skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

3D Houses: The most accurate method of house placement?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
astralwanderer



Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 120
Location: Southwest England

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:01 pm    Post subject: 3-D Houses Reply with quote

Thanks for highlighting the new release of Astrolog. It is great to have a new enhanced version of this program. I've been a fan of Astrolog for a long time and it has some really useful new features. I like the spherical representation of the 'chart'. However I am confused about what the house system shown on the sphere represents. I like to use Porphyry as a quadrant system. However when I calculate a chart using Porphyry houses, it is shown correctly in the chart wheel but the cusps don't seem to be shown correctly in the sphere. This seems to be because the house system (Campanus?) shown in the sphere has the poles of the house cusps on the north and south point of the horizon. In Porphyry the poles of the houses are the north and south ecliptic pole. These points are clearly shown on the Astrolog sphere as the points where the zodiac sign cusps converge.

In my mind all house systems are 3-D because all are formed not only from ecliptic degrees but two poles, which may be the north and south poles of the horizon (Campanus, Regiomontanus and others), the north and south poles of the equator (Alcabitius, Meridian) or the north and south poles of the ecliptic (Porphyry, Morinus, Equal, Whole and others). One of the advantages of Porphyry is that it eliminates the problem of latitude error because all cusps are lines of celestial longitude, running through the ecliptic degree marking the cusp from the north celestial pole to the south celestial pole. It is also one of the quadrant systems that definitely works at all latitudes. This is because it simply trisects the ecliptic between Ascendant and Mc and Ic and Ascendant. This can be easily done at all latitudes. The other quadrant system that works at all latitudes is Alcabitius. However Alcabitius will suffer from latitude error (misplacing planets in the wrong houses). Porphyry has the particular advantage of always showing the correct house placement for each point whether displayed in the wheel or the sphere.

Later edit - I can see what's going on now. The cusps are marked with the house number on the ecliptic, but the green lines (Campanus cusps) don't intersect with the points on the ecliptic except when the user chooses to use this particular house system. I am not clear why Campanus should be favoured as the best house system for spherical representation. Most house systems can be represented in this way. I think it might be useful and helpful if the various house systems are programmed to be represented on the sphere. Where the user chooses Campanus, then they would see the sphere as it is currently shown. However as somebody who favours an alternative system I would really value being able to see the cusps actually drawn on the sphere. This should be very easy for most of the major systems even in polar regions.

What is interesting about the program when charting in polar regions is that the MC is shown below the horizon in the south (which, in my view, is the way it should be shown) but becomes the cusp of the 4th house. The IC, although above the horizon, becomes the cusp of the 10th. There is a logic of sorts to this in polar regions. It is certainly preferable to swapping the MC for the IC to keep the midheaven above the horizon.

The following image shows the Sun at Noon (actually 11:45am) on Thursday 9 November 2017, set for a fictional place in the arctic at 00:00E and 80:00N. The sun is shown clearly on the MC but below the horizon due south of the place, at its minimum zenith distance - the point in the day at which it won't get any closer to the zenith. The Sun's altitude is approximately -7 or -8 degrees below the horizon; it's corresponding zenith distance is around 97 or 98 degrees (the south point of the horizon being 90 degrees from the zenith by definition).



The next image shows the IC above the horizon as the cusp of the 10th house due north of the place. The degree of the IC is at its maximum zenith distance (furthest from the zenith) - twelve hours later this degree will be the MC above the horizon and at a higher altitude. The altitude of the degree of the IC is approximately 7 or 8 degrees; its zenith distance is 82 or 83 degrees.

This way of representing the MC and the IC is the obvious solution to the problem of house systems such as Campanus and Regiomontanus, which use the north and south poles of the horizon as the poles on the house cusps.



By definition, the tenth house cusp in these systems must run from the south to north poles of the horizon through the zenith and the fourth cusp must run from these poles through the nadir. This gives rise to the problem of the subterranean MC for these systems as the MC degree coincides with the fourth house cusp when it is below the horizon as shown in the first image above.

Here is the situation on the same day twelve hours later (11:45PM, 23:45Hours). The Sun is shown clearly on the IC below the horizon as it should be at midnight (or close to midnight). The Sun is now at its maximum distance from the zenith marking the middle of the night. The Sun at this time is at an altitude of approximately -27 or -28 degrees, at its maximum zenith distance during the day (zenith distance is 90+27/28 degrees being 117 or 118 degrees).



The degree of the IC at noon has now come to the MC twelve hours later, at its closest approach to the zenith. The altitude of the degree is now around 27 or 28 degrees; its zenith distance is 62 or 63 degrees. This is exactly as it should be. The midheaven degree at any particular time should be the degree that is making its closest approach to the zenith in the course of its diurnal cycle. This means that a degree can be both below the horizon and on the midheaven as in the example shown here and illustrated in the first image above.



In my view it is quite incorrect to reverse the IC and MC for systems such as Campanus, when the MC degree is below the horizon, because it leads to incongruities such as one degree forming two midheavens in the course of the day, and the sun at midnight becoming a quasi-noon to keep the MC above the horizon at any cost. It is encouraging to see the real situation made clear in the Astrolog spherical chart.

However, in my view, the problem is eliminated with Porphyry or Alcabitius in polar regions because these systems use alternative poles - in the case of Porphyry, the 10th house cusp runs from the north ecliptic pole, through the MC (whether above or below the horizon) to the south ecliptic pole. Hence, the MC can both be below the horizon and the cusp of the tenth in this system.

Readers may wish to review my piece on the The Definition of the MC and also these two articles touching on the same subject matter:

Definition of the Ascendant

and

The Ascendant in Polar Latitudes.

Anyway, it's great to see a new version of the program. A brilliant effort.
_________________
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruiser1



Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
As we get to the poles some signs fail to rise at all while others take up more and more ascensional rising time. So this challenges conventional horoscopic astrology. Arguably this isn't a failure of these house systems but simply a reflection of astronomical reality and how the ecliptic interacts with the earth at higher latitudes.

Thank you for your continued consideration and discussion. Smile Indeed, at high latitudes there are times during the day when the ecliptic becomes flush with the horizon. That causes the Ascendant to jump 180 degrees, and marks a period when the MC or intersection of the ecliptic and meridian dips below the horizon. Yes, near the poles some signs won't ever rise (or rather, the intersection of the ecliptic and horizon won't ever be in certain signs). That's expected because the Sun is continually above or below the horizon at that time of year, and therefore zodiac degrees near the Sun on the ecliptic aren't ever going to intersect the horizon. Similarly, when the ecliptic is near the horizon, it's expected for most planets (which are on or near the ecliptic) to spend the majority of their time near the horizon, and therefore in houses 1/12 or 6/7, and to rapidly pass through the other houses near noon or midnight. That's indeed astronomical reality, so if an astrologer can accept that, then they should be able to accept the behavior of their house system.

Mark wrote:
Am I right in thinking you have side stepped the polar problem by adopting a similar kind of solution?

3D houses doesn't really "side step" the problem. Instead it uses a new 3D model in which the problem doesn't exist in the first place. Cool 3D houses only needs to look at the orange wedges slices of space in the local horizon. 3D houses effectively disregard the ecliptic altogether, and don't care how its currently oriented in the sky. 3D houses doesn't even have "house cusps" in the traditional sense that can be defined by a single zodiac position, because planetary latitude can change 3D house placement.

Meridian and Morinus houses may use alternative math to pick their house cusps, but afterwards they're still a standard house system like all the others. In other words, they still use and define house cusps as positions along the ecliptic, and disregard planetary latitude when determining house placement. Meridian, Morinus, and all standard house systems suffer from issues such as having planets or stars below the horizon being placed in houses 7-12, or planets east of the meridian being placed in houses 4-9.

Mark wrote:
Equal and whole sign houses also fail to work in polar zones. My point about Campanus at higher latitudes was quite specific. Basically Campanus becomes unworkable at higher latitudes much earlier than any other quadrant system I am aware of.

How do these house systems fail to work in polar zones? Equal, Whole, and Campanus houses are defined at all latitutes and all times, and always produce house cusp positions that can be used and displayed. That's no different from when nearer to the equator. Of course, one may not like the house cusps positions produced, and may judge them to be astrologically inaccurate, but that's a different issue. Wink

The only house systems that truly fail to work in polar zones are Placidus and Koch, which aren't defined inside the Antarctic and Arctic Circles, and require choosing a different house system in such a scenario.

Mark wrote:
There are of course some house systems can be used at the poles. But like everything in life they come at a price! So to avoid the issue of polar zones something has to be sacrificed.

3D houses can be used at the poles. It's "price" is that it requires looking at the latitude of a planet in addition to its zodiac longitude, to correctly determine what house it's in. The benefit can be considered astrological accuracy. When using 3D houses, for all planets at all times, the following statements are always true:
  • A planet above the horizon will always be in houses 7-12.
  • A planet below the horizon will always be in houses 1-6.
  • A planet east of the meridian will always be in houses 1-3 or 10-12.
  • A planet west of the meridian will always be in houses 4-9.
  • A planet exactly rising on eastern horizon will always be on boundary between houses 12 and 1.
  • A planet exactly setting on western horizon will always be on boundary between houses 6 and 7.
  • A planet transiting meridian above horizon will always be on boundary between houses 9 and 10.
  • A planet transiting meridian below horizon will always be on boundary between houses 3 and 4.
No standard system of house division can make the above statements true, because they don't take into account planetary latitude.
_________________
Astrolog 6.30 freeware downloads: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cruiser1



Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:50 pm    Post subject: Re: 3-D Houses Reply with quote

astralwanderer wrote:
I am confused about what the house system shown on the sphere represents. This seems to be because the house system (Campanus?) shown in the sphere has the poles of the house cusps on the north and south point of the horizon.
Hello and thank you for your comments and appreciation of Astrolog! Smile In Astrolog's chart sphere, if you unrestrict the Asc/MC and house cusp objects, then they will be calculated in whatever standard house system is currently active, and displayed on the sphere at their zodiac position and at zero latitude on the ecliptic. That's the only reason why Campanus houses may be preferred when displaying the sphere, because with Campanus the house cusp objects happen to align with the sphere's 3D house boundaries when on the ecliptic. However, remember that with 3D houses, there are no house cusps in the standard sense, or at least house boundaries can't be defined with a single zodiac position. That's where the term "3D houses" comes from, because one needs to take into account planetary latitude in addition to longitude when defining house placement.

astralwanderer wrote:
In Porphyry the poles of the houses are the north and south ecliptic pole. In my mind all house systems are 3-D because all are formed not only from ecliptic degrees but two poles, which may be the north and south poles of the horizon (Campanus, Regiomontanus and others), the north and south poles of the equator (Alcabitius, Meridian) or the north and south poles of the ecliptic (Porphyry, Morinus, Equal, Whole and others).
Actually it's not just Porphyry, but all standard house systems are anchored to the north and south ecliptic poles. Some house systems may base their cusp math on alterative poles, but afterwards they're still a standard house system like all the others, using ecliptic poles. In other words, these systems still use and define house cusps as positions along the ecliptic, and disregard planetary latitude when determining house placement. 3D houses is different from any standard house system, because its poles actually are the poles of the horizon, which requires considering planetary latitude in addition to zodiac position when determining what house a planet lies within.

astralwanderer wrote:
the green lines (Campanus cusps) don't intersect with the points on the ecliptic except when the user chooses to use this particular house system. I am not clear why Campanus should be favoured as the best house system for spherical representation. Where the user chooses Campanus, then they would see the sphere as it is currently shown. I think it might be useful and helpful if the various house systems are programmed to be represented on the sphere.
The green lines aren't really Campanus cusps. Campanus is a standard house system like the others, and standard Campanus cusps rendered on the sphere would go to the ecliptic poles like all other systems. Instead, the green lines mark the true 3D definitions of houses, which are orange wedges on the local horizon. In other words, 3D houses is different from Campanus houses (although they are equivalent for planets on the ecliptic).

The chart sphere was designed to show 3D houses. I agree, the chart sphere could have an option to draw the house boundaries for standard house systems too. The result would be the blue ecliptic orange wedges and the green house orange wedges would overlap and have the same poles. It's possible to conceive of alternative 3D house systems, which have poles different from the ecliptic, and therefore also require considering planetary latitude (but don't have their poles on the horizon). However, that seems different from the definition of a house in the first place, as a section of space on the local horizon. To quote the previous post, when using 3D houses, for all planets at all times, the following statements are always true:
  • A planet above the horizon will always be in houses 7-12.
  • A planet below the horizon will always be in houses 1-6.
  • A planet east of the meridian will always be in houses 1-3 or 10-12.
  • A planet west of the meridian will always be in houses 4-9.
  • A planet exactly rising on eastern horizon will always be on boundary between houses 12 and 1.
  • A planet exactly setting on western horizon will always be on boundary between houses 6 and 7.
  • A planet transiting meridian above horizon will always be on boundary between houses 9 and 10.
  • A planet transiting meridian below horizon will always be on boundary between houses 3 and 4.

_________________
Astrolog 6.30 freeware downloads: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astralwanderer



Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 120
Location: Southwest England

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:56 pm    Post subject: Latitude Error Reply with quote

Hi there - thanks for the response to my post. These are interesting issues for astrologers who are interested in the underpinnings of house systems. However, I don't really follow your reasoning re. latitude error. It's my understanding that it is precisely because house systems such as Campanus and Regiomontanus don't use the poles of the ecliptic for their calculations that the problem of latitude error occurs.

I think what you are trying to say is that the calculation is done with one set of reference points (the poles of the horizon in the case of these two house systems) but then the house boundaries (above and below the ecliptic) are projected through the cuspal degrees on the ecliptic onto the sphere through the poles of the ecliptic.

If this was the case then latitude error (which is, I think, the problem you are trying to resolve) - where a planet is shown at a particular degree of longitude in the birth chart and in a particular house, but is in reality in the neighbouring house because it lies off the ecliptic due to its celestial latitude north or south of the ecliptic - would never be a problem, because every house system would use great circles of celestial longitude as house boundaries. This means that the problem of latitude error would be a false one and there wouldn't be a problem to solve.

Ralph Holden, in his book on house systems (The Elements of House Division) is pretty clear on this issue (pp. 107-111).

He writes:" If a system of house division is employed such that the great circles forming the boundaries of the house lunes pass at right angles through the ecliptic (which can only occur f they also meet at the poles of the ecliptic) then these circles are themselves great circles of celestial latitude (I actually think he means longitude here since circles of celestial latitude north or south of the ecliptic would be small circles parallel to the ecliptic). It is therefore apparent that even when a planet 'has latitude' (i.e. standing north or south of the plane of the ecliptic) its house position will be precisely the same as its zodiacal position, and its distance from the house cusp when measured in zodiacal (or celestial) longitude.

Therefore in all those systems classified as 'Ecliptic' (that is, the Equal House, Porphyry, Natural Graduation, and M-House - also Whole sign) and also the Morinus system (since the poles of the ecliptic are the intersection points for the great circles of the houses), no problem arises in the house position of a planet because of latitude, since it will always all in that house where it is plotted by zodiacal longitude.

However, in any system where the poles of the ecliptic are not the points of intersection of the house circles, a different situation exists when a planet has latitude from the ecliptic. In this case the circles of the houses - since they do not meet at the poles of the ecliptic and therefore cannot intersect the ecliptic at right angles - are not circles of celestial longitude but lie at an angle to them, which becomes greater as the terrestrial latitude of the birthplace increases."

The latitude problem is a real one, because many house systems don't use the poles of the ecliptic to define their three-dimensional cusp boundaries. I don't really agree that the poles are calculated from one set of reference points and then projected through another set of reference points in the way that you describe. I think that if this were the case, and all the major house systems use the poles of the ecliptic in the way that you describe, then the problem of latitude error would not occur and there would be nothing to solve in terms of planets falling in the wrong houses because of their latitude (distance north or south of the ecliptic).

I'll look forward to your reply to this interesting discussion.
_________________
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astralwanderer



Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 120
Location: Southwest England

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:10 am    Post subject: MC as 4th House Cusp Reply with quote

Hi there - I've been looking again at the astrolog sphere in relation to a 'standard' natal chart, with Porphyry '2d' cusps and Porphyry '3d' cusps. If we alter the time of the chart shown in my earlier posts to 12:00pm (clock time midday), and show the northern quadrant of the sphere, we can see that Uranus is close to the ascendant but above the horizon. This places it in the '3d' twelfth, but in terms of Porphyry it is in the the 1st although above the horizon. (A first house planet in the Porphyry system would generally be below the horizon at most latitudes and times.)



Please click this link to see a full scale version of the image which makes it easier to see the bodily position of Uranus above the horizon.

https://i.imgur.com/Aipz4Nn.png

The following chart wheel without the '3d' option shows Uranus, as expected, in the first house using the Porphyry house system.



With the '3d' option switched on in the following chart wheel, Uranus is shown in the 12th house, showing that it has actually risen bodily (the planet itself is above the horizon), although its ecliptic degree has yet to become the ascendant.



I can see what this concept is trying to achieve now. It's interesting and certainly thought-provoking. It seems that the '3d' cusps are being superimposed on the Porphyry division. We can see this in the sphere image above, where Porphyry houses 1 (ascendant to cusp 2) and 2 (cusp 2 to cusp 3) are encompassed by the 3d twelfth. The cusp of the third Porphyry house coincides with the cusp of the 3d eleventh. The Porphyry third house is divided by the 3d eleventh and tenth. There are also other interesting changes, such as the Sun 'moving' from the Porphyry ninth house (without 3d option) to the cusp of the Porphyry 3d fifth house. The following image shows this clearly.



Readers can verify this by looking at the Porphyry '3d' wheel above.

I am not sure if this is quite the right way to explain what is happening but it makes some sense to me. However, my reservation is that within the Porphyry frame of reference (house cusps calculated on the trisection of the ecliptic between ascendant and IC and between ascendant MC, and these degrees projected through lines of celestial longitude through the poles of the ecliptic) there will, at certain times in polar regions be the potential to have a first house planet above the horizon. This is the case in the example above. Only if we are wedded to the astrological convention of the twelfth house being above the horizon and the first house being below the horizon do we need to make this 3d adjustment.

Thanks again for the responses to my posts. It is good to have a new version of astrolog with these interesting features.

All the best.
_________________
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruiser1



Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astralwanderer wrote:
With the '3d' option switched on in the following chart wheel, Uranus is shown in the 12th house, showing that it has actually risen bodily (the planet itself is above the horizon), although its ecliptic degree has yet to become the ascendant. It seems that the '3d' cusps are being superimposed on the Porphyry division.
You've found a related 3D houses feature in Astrolog. Smile If displaying a standard 2D wheel chart, and you turn on the "3D Houses" setting, then the wheel chart will become "house focused" instead of "sign focused". Standard wheel charts are what I call "sign focused", which means that a planet is plotted within the wheel based only on its zodiac longitude, and its latitude is ignored. If you turn 3D houses on, then the wheel chart will instead become "house focused", which means that the graphical position of where a planet is placed around the wheel will be its proportion through the 3D house (i.e. the planet's proportion through the 3D house or percentage across the prime vertical on the local horizon, will be used to position the planet between the two appropriate house cusps on the wheel). The result will cause planets to seem to move, or even seem to be in a different sign (however they will always be in the right house). That's the reverse of a standard "sign focused" wheel which will always position planets in the right sign (however they may be in the wrong 3D house). If we want a graphical display accurate for both sign and 3D house positions at the same time, then we should switch to the chart sphere.

Note if the house system is Campanus, than turning on "3D Houses" for a wheel chart will result in objects like the Sun and lunar Nodes not moving at all. That's because those objects are on the ecliptic (0 latitude) and as previously seen Campanus houses and 3D houses have the same cusp points for objects on the ecliptic.

astralwanderer wrote:
This places it in the '3d' twelfth, but in terms of Porphyry it is in the the 1st although above the horizon. (A first house planet in the Porphyry system would generally be below the horizon at most latitudes and times.) Only if we are wedded to the astrological convention of the twelfth house being above the horizon and the first house being below the horizon do we need to make this 3d adjustment.
Yes, one of the main purposes of 3D houses is to ensure that this astrological convention is followed, and that planets above the horizon are always placed in the 12th house and never in the 1st, and that planets below the horizon are always placed in the 1st house and never in the 12th.

By the way, since you like the Porphyry house system with its trisection of each quadrant, have you seen the "Neo-Porphyry" house system, which I invented back in 1994? It uses a smooth sinusoidal formula to trisect each quadrant instead. It's described more at this page: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog/astsine.htm


_________________
Astrolog 6.30 freeware downloads: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm Smile


Last edited by Cruiser1 on Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astralwanderer



Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 120
Location: Southwest England

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:29 pm    Post subject: Thanks Reply with quote

Hi - thanks for your response. I read your article on neo-Porphyry some time ago. Again it's a very interesting idea. The following graphs are offered for reference. Mark's point about the 'collapse' of Campanus houses at even quite modest latitudes is also a concern for me. However, the following data shows that the difficulties might not quite be quite as challenging as they first seem.

The first graph shows the position of 2087 Mars placements in Placidus houses from the Gauquelin sports data base. Note that the peaks in the 9th and 12th houses (closely approximating the position of Mars in the Gauquelin sectors) are clear to see.



The second graph shows the same Mars positions plotted using the Campanus system. This division of the sphere means that even at a nominal 47-48 degrees north (the midpoint in latitude of the geographical region in which Gauquelin's collected their data) the preponderance of Mars in the houses around the horizon (1, 12, 6, 7) is clear.



The following table is interesting. It gives the numbers of Mars placements in each of the critical houses - the ninth and the twelfth - in each of the systems. Although the number of placements in each individual house differs quite significantly, the actual differences between the total house placements in each system is much the same. It seems that the order of statistical significance for the excessive Mars placements for eminent sporting individuals in the ninth (just past culmination) or the twelfth (just after rising), remains more or less the same whether Placidus or Campanus houses are used.



For comparison, the following graph shows the positions of Mars in each group using the Porphyry system.



The table below shows the data for Porphyry placements:



Again, although the numbers of Mars placements in each house varies between this system and the others, the overall differences are much the same. Statistically, Porpyry and Campanus offer the same degree of significance (or greater) than Placidus/Gauquelin divisions of the sphere.

The Gauquelin positions are listed under the heading 'Experimental'.

Thanks.
_________________
"...the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe."

Plato, Timaeus, 90.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EdF



Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 4

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone got a time/date/location for one of these polar charts that breaks down in, say, Placidus?

For some interesting reading on the subject, see Mike Wackford's series of articles on charts in the polar regions: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html

I don't know how much time I'll have to engage in this thread. But I was using what you're calling "3D" Campanus in the mid-70's, hand drafting them using Art Blackwell's "Polar-Azimuthal" projection. Any house system that has a well-defined concept of domification and "mundo" position can be represented the way that Campanus has been in the new version of astrolog. That includes Placidus, Campanus, Regiomontanus and Svarogich. Others are more questionable. See which ones have been used for primary directions - that will give you an idea of the feasibility.

As an aside, I consider these representations as "2D" - two astronomical coordinates are represented. Conventional charts are 1D - only the "longitudinal" coordinate is represented.

Finally, an astrological koan that is related to the polar failure apparition: What if domification and ecliptic views are simply that - two different ways of viewing the astrological state of an event? What if they do not necessarily need to be forced into a unitary synthesized format to do astrology? What if each represents a distinct dimension of astrological meaning?

Ah well, it's "deja vu all over again" as Americans say!

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 884
Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EdF wrote:
....

Finally, an astrological koan that is related to the polar failure apparition: What if domification and ecliptic views are simply that - two different ways of viewing the astrological state of an event? What if they do not necessarily need to be forced into a unitary synthesized format to do astrology? What if each represents a distinct dimension of astrological meaning?

....

- Ed


Hi, Ed. Can you say in layperson's (i. e., lay astrologer's) terms what would be the logical outcome for interpreting a nativity, of viewing domification and ecliptic views as offering different dimensions of astrological meaning, compared with what we do now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cruiser1 wrote:
Quote:
Hello and thank you for your comments and appreciation of Astrolog! Smile In Astrolog's chart sphere, if you unrestrict the Asc/MC and house cusp objects, then they will be calculated in whatever standard house system is currently active, and displayed on the sphere at their zodiac position and at zero latitude on the ecliptic. That's the only reason why Campanus houses may be preferred when displaying the sphere, because with Campanus the house cusp objects happen to align with the sphere's 3D house boundaries when on the ecliptic. However, remember that with 3D houses, there are no house cusps in the standard sense, or at least house boundaries can't be defined with a single zodiac position. That's where the term "3D houses" comes from, because one needs to take into account planetary latitude in addition to longitude when defining house placement.


Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I am not the brightest bulb in the box when it comes to the maths here. However, if you unrestrict for any house system am I right in thinking your basic frame of reference is local space rather than zodiac since it seems what you describe as 3D houses do not rely on derived houses from these? I can see how this resolves any issues with polar latitudes since you are not deriving houses from the ecliptic. I suppose its a question then whether the price one has to pay ie loss of connection between the zodiac with houses, is acceptable or not.

Assuming I understand you correctly I am very curious what you use to calculate the the first house with? Is this the east point/local eastern horizon? In other words The point on the Celestial Equator rising on the Eastern Horizon at birth. The intersection of the Eastern Horizon, Prime Vertical, and Celestial Equator?

Mark wrote:
Quote:
Equal and whole sign houses also fail to work in polar zones. My point about Campanus at higher latitudes was quite specific. Basically Campanus becomes unworkable at higher latitudes much earlier than any other quadrant system I am aware of.


Cruiser1 wrote:
Quote:
How do these house systems fail to work in polar zones? Equal, Whole, and Campanus houses are defined at all latitutes and all times, and always produce house cusp positions that can be used and displayed. That's no different from when nearer to the equator. Of course, one may not like the house cusps positions produced, and may judge them to be astrologically inaccurate, but that's a different issue.


Well perhaps from a rather abstract mathematical position you are right. But I have a grand trine in earth so for me ''failing to work'' is a practical as well as a mathematical issue. That fact that Campanus house cusps become ridiculously bunched up or stretched out even before you get into the artic circle let alone at even higher latitudes makes them completely unworkable as I see it.

Lets look at a real chart rather than discuss abstractions. I have put up a chart for next week ie 12:00 Noon on November 17th in Anchorage, Alaska, USA. If you were an astrologer asked to delineate a birth chart with this horoscope using Campanus houses how would you get on?



We have house 8 house cusps within 2 zodiac signs. In fact those 8 house cusps fall within just 50 zodiacal degrees in the chart. To me at least that is a totally unworkable chart. And the chart is only for a latitude of 61N so still not even in the Artic Circle.

To be fair though the underlying difficulty is not that of quadrant houses ie just the MC getting closer to the ASC. I would suggest all conventional horoscopic houses fail in polar latitudes because 4 zodiac signs dont rise at all just within the Artic circle and further north that goes up to 6 signs.

http://www.projecthindsight.com/images/TablesPDFs/Tb2-AscensionTimes.pdf

Assuming this is correct I would suggest this renders whole sign or equal houses impractical at the Poles too. How can you work with a zodiacal house system without half the zodiac signs?

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cruiser1



Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EdF wrote:
Anyone got a time/date/location for one of these polar charts that breaks down in, say, Placidus?
Placidus and Koch houses are undefined and can not be computed for locations inside the Arctic or Antarctic Circles. If you want a polar chart that doesn't work in Placidus, simply start with any chart and set its latitude to 67 degrees or more. All other house systems are well defined and produce valid results at all locations and times. Astrolog and other programs will switch to another house system (i.e. Porphyry) if one attempts to use Placidus or Koch in the polar zone.

Mark wrote:
However, if you unrestrict for any house system am I right in thinking your basic frame of reference is local space rather than zodiac since it seems what you describe as 3D houses do not rely on derived houses from these. I can see how this resolves any issues with polar latitudes since you are not deriving houses from the ecliptic. I suppose its a question then whether the price one has to pay ie loss of connection between the zodiac with houses, is acceptable or not.
The "loss of connection" between the zodiac and the houses is a good thing, because they're not supposed to be connected in the first place! Thumbs up Signs and houses are two different things, with two different coordinate systems. Signs of the zodiac are 12 equally sized sections of space, whose "equator" is the ecliptic. Houses are 12 equally sized sections of sky on the local horizon, whose "equator" is the prime vertical.

Mark wrote:
Assuming I understand you correctly I am very curious what you use to calculate the the first house with? Is this the east point/local eastern horizon? In other words The point on the Celestial Equator rising on the Eastern Horizon at birth. The intersection of the Eastern Horizon, Prime Vertical, and Celestial Equator?
None of these questions or issues even apply when using 3D houses. Wink With 3D houses the first house isn't a single zodiac position, but rather a wedge shaped section of local sky. There is no "first house cusp" with 3D houses, or at least nothing that can be expressed as a single zodiac position, because the boundaries of the orange wedge span multiple degrees. With 3D houses, the first house is the section of local sky below the eastern horizon. Its boundaries are the east half of the horizon (forming the 12/1 house boundary) and the great circle 1/3 of the sky below it (forming the 1/2 house boundary).

Mark wrote:
That fact that Campanus house cusps become ridiculously bunched up or stretched out even before you get into the artic circle let alone at even higher latitudes makes them completely unworkable as I see it. We have house 8 house cusps within 2 zodiac signs. To be fair though the underlying difficulty is not that of quadrant houses ie just the MC getting closer to the ASC. How can you work with a zodiacal house system without half the zodiac signs?
I claim houses being bunched up or stretched out isn't a problem. Even near the equator you can have intercepted signs and houses. Interpreting "multiple interceptions" is basically the same. All zodiac signs are present in a chart and affect one's psyche, just that their influence may be spread across multiple houses or only be focused within part of a single house. The interpretation process doesn't really change. Campanus is no different from any other quadrant based house system, in that all quadrant systems produce "multiple interceptions" at higher latitudes when the Asc and MC are close together.
_________________
Astrolog 6.30 freeware downloads: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
EdF



Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 4

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A bit difficult to get used to working with, especially for extreme latitude charts. Those at more moderate latitudes are easier to follow. But, this is Placidus at 69N. The house longitudes are in the table at the bottom left.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EdF



Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 4

Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
EdF wrote:
....

Finally, an astrological koan that is related to the polar failure apparition: What if domification and ecliptic views are simply that - two different ways of viewing the astrological state of an event? What if they do not necessarily need to be forced into a unitary synthesized format to do astrology? What if each represents a distinct dimension of astrological meaning?

....

- Ed


Hi, Ed. Can you say in layperson's (i. e., lay astrologer's) terms what would be the logical outcome for interpreting a nativity, of viewing domification and ecliptic views as offering different dimensions of astrological meaning, compared with what we do now?


Take a look at Walter's that is a couple past yours. His answer to Mark is pretty much my answer, expressed more clearly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruiser1



Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 14
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EdF wrote:
But, this is Placidus at 69N. The house longitudes are in the table at the bottom left.
The picture embedded in the post above has expired and can't be viewed. However, one can reproduce it themselves on astro.com by doing a "Astrodienst Fixed Stars" wheel with the Placidus system in the polar zone. A permanently hosted picture of such a wheel can be seen at: https://www.astro.com/imwiki/en/Plac_polar.gif

The image contains the text: "Attention: Beyond the polar circles, a Placidus house may cross the zodiac in several points or it may not do so at all." That means my statement that Placidus is undefined in the (Ant)arctic Circle isn't entirely correct (even if software chooses to avoid the situation). Instead, Placidus can't define single house cusps for the 12 houses. Placidus could be expressed in a 3D model, resulting in "3D Placidus". That's similar to how the current "3D houses" in Astrolog could be considered "3D Campanus".

Future versions of Astrolog may support alternate 3D house models, such as Regiomontanus, whose 3D model can be seen below. However, I admit I like the current "3D Campanus" model the best, since it seems the simplest and most correct. It has all 12 houses always the same size in 3D area, forming a symmetric "orange wedge" model on the sphere of the local horizon. That's like how the 12 signs of the zodiac are also always the same size, and form a symmetric "orange wedge" model on the celestial sphere in space.


_________________
Astrolog 6.30 freeware downloads: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
EdF



Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 4

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems we're pretty much on the same page in terms of principles, if not necessarily details. That is gratifying!

Sorry about the expired graphic - didn't know they did that.

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated