primary directions verses solar arc dierctions part 2

1
i am still interested in getting some feedback on anyone who has tried both, other then isaac starkman or atlantean.. i would prefer this thread doesn't get swamped with attempts at rectification of others charts, or discussion of how the topocentric coordinate system is the way it has to be done and actually if atlantean would just stay way that would be really helpful based on what happened on the last thread i started...

if anyone else would like to offer some input, i would appreciate it.. thanks!

2
regarding the primary keys - there are a few options to take when doing this...i have been using the naibod key of 59'08" which is the mean distance covered in a day by the sun... has anyone tried working with a key based off the movement of the sun on the day of birth for the chart under examination? in my chart for the day of birth the rate of the suns movement is 59'14".. thoughts anyone? thanks..

3
Hi James

You should definitely get those first two Rumen Kolev booklets on primaries. He goes into a good survey of the different approaches. He concludes that different keys work for different people - not the kind of conclusion I care for with astro methods.

- Ed

4
thanks ed,

i ordered them on sunday.. i had a few e mails with rumen as well.. i don't think he would mind me sharing what little is of relevance here..

my question :"there are so many options one can take when doing primary directions..at this point my impression is that mundane is more rewarding then zodiac positions. i use the naibod key as opposed to the other ones..

what are your thoughts on the best way to work with primary directions, or have you been able to narrow it down to a specific approach for them?"

his response : "Yes, I guess mundo and Naibod look good.
More efficient than the zod.
In my books it is discussed."

ed - here is my question to you : what do you find works the best in your work with primaries? any interesting observations that you would care to share i would be quite interested in reading.. thanks~

5
I use mundane directions with a variable key. Mundane positions are defined using an oblique mapping from topocentric true equatorial coordinates to the equator to define a longitudinal position for comparisons. The mapping is very similar to the mundane positions of the Topocentric and Placidus systems. My feeling is that these are three different mathematical formulations of the same basic system.

There are two distinct components to the system (described at http://www.levante.org). The first is the mapping to mundane positions as alluded two above. The second is the determination of a "directed time" for which you will erect a chart and perform the above mapping.

This is a different approach than using a key mapping the rotation of the earth to transit time, and keeping positions fixed on the radix "mundane sphere" which is moved along with the rotation of the earth.

Instead, it assumes that a directed time indicates a transit time, and a normal (if re-coordinated) chart is drawn for the directed time. So, it takes into account the secondary motion of the planets, small though it may be, unlike most systems that are called "directions".

Hope that helps.

- Ed

6
thanks ed,

i went to that link and read the first article 1.1 to 1.4
http://www.levante.org/svarogich/en/pri ... art01.html

i will continue to read the other articles and try to get my head around what they are talking about as i see you are also a contributor to the site..

do you actually believe what this fellow P. Svarogich says about the possibility of ptolemy being much later in history then where most historians have placed him? i am curious.. also, i found it interesting svarogich acknowleding alfred witte along the way in a very favourable context.. that was cool..

as for my suggestion on using the solar arc for the day as the persons birth as a primary key, i see this is the method that tycho brade was suggesting a long time ago.. so much for my idea, lol...

i will continue to study all of this and i appreciate your input in helping me along..

7
I generally warn people to take the revisionist history in the first chapter of Svarogich's thesis with a grain of salt. Fomenko and Newton are controversial.

The other warnings I give are "sorry about the Russ-glish" - I had a better editing job but the author wanted to keep the translations close to each other. And finally, don't worry about getting the math right away - the concepts are more important.

- Ed