shtml According to records today the time for the quake is now given as 8:47:27am or 8:46am IST depending on which Indian govt. agency you contact. View a bi-wheel with the Mean Quotidian(Progressed) CapSolar(Q1 or Q2 it does not matter) on the inside and the actual earthquake chart on the perimeter. Its a very telling perspective. Just like in the 9/11 tragedy... Mercury is at the ascendent. Happens allot it seems... One of the liabilites of Solar Fire is that it does not calculate mundoscopes. I think this event shows up bigger " in mundo " I wish I had CCRS... Will it work on XP? F-B > CapSolar set up > January 14, 2001 @ 20:32:56 UT. (I use calculations > from CCRS for > Solar Ingresses, BTW) Epicenter CapSolar MC 15 Can > 38 ASC 14 Lib > 04 Ingress Mars 18 Lib 13, Mercury 12 Cap 23, > Neptune 11 Cap 05, > Uranus 24 Cap 37, Moon 9 Vir 01. So we have Mars, > Mercury, Neptune > in the foreground; Uranus not far out of it, with > the ingress Moon in > partile sesqui-square. Ingress UR/NE = 17 Cap 51, so > MA = UR/NE, > certainly an earthquake indicator. Using the Mean Q1 > progression > rate, Quotidian MC at time of quake at epicenter 26 > Can 50, ASC 23 > Lib 53 square ingress Uranus, with transit Mars 24 > Lib 34. Quotidian > LST = 9:35:49; tr Mars rise = 9:38:10; tr Uranus IC > = 9:30 29 -- here > we go with another midpoint in time = 9:34:20. Tr > Mars semi-squares > ingress Moon, even more tightly to Q1 Moon 9 Vir 27. > Transit Sun- > Neptune conjunction one minute applying. One item > that has been > brought to my attention with earthquakes is the old > epithet of > Poseidon Earthshaker. I look at Neptune as part of > the " terror and > hysteria " such an event can bring. > -------------- > The means are available to make changes in understanding our world... Of course this happens on a regular basis throughout our history. Its incumbent on all of us to utilize our knowledge the best way we can for the sake of humanity. > The following is from Solar Fire v 5 on Geographic > vs Geocentric > latitude. Hope it helps. > > " It is possible to calculate charts based either on > geographic (also > known as geodetic) latitude or geocentric latitude. > Atlases such as the ACS International Atlas, the ACS > American Atlas > and Solar Fire's own place databases, contain > geographic latitudes. > Geographic latitudes are based on the measurement of > the angle of the > local horizon (also known as the geodetic horizon) > onto the celestial > sphere. It is assumed that all latitudes entered > into Solar Fire are > geographic latitudes, and all displayed latitudes, > such as in chart > details text, are geographic latitudes. > > " However, because the earth is not perfectly > spherical it is also > possible to define a latitude based on where the > horizon would be if > the earth was a perfect sphere, which also > corresponds to the angle > of a line from that location to the centre of the > earth. This is > known as a geocentric latitude. The geocentric > latitude is never more > than 12 minutes of a degree different from the > geographic latitude. > Have you found a significant difference or have you developed a preference between geographic and geocentric? I personally utilize geographic because I haven't seen a need to research the differences but then again my calculations have not required great accuracy. > > " Solar Fire v5 " > ------------ > CapSolar 2004 January 15, 2004 15:01:43 UT > calculation from CCRS. According to Solar Fire, CapSolar 2004 occurs at 10:01:08 am EST on Jan 15, 2004 > Note that this ingress has foreground Jupiter-Pluto > square. And as a > tidbit on CapSolars for DC -- Pluto has been on one > end or the other > of the meridian or in close square to it on > ingresses since 1947! > Election years Pluto is at the MC. Any comments? > > Sidereally yours, > Matthew That is very interesting... every year since 1947...phew... very interesting.... I'll look at the CapSolar a bit more before I make a comment though I wonder who gets the benefit of the Moon, Mercury, Uranus and Venus configuration? The Grand Trine between Jupiter, NNode and Chiron will probably be what the media dishes out most of the time this coming year until the election of GWB for a second term... Juan > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:15 PM , Juan Oliver wrote: > > Bhuj was the epicenter located in the state of > Gujarat. According to the ACS Atlas in Solar Fire the > coordinates are 23N16' and 69E40'. Why would I want to > convert to a decimal format for astrological data > input? Also why give UT when Local Time insures less > chance of error with data input? > Local time is fraught with difficulties and tends to result in *more* errors in data input - the first thing you have to do when calculating a chart (or when a program does it) is to convert the time to UT! The classic example was the toppling of the Saddam statue - the reported time was given as local time, and most astrology programs didn't pick up on the fact that daylight saving time was in operation in Baghdad. It was only because people watching it on TV saw that the Sun was shining, whereas the charts implied the Sun was in the 6th house and below the horizon, that the error was picked up. I didn't get this error, simply because I didn't even *know* what the local time was in Baghdad - I was watching the event live in the UK, so I knew what UT time it took place, and got the correct chart as a result. Quoting a time in UT ensures that these errors don't occur - Mars is in a given position at 17:00 UT, for instance, regardless of what the local clocks say the time is. I think it's a good principle to quote both local time *and* UT, and, of course, to spell out the month (since although most countries use dd/mm/yyyy, some use mm/dd/yyyy): eg " 18 April 1970 14:20 EDT (18:20 UT) " , and of course the coordinates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 RN: Using the data given by Mathew and taking the Capsolar as the first Anlunar of 2001 I progressed the chart to the date, time, and place given for the earthquake using my favorite tool. The resulting RAMC is 18:16:02 or 273d 59m and the midpoint structures presented below offer a very clear picture of the stresses present at that time and place. Some were exact in the hours preceeding the quake, some at the time of the quake, and others shortly after. I do not believe there is (or ever was) any planet, or combination of planets, that can be taken as an absolute 'signature' for ANY specific event. If anyone believes that they can interpret exact events from planetary aspects I have many events from my life that I would like to have them read for me. Getting back to the progression of the first Anlunar of 2001 here is the data I came up with as computed using Solar Fire 4.19. All positions are given in right ascension converted to degrees and minutes. Progressed RAMC: 18:16:02 or 273 degrees 59 minutes. Midpoints of.........Natal......Prog.......Transiting Mars\Uranus..........271d 26m...271d 34m...274d 55m Sun\Pluto............275d 37m...275d 33m...Not a factor Jupiter\Neptune......183d 47m...183d 47m...183d 54m Adding 90d to above: 273d 47m...273d 47m...273d 54m, RAMC squares this midpoint. Saturn\Neptune.......180d 15m...180d 15m...180d 24m Adding 90d to above: 270d 15m...270d 15m...270d 24m, RAMC squared this midpoint. Square in right ascension to progressed Ascendant: 274d 55m (See MP of transiting Mars\Uranus above)! Gee whiz! But of course this manner of progressing a lunar doesn't work. Bob , " mquellas " <mquellas@j...> wrote: > Therese, Juan, & List members, > > (...) > ---------- > [MQ]I'm assuming, as Therese did, that you mean what is often listed > as the Gujarat Quake January 26, 2001 @ 3:16 AM UT, epicenter > 23.39N 70.23E (as a heads up, USGS coordinates are given in > degree.decimal notation, not degree.minute). F-B CapSolar set up > January 14, 2001 @ 20:32:56 UT. (...) > > Sidereally yours, > Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 --- Chris Mitchell <chrismitchell wrote: Local time is fraught with difficulties and tends to > result in *more* errors > in data input Chris.... With the introduction of software one never " sees " the conversion process to UT... or for that matter the adjustment for location. Using Local Time gives me a perspective of what " real " time of day the event occurred and it does not " fraught " me with difficulties. I think it's a good > principle to quote both local > time *and* UT, and, of course, to spell out the > month (since although most > countries use dd/mm/yyyy, some use mm/dd/yyyy): > > eg " 18 April 1970 14:20 EDT (18:20 UT) " , and of > course the coordinates. Why both? I put the importance on the individuals at hand where the event occurs and they keep their watches set to local time.. If adjustments are made after that... so be it... I agree that one should spell out the month but not for the reason you mention... More countries " may " use dd/mm/yyy but most people use mm/dd/yyyy... just like most people drive on the right side of the road. Best Regards, An Adaptable American PS: These days the Sun does set on the " empire " ya know.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:22 PM , Juan Oliver wrote: > With the introduction of software one never " sees " the > conversion process to UT... or for that matter the > adjustment for location. Indeed - which is why software will sometimes give the wrong chart. > Why both? I put the importance on the individuals at > hand where the event occurs and they keep their > watches set to local time.. If adjustments are made > after that... so be it... So how do you cast a chart, then? If someone tells you that they were born at 15:00 local time, but don't know their time zone, you won't get an accurate chart. Yes, there are databases out there that will do their very best to tell you what time adjustment is needed - but they are not always correct (Solar Fire got the wrong chart for the topping of the Saddam statue, for instance). Giving UT as well is a very useful double check. > I agree that one should spell out the month but not > for the reason you mention... > > More countries " may " use dd/mm/yyy but most people use > > mm/dd/yyyy... just like most people drive on the right > side of the road. The US uses mm/dd/yyyy. I think Canada does, too. As far as I'm aware, the rest of the world uses dd/mm/yyyy. Certainly the whole of Europe does, and the population of Europe is comparable with the population of the US. Besides, even if only one country used a different system, it would make sense to avoid ambiguities. > > Best Regards, > An Adaptable American > PS: These days the Sun does set on the " empire " ya > know.... Your assumption that most people use mm/dd/yyyy is very US-centric. Mainland Europe, incidentally, where they use dd/mm/yyyy, was never part of the British Empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 --- Chris Mitchell <chrismitchell wrote: > On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:22 PM , > > So how do you cast a chart, then? If someone tells > you that they were born > at 15:00 local time, but don't know their time zone, > you won't get an > accurate chart. Obviously.. Local Time is useless without knowing the Time Zone and whether(and when) or not they observe Daylight Savings time... All of this is material information. This especially applies to you when England(or part of it) is operating under Daylight Savings Time... Yes, there are databases out there > that will do their very > best to tell you what time adjustment is needed - > but they are not always > correct (Solar Fire got the wrong chart for the > topping of the Saddam > statue, for instance). Giving UT as well is a very > useful double check. > Giving UT is not a guarantee that the software will recognize UT and accurately cast the chart. > > I agree that one should spell out the month but > not > > for the reason you mention... > > > > More countries " may " use dd/mm/yyy but most people > use > > > > mm/dd/yyyy... just like most people drive on the > right > > side of the road. > > The US uses mm/dd/yyyy. I think Canada does, too. As > far as I'm aware, the > rest of the world uses dd/mm/yyyy. You continue to repeat assumptions... you really don't know so why even bring it up? Certainly the > whole of Europe does, and > the population of Europe is comparable with the > population of the US. If Europe keeps growing the way it has it will have triple the amount of people compared to the USA.... > Besides, even if only one country used a different > system, it would make > sense to avoid ambiguities. > jolly good...then lets be clear and have none of this chatter about the use of dd/mm/yyyy.... > > > Best Regards, > > An Adaptable American > > PS: These days the Sun does set on the " empire " ya > > know.... > > Your assumption that most people use mm/dd/yyyy is > very US-centric. Mainland > Europe, incidentally, where they use dd/mm/yyyy, was > never part of the > British Empire. > And your assumptions are absurd and without a dash of friendliness or humor... As for the toppling of the statue of Saddam... was that supposed to have significance? Did that mark the beginning of a Free Iraq? It was one moment in time that was caught on film. Do you know how many Sad man statues were toppled over the course of weeks? No.. Mainland Europe was never part of the British Empire but a good part of Africa and the Middle East were... Regards... Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:21 PM , Juan Oliver wrote: > Obviously.. Local Time is useless without knowing the > Time Zone and whether(and when) or not they observe > Daylight Savings time... All of this is material > information. This especially applies to you when > England(or part of it) is operating under Daylight > Savings Time... Of course. And the rules for daylight saving time are so arcane in most countries - including the UK, the US and most of Europe - that UT is a safer bet. > > Giving UT is not a guarantee that the software will > recognize UT and accurately cast the chart. Even the most basic software will cast the chart correctly for UT. It is the benchmark - I know you think I'm some kind of English imperialist, but even " The American Ephemeris " (which you may be surprised to hear is my ephemeris of choice) uses UT. > You continue to repeat assumptions... you really don't > know so why even bring it up? Because I happen to think that accuracy is important in astrology. You made a post yourself that said you ended up with a useless chart because of a misunderstanding over date formats, so I would have thought you would have appreciated the point yourself. > jolly good...then lets be clear and have none of this > chatter about the use of dd/mm/yyyy.... OK - whatever. I prefer to be unambiguous, myself. > > And your assumptions are absurd and without a dash of > friendliness or humor... I'm sorry if I don't come across as friendly and cuddly as you do, Juan - it must be my cold Pisces Sun, and unfriendly Libra Moon. My only assumption, though, is that it's better to be accurate and avoid ambiguities. If you think that's absurd, you're certainly entitled to your opinion - but do you have to so critical of other posters simply because they quote UT, or use decimals instead of degrees and minutes? Lighten up, Juan! > As for the toppling of the > statue of Saddam... was that supposed to have > significance? Did that mark the beginning of a Free > Iraq? It was one moment in time that was caught on > film. It wasn't particularly significant for me, but I do like to look at events and see if they have interesting charts. But that's not the point - the point is that the software gave the wrong Ascendant when you entered the correct local time: and that would be highly significant if you were casting a chart for someone who happened to be born in Iraq in 2003. I prefer to use accurate charts. As for a Free Iraq, I doubt it very much. I happen to disagree with the actions of my government and yours over the war in Iraq, personally, and think it was a bad idea for us to have armed him throughout the 70s and 80s. > > No.. Mainland Europe was never part of the British > Empire but a good part of Africa and the Middle East > were... And what has that got to do with quoting dates unambiguously? For the record, I don't hark back to the days of the British Empire, and would prefer to see Britain as a more willing member of the European Union. But what relevance does Britain's past - or even my own political views - have to quoting dates and times accurately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 At 07:34 PM 1/14/04 -0000, Bob wrote: >RN: Using the data given by Mathew and taking the Capsolar as the >first Anlunar of 2001 I progressed the chart to the date, time, and >place given for the earthquake using my favorite tool. The resulting >RAMC is 18:16:02 or 273d 59m and the midpoint structures presented >below offer a very clear picture of the stresses present at that time >and place. Some were exact in the hours preceeding the quake, some at >the time of the quake, and others shortly after... This is all very impressive, Bob. A bit beyond my own mathematical abilities and understanding, but I can see the exact figures! There will come a time when each astrologer will have to specialize. You have your area of specialization all worked out...I shall continue to work with ingresses which no one seems to believe in. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 --- Chris Mitchell <chrismitchell wrote: > On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:21 PM , > Juan Oliver wrote: > > > Obviously.. Local Time is useless without knowing > the > > Time Zone and whether(and when) or not they > observe > > Daylight Savings time... All of this is material > > information. This especially applies to you when > > England(or part of it) is operating under Daylight > > Savings Time... > > Of course. And the rules for daylight saving time > are so arcane in most > countries - including the UK, the US and most of > Europe - that UT is a safer > bet. > > > > > Giving UT is not a guarantee that the software > will > > recognize UT and accurately cast the chart. > > Even the most basic software will cast the chart > correctly for UT. It is the > benchmark - For whatever reason... My experience with UT has been " fraught " with issues when it comes to the software... That's why I don't use it for my input data ... I prefer to calculate using the LT and adding the pertinent information as needed. It helps me to be aware of the time parameters throughout the world. What amazes me is that we are even having this dialogue. We both need to input accurate data and whether I input LT or UT is a matter of personal choice.... I know you think I'm some kind of > English imperialist, No I don't... I have no idea who you are... but even > " The American Ephemeris " (which you may be surprised > to hear is my ephemeris > of choice) uses UT. > Yea... me too... I'm not surprised that you use it... It's the best one that I have found as well. > > > > You continue to repeat assumptions... you really > don't > > know so why even bring it up? > > Because I happen to think that accuracy is important > in astrology. Stick to the topic. My response above was in reference to your continued assumptions that the world outside of North America uses dd/mm/yyyy. You wrote, " As far as I'm aware, the rest of the world uses dd/mm/yyyy. " " As far as I'm aware " is an assumption. You're not totally unambiguous. Accuracy is important to others beyond yourself. Try understanding what I'm writing before responding. It could save a great deal of useless communication. You made > a post yourself that said you ended up with a > useless chart because of a > misunderstanding over date formats, so I would have > thought you would have > appreciated the point yourself. > > Hmmmm.... Yes... I understand the importance of communicating... Thats why I also suggest writing out the month to avoid confusion. I also understand the importance of utilizing personal preferences... As long as the goal of accuracy is achieved does it really matter if one inputs UT or LT? > > jolly good...then lets be clear and have none of > this > > chatter about the use of dd/mm/yyyy.... > > OK - whatever. I prefer to be unambiguous, myself. > So do I.... I also intend to enjoy the moment and if that means injecting levity into a strained exchange of ideas, so be it... > > > > And your assumptions are absurd and without a dash > of > > friendliness or humor... > > I'm sorry if I don't come across as friendly and > cuddly as you do, Juan Dude... you find me cuddly? How's that? - it > must be my cold Pisces Sun, and unfriendly Libra > Moon. brrrr... I've got Libra rising... My only assumption, > though, is that it's better to be accurate and avoid > ambiguities. Again... Just to remind you... " assumptions are absurd " refers to a particular statement you made. Taking what I said out of its context makes communication difficult at best. If you > think that's absurd, you're certainly entitled to > your opinion I don't think being accurate and avoiding ambiguities is absurd. Why are you implying that I do? - but do you > have to so critical of other posters simply because > they quote UT, or use > decimals instead of degrees and minutes? Lighten up, > Juan! > I have been light... for me... If I have been critical of you simply because you quote UT or use decimals then I apologize. It is my understanding that I expressed a difference of opinion and not a criticism of you or your techniques..... > > > > As for the toppling of the > > statue of Saddam... was that supposed to have > > significance? Did that mark the beginning of a > Free > > Iraq? It was one moment in time that was caught on > > film. > > It wasn't particularly significant for me, but I do > like to look at events > and see if they have interesting charts. But that's > not the point - the > point is that the software gave the wrong Ascendant > when you entered the > correct local time: The only way the software could produce the wrong ascendant is if the data was incorrect or the program itself has errors. How sure are you that the time given was correct? and that would be highly > significant if you were casting > a chart for someone who happened to be born in Iraq > in 2003. I prefer to use > accurate charts. > You keep saying that you prefer to use accurate charts like you have the only methodology capable of doing that. > As for a Free Iraq, I doubt it very much. I happen > to disagree with the > actions of my government and yours over the war in > Iraq, personally, and > think it was a bad idea for us to have armed him > throughout the 70s and 80s. > > > > > > No.. Mainland Europe was never part of the British > > Empire but a good part of Africa and the Middle > East > > were... > > And what has that got to do with quoting dates > unambiguously? It has nothing to do with quoting dates unambiguously... Who has been doing that? If you re-read the post, hopefully you will see that I was referring to your comment about the British Empire never being part of Mainland Europe. This came up in reference to " the sun not setting on the British empire " ... I mentioned to you (in what I thought a humorous vein) that times change... methods change... the empire has changed.... there was a time that wherever you were on the globe the sun shinned on the British Flag. I mentioned Africa and the Middle East because even though the sun did not shine on Europe while the Sun appeared to travel from east to west it did shine on Africa etc.... So nothing to do with quoting dates unambiguously... Because as you well know I have written posts suggesting that dates be written out clearly showing the month, day and year.... For the > record, I don't hark back to the days of the British > Empire, and would > prefer to see Britain as a more willing member of > the European Union. But > what relevance does Britain's past - or even my own > political views - have > to quoting dates and times accurately? > Hopefully we can find better fodder for the future.. Regards, Juan PS: War Sucks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 --- Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: I shall > continue to work with > ingresses which no one seems to believe in. > > Therese > Who dosen't believe in them? Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Hi Therese, Thank you for aknowledging what you read. I can send you a gif of the chart so you can see it if you would like me to. While you were posting this I was composing my response to your post regarding astrology and belief. Excuse me for a moment while I try to pry my foot out of my mouth. Bob , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 07:34 PM 1/14/04 -0000, Bob wrote: > >RN: Using the data given by Mathew and taking the Capsolar as the > >first Anlunar of 2001 I progressed the chart to the date, time, and > >place given for the earthquake using my favorite tool. (...) > > > This is all very impressive, Bob. A bit beyond my own mathematical > abilities and understanding, but I can see the exact figures! There will > come a time when each astrologer will have to specialize. You have your > area of specialization all worked out...I shall continue to work with > ingresses which no one seems to believe in. > > Therese RN: The methodology is simple, requiring only subtraction and addition (and division to determine midpoints). I believe you have Solar Fire. That is the program I use to do all of the charts. I could post an example in the Files section but because of a lack of response to the progressed lunars I have posted there and posted about in the archives I have seen no reason to do so. I believe in ingress charts and use them often. When birth charts are not available they are the first charts I do (using Fagan-Bradley). The progressions of the lunars derived from the solar ingresses and the progressions of lunar ingresses have demostrated to me a timing device equal to and in many cases superior to transits or progressed solar ingresses. The Caplunar and its progression help to complete the story of the Columbine tragedy, showing how Eric Harris was influenced by transiting Jupiter (a point I have not seen made by any other astrologer of any persuasion) in a most negative manner. I will no longer include you when I think of the close minded ones. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 > > - but do you >> have to so critical of other posters simply because >> they quote UT, or use >> decimals instead of degrees and minutes? Lighten up, >> Juan! >> > > I have been light... for me... If I have been critical > of you simply because you quote UT or use decimals > then I apologize. It is my understanding that I > expressed a difference of opinion and not a criticism > of you or your techniques..... > No apology needed, Juan - I wasn't the poster you criticised for using UT and decimals. I was merely butting into that exchange, where you questioned why he was using UT. > > The only way the software could produce the wrong > ascendant is if the data was incorrect or the program > itself has errors. How sure are you that the time > given was correct? > Software will produce the wrong Ascendant if the local time entered is correct, but the software doesn't know the full details of time zone information, including DST, in that country. If I see a news report from another country and the newsreader says " the earthquake hit at 10:00 this morning, local time " , I can't do an accurate chart for it unless I know the time zone that country is in, and whether DST is in operation. This is a civil issue, of course - if I could see the time from a sundial, then I could just use LMT and know the result is correct. All I'm saying is that to use local time, you need to know timezone information and DST information, which is not always readily available. I once did a chart for someone born in Ontario in the mid 1950s at the end of September, and he knew his birth time. Was daylight saving time in operation then? He didn't know whether DST ended in September or October in the year he was born - and some research discovered that Ontario didn't have a standard rule until the late 1950s as to when to change the clocks over. Astro.com knows the correct answer, but this was in the days before astro.com. I'm not advocating using just UT, incidentally - I just think it's a useful double-check to be told that a birth time in New York, is, say, 09:00EDT (13:00UT). Most people who ask me to do their chart are blisfully unaware of time zones, and have no idea whether DST was in operation when they were born - this may well be a UK thing, as we only have one time zone in operation at any one time, whereas in the US people tend to know whether they're on EST, PST and so on. The UK also had a bizarre set of rules that were so confusing that the diaries the government issued to their employees were wrong one year! They'd assume the clocks went back on the fourth Sunday in October, and actually the agreed rule was the *last* Sunday - and that October had five Sundays. I was rather amused to see our own government got it wrong, whereas Microsoft Windows got it right! > > It has nothing to do with quoting dates > unambiguously... Who has been doing that? If you > re-read the post, hopefully you will see that I was > referring to your comment about the British Empire > never being part of Mainland Europe. This came up in > reference to " the sun not setting on the British > empire " ... I mentioned to you (in what I thought a > humorous vein) that times change... methods change... > the empire has changed.... there was a time that > wherever you were on the globe the sun shinned on the > British Flag. I mentioned Africa and the Middle East > because even though the sun did not shine on Europe > while the Sun appeared to travel from east to west it > did shine on Africa etc.... I didn't understand the reference, sorry. Before my time > PS: War Sucks! > Amen to that! Chris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 At 10:24 PM 1/14/04 -0800, Juan wrote: > >--- Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > >I shall continue to work with ingresses which no one seems to believe in. >> > > >Who dosen't believe in them? Members of the western sidereal school (including yourself) haven't shown any interest in testing the Krishnamurti ayanamsa for ingress charts. Progressing the angles and Moon in those ingress charts might be revealing, not to mention the charts themselves. I don't progress charts myself, but simply compare the ingress and event charts. T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 At 07:31 AM 1/15/04 -0000, Bob wrote: >Hi Therese, > >Thank you for aknowledging what you read. I can send you a gif of the >chart so you can see it if you would like me to. Yes, please do. I have a holistic female brain that can immediately comprehend planetary patterns in charts, but show me a list of figures without the chart and my brain short circuits. (If I post a list of figures, it's because I'm copying them from a holistic looking chart!) R.A.M.C., neo-quotidian, Q1, Q2, Q10..whatever. It makes no sense to me. (Sorry, Matthew!) Thanks, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 --- Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: > At 10:24 PM 1/14/04 -0800, Juan wrote: > > > >--- Therese Hamilton <eastwest > wrote: > > > >I shall continue to work with ingresses which no > one seems to believe in. > >> > > > > > >Who doesn't believe in them? > > Members of the western sidereal school (including > yourself) haven't shown > any interest in testing the Krishnamurti ayanamsa > for ingress charts. In reading your post to Bob... You express the fact that you are involved in some things and not in others. So it is with me and everybody else... I expressed in my last post to you that I preferred cardinal ingresses but also expressed the validity of of all ingresses... The TauSolar is a valid chart and will provide information over the following 30 days or so... I find the CapSolar to be in a pivotal position. It's at the meridian and represents the core essence of mankind(to me). Its the beginning of the upward motion of the Sun until it breaks the plane(so to speak) at Aires. It is Square or in opposition to the other cardinal positions... It speaks to me with greater volume than the others. Ingress Charts are Ingress Charts and are all valuable tools... I'm simply expressing that I prefer some over others. What is inspiring to me will be different than what floats your balloons... I would like to see what you have done with the Krishnamurti ayanamsa but unfortunately your recent post with data was difficult for me to grasp... I think you alluded to the fact in a recent e-mail how you like to see the chart instead of a lot of numbers... I'm the same way.... I suggest that we post actual charts in the file section for review instead of attempting to write out all of the data. Do you think that would be helpful? > Progressing the angles and Moon in those ingress > charts might be revealing, > not to mention the charts themselves. > > I don't progress charts myself, but simply compare > the ingress and event > charts. > > T. > Maybe it's time for you to look at progressions? Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 At 12:47 PM 1/15/04 -0800, Juan wrote: >In reading your post to Bob... You express the fact >that you are involved in some things and not in >others. So it is with me and everybody else... Yes, we all don't have time to get into everything. The world of astrology is huge. I'm interested in just about every astrological technique, but I don't understand them all and don't have time to work in every area. >I expressed in my last post to you that I preferred >cardinal ingresses but also expressed the validity of >of all ingresses... The TauSolar is a valid chart and >will provide information over the following 30 days or >so... Yes, it seems to do that. I find the CapSolar to be in a pivotal position. Bob said he didn't find anything in the Capsolar for the Loma Prieta quake. I do have trouble with the concept of one chart setting the tone for an entire year, although if the progressions hit in a specific way, that would indicate the chart is valid. But there has to be consistency. Matthew has more or less said that he hasn't found a lot of consistency for major events. However, the consistency seems to be there in the K monthly ingress charts, probably because the time period for the chart is short. If anyone is interested, I can post the K ingress times for 10 or 15 quakes and everyone can use their favorite software to cast the charts in the F-B zodiac, though the Sun will be at 29 degrees. Doesn't matter. I set up my F-B charts for the sun at 59 minutes into a K zodiac sign. The relationships between the planets will be the same. > Its the beginning of the upward >motion of the Sun until it breaks the plane(so to >speak) at Aires. That's the Tropical Capricorn ingress. The sidereal Capsolar is almost a month after the solstice. >It is Square or in opposition to the >other cardinal positions... It speaks to me with >greater volume than the others. The Capsolar is the traditional primary ingress chart of the sidereal school. In the little research I've done, I find the monthly charts to be more descriptive. I would like to see what you >have done with the Krishnamurti ayanamsa but >unfortunately your recent post with data was difficult >for me to grasp... Yes...I always try to give the exact time (hour/min/second) so anyone who wants to see the chart can quickly set it up on their favorite chart program. Since the charts are timed, they can all be set up with the F-B ayanasma. The relative positions will be the accurate for the K ingress, and the one degree difference from K generally won't matter. I also keep pages of small hand drawn chart wheels, and if somone posts some planetary positions for a chart, I'll jot them down on a wheel so I can visually see them. >I think you alluded to the fact in >a recent e-mail how you like to see the chart instead >of a lot of numbers... I'm the same way.... I suggest >that we post actual charts in the file section for >review instead of attempting to write out all of the >data. Do you think that would be helpful? Yes, that's the best idea, but my current astro program won't write a file to disk. The scanner software currently won't work with the XP computer. Another option is to fire up my old DOS computer and learn (again) to use Astrolabe's PrintWheels with Nova. PW will write to disk. But this all takes time....Still, I'll see what I can do. It's always best to have the charts to look at. I will generally quickly cast charts for any discussion on the internet that's interesting if the time of the chart is given. >Maybe it's time for you to look at progressions? For some reason, I've never liked progressions, either Tropical or sidereal. And my everyday astro program doesn't do progressions. I have the progressed charts that Matthew has done, and find them very interesting, but in my own work I like to see the planetary contacts for an event right 'out there' without resorting to progressions, midpoints and minor aspects. And I'd have to (re)learn a whole new system. It's not that the progressions don't work. It's just that if I can see the relevant pattern in an ingress chart and can track which current transits will trigger an event, then why work with minor aspects, progressions and midpoints? Remember, I also use the navamsa, and some of the close conjunctions in the ingress and quake navamsas are striking. It's another system, different from the western sidereal system. But (rather by accident) since I've stumbled on the apparent value of the K ingress, that's relevant to western sidereal astrology and that's why I've been posting information about the quake charts. Perhaps I'll be able to get some of the charts up on a web site. I do have a site permit, but haven't had time to put up articles and charts. Not enough hours in the day. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 --- Chris Mitchell <chrismitchell wrote: > > > > - but do you > >> have to so critical of other posters simply > because > >> they quote UT, or use > >> decimals instead of degrees and minutes? Lighten > up, > >> Juan! > >> > > > > I have been light... for me... If I have been > critical > > of you simply because you quote UT or use decimals > > then I apologize. It is my understanding that I > > expressed a difference of opinion and not a > criticism > > of you or your techniques..... > > > > No apology needed, Juan - I wasn't the poster you > criticized for using UT > and decimals. I was merely butting into that > exchange, where you questioned > why he was using UT. > Words and their meanings can be viewed so many different ways depending on listening and what one is hearing. Individuals can think they are communicating but are simply talking. Perception comes along and demonstrates why being human is an art form. > > The only way the software could produce the wrong > > ascendant is if the data was incorrect or the > program > > itself has errors. How sure are you that the time > > given was correct? > > > > > All I'm saying is that to use local time, you need > to know timezone > information and DST information, which is not always > readily available. To determine UT you need to know the same thing. > I'm not advocating using just UT, incidentally - I > just think it's a useful > double-check to be told that a birth time in New > York, is, say, 09:00EDT > (13:00UT). There are never enough double check systems in the world... So if it works as one... great.... Juan 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.