16
Tom wrote:
also known as parallels of declination
I thought parallels of declination were measured in degrees above and below the equator, and therefore would not have a zodiacal longitude. But antiscia is measured on the ecliptic. I know there is a connection between them, but I've never been strong in this area. I probably should dig into it.
As parallels in mundo are identical with parallels of declinations, each parallel will hit the ecliptic in two points (one to the right and one to the left) and indeed in two different signs and in two different terms.

This is the same principle we see the equator cuttting the ecliptic in two points: So also the parallels of the equator cut the ecliptic in two points.

This only would be to proved by computing these points in Kent's chart.
Last edited by johannes susato on Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

17
Tom wrote:@Martin
also known as parallels of declination
I thought parallels of declination were measured in degrees above and below the equator, and therefore would not have a zodiacal longitude. But antiscia is measured on the ecliptic. I know there is a connection between them, but I've never been strong in this area. I probably should dig into it.
This is the kind of thing that is more easily explained with the aid of a celstial globe (as recommended by Worsdale himself). :D Properly speaking, a parallel of declination is not a point but a small circle parallel to the equator, just as you say. But such a circle will intersect the ecliptic in two places (just like the equator itself intersects the ecliptic at 0? tropical Aries and 0? tropical Libra), and those are the two points used by Placidus for primary directions. Incidentally, I recall that Morin, too, writes that antiscia ought to be taken with latitude, that is, from the actual declination of the planet rather than that of its ecliptical projection.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

19
Martin Gansten wrote:
johannes susato wrote:Parallels in mundo are identical with parallels of declinations.
No, parallels in mundo (as defined by Placidus) are entirely different. They are based on equidistance from the horizon or meridian.
Thank you, Martin!

Is my understanding now right that there are three kinds of parallels?
1. to the equator (parallels of declination)
2. to the ecliptic
3. to the horizon (called parallels in mundo by Placidus)

20
. . . and what sort of parallel is meant by this sentence of Worsdale, please:

"Venus is also retrograde, near the Pleiades, and in exact parallel with Mercury in mundo where she becomes posited in the terms of both the enemies.?
Last edited by johannes susato on Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

21
This is the kind of thing that is more easily explained with the aid of a celstial globe
And he probably said that somewhere near one of his rants against the planesphere. :) Thanks for your answer.

Data, please

22
Good evening,

Everyone is entitled to their opinions including, of course, Mr Tom. :) Several authors of thick, erudite books on astrology, however, have applied primary directions concurrently with other tools to rectify event times to seconds of time and arcs. Even if months are close enough for us in primary directions, methinks a careful tradesman, astrologer and / or engineer, will diligently attempt to calibrate his tools (ex. gr. software) before applying them.

Having worked much with data consistency matters, alas i cannot concur with Ms Margherita, although i should like to, in trusting any software packages because their results agree. Perhaps they all took their formulae and algorithms from the same (eventually erroneous - 'errare humanum est') source. Although 'traditional' sounds nice and comforting, some experts opine that Renaissance techniques of primary directions were breaches of tradition, innovations. (Not necessarily my opinion.)

Even using Morinus i have, sadly, not yet been able to obtain the same results as Ms Margherita. Here is a chart from Morinus:
Image
And here is the data entered, of course with LAT and Mr John Worsdale's coordinates for Liverpool, England! The Lot of Fortune is in zodiaco. Apparently Morinus cannot - yet - show the ecliptical value of its mundo position.
Image
My question is, if this chart agrees to Ms Margherita's and other participants' in this thread in Morinus:
How, please, must the Morinus Primary Directions Options be configured to obtain results closest to Mr Worsdale's who lists, on page 85, 6 degrees, 59 minutes of arc for the direction "Moon to the Parallel of Mars in the Zodiac"? The value stated above, 5.398, is 1.6 degrees less, a temporal difference of about 1 1/2 years. This is, according to Mr Worsdale (see page 88 ), one of the key 'killing directions' of the nativity.
Perhaps, however, i have overlooked something important.

Best regards,

lihin
Last edited by lihin on Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Non esse nihil non est.

23
johannes susato wrote:Is my understanding now right that there are three kinds of parallels?
1. to the equator (parallels of declination)
2. to the ecliptic
3. to the horizon (called parallels in mundo by Placidus)
I can't recall seeing parallels of latitude (your #2) used in older astrological literature, but yes, they're possible. Parallels in mundo (#3) can be formed either around the horizon or around the meridian.
. . . and what sort of parallel is meant by this sentence of Worsdale, please:

"Venus is also retrograde, near the Pleiades, and in exact parallel with Mercury in mundo where she becomes posited in the terms of both the enemies.?
He means that Venus and Mercury are equidistant from the meridian -- in this case, the lower meridian or IC.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

25
Let's try this again lihin, real slow. First I am not offering an opinion. I'm stating the purpose of the thread. The purpose of the thread was to discuss Worsdale's techniques and apply them. Therefore the purpose is not to discuss which of this or that is more accurate, or with whom you disagree.

In short, this is not about you. If you don't care for the topic, don't participate. You will stick to the topic or your posts will be deleted without my even reading them.

Re: Data, please

26
lihin wrote:
Even using Morinus i have, sadly, not yet been able to obtain the same results as Ms Margherita.
In order to have 8.27 Aquarius rising for Tom's coordinates you should write 23.40 as birth time
. Apparently Morinus cannot - yet - show the ecliptical value of its mundo position.
It is under tables/mundane position. I don't know if it is right, no idea :( As I said many times in a mundane position is not important the longitude, rather its hourly distance, its mundane position, as the name wants.


My question is, if this chart agrees to Ms Margherita's and other participants' in this thread in Morinus:

How, please, must the Morinus Primary Directions Options be configured to obtain results closest to Mr Worsdale's who lists, on page 85, 6 degrees, 59 minutes of arc for the direction "Moon to the Parallel of Mars in the Zodiac"? The value stated above, 5.398, is 1.6 degrees less, a temporal difference of about 1 1/2 years. This is, according to Mr Worsdale (see page 88 ), one of the key 'killing directions' of the nativity.[/size]
I believe it should be something relative to latitude. In my post above where I explained how the parallel is calculated, I used the under the pole with the latitude of significator, but the planet longitude to which Mars is arrived 23.6 Aries is taken without. I checked by hand, in order to have the same absolute value in declination, the point should have latitude 0 and longitude 23.6 Aries.

Both Morinus and Phasis fit.

I believe maybe Worsdale uses latitude or does not use the underpole directions, I don't know.

I tried under the pole without latitude and in this case the result is 7.33 - moreover this is not a parallel as Worsdale says, it is a contraparallel, because their declination are the same in absolute value, but different sign, the radix Moon is -8.59, the directed Mars + 8.59

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

27
i have a question on some of the terms being used here and am keen to understand primary directions better.. any help is appreciated. thanks.

meridian - is this term interchangeable with the prime vertical?

rapt parallel - is this term the same as contra parallel?

i am unable to get kents chart with 8 aq 27 ascendant to liverpool unless i adjust the time to about 23hr 26minutes 40" LAT using morinus software.. perhaps this seems like a mute point, but when examining primary directions these approx 3 minutes can alter the timing of these directions substantially..

for me to recreate the results that margherita gets using the same input, i get a different result date wise of 1822 10 22.. i am not sure why that is.. when i remove the option of significator latitude, i get a result that is even further removed for this same direction in parallel of 1824 10 01.. clearly small changes in the menu options for doing primary directions to find how they are the same as worsdales is no easy task! and, i suppose i still don't understand the basis for much of this. any feedback welcome..
margherita wrote:
Image
I believe the difference is due to the latitude, I used underthepole with significator latitude.
Moon and Mars are iite because they are distant 6 hours.

margherita