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

Diagram of the topocentric system of houses by Juan Estadell

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fadi Mazboudi



Joined: 16 Oct 2017
Posts: 29

Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:14 pm    Post subject: Diagram of the topocentric system of houses by Juan Estadell Reply with quote

[/img]
_________________
www.FadiMazboudi.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fadi Mazboudi



Joined: 16 Oct 2017
Posts: 29

Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To read more on this house system, check out his book: http://juanestadella.com/Predictive-Astrology-Juan-Estadella.pdf
_________________
www.FadiMazboudi.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fadi Mazboudi



Joined: 16 Oct 2017
Posts: 29

Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"This house system defends, among other astronomical and mathematical considerations, not to consider the earth center as the primary reference, nor its axis as the point around which the universe revolves, but to consider instead the point of the earth’s surface, from the Greek “topos” place, where the individual was born. Polich and Nelson Page discovered or adopted the idea that the universe, for a given point on the Earth, does not revolve around the earth’s axis in virtue of the movement of rotation, but around an axis parallel to the earth’s axis that passes through the point of the earth where the individual is at the moment of birth."
_________________
www.FadiMazboudi.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ruud66



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 46
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fadi Mazboudi wrote:
"This house system defends, among other astronomical and mathematical considerations, not to consider the earth center as the primary reference, nor its axis as the point around which the universe revolves, but to consider instead the point of the earth’s surface, from the Greek “topos” place, where the individual was born. Polich and Nelson Page discovered or adopted the idea that the universe, for a given point on the Earth, does not revolve around the earth’s axis in virtue of the movement of rotation, but around an axis parallel to the earth’s axis that passes through the point of the earth where the individual is at the moment of birth."

I have great difficulties with this house system. Basically what Polich, Page, and/or Estadella are saying is that the celestial sphere as seen from the centre of the earth is different from the celestial sphere as observed from a particular location on the surface of the earth. It is true that it is not possible to define an Ascendant or a Midheaven from the centre of the earth, but the celestial sphere itself is one and the same! This is because the celestial sphere has no diameter: its distance in the sky to the observer is irrelevant and not defined, therefore any effect of the parallax that is caused by the topocentric point of view is rendered null and void. It is irrelevant and non-existent in this situation.

Therefore, the above drawing is deceptive: the small sphere around the observer is in reality identical to the larger geocentric sphere. The topocentric axis is in reality identical to the geocentric axis, and the local horizon as seen by the observer is a plane that in reality runs through the centre of the earth. Again: because the effects of parallax are irrelevant in the geometries of the celestial sphere.
Consequently, I do not see this cone shape happening at all: it is an error, caused by the false idea that the topocentric perspective is different from the geocentric one in this situation.

See also:
https://www.astro.com/astrowiki/en/Topocentric_House_System


Last edited by Ruud66 on Mon May 28, 2018 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fadi Mazboudi



Joined: 16 Oct 2017
Posts: 29

Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's actually impossible to use primary or secondary directions of the angles and intermediate house cusps without this system.
_________________
www.FadiMazboudi.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1482

Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fadi Mazboudi wrote:
"This house system defends, among other astronomical and mathematical considerations, not to consider the earth center as the primary reference, nor its axis as the point around which the universe revolves, but to consider instead the point of the earth’s surface, from the Greek “topos” place, where the individual was born. Polich and Nelson Page discovered or adopted the idea that the universe, for a given point on the Earth, does not revolve around the earth’s axis in virtue of the movement of rotation, but around an axis parallel to the earth’s axis that passes through the point of the earth where the individual is at the moment of birth."


I'm not a mathematician or astronomer, but there are some problems with this house system - or at least its claims. Firstly, it was claimed to be 'discovered' with no evidence for that discovery offered. Secondly it claims to divide up the sky as though to give us a topocentric view, when actually the calculations retain a geocentric perspective and the mundane sphere ought to be imagined as a sphere with an infinite radius - so imagining a different mundane sphere geocentrically and topocentrically feels flawed - and in addition we do not calculate the planets's positions topocentrically but geocentrically.

I think people should use whatever house system they find relevant and meaningful however, and if people find topocentric cusps useful then I think that can only be a good thing.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ruud66



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 46
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fadi Mazboudi wrote:
It's actually impossible to use primary or secondary directions of the angles and intermediate house cusps without this system.

I apologize for jumping into a polemic right away and I thank you for posting the diagram. It clarified a lot for me.
Of course, I disagree with your statement above aswell. My guess is that you are talking about directional poles here. Kindly expain why you can say this with certainty.


Last edited by Ruud66 on Thu May 24, 2018 8:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ruud66



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 46
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
I think people should use whatever house system they find relevant and meaningful however, and if people find topocentric cusps useful then I think that can only be a good thing.

I agree with this completely, but I think a discussion about the theory and philosophy behind the system must be possible too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ruud66



Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 46
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands

Posted: Mon May 28, 2018 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fadi Mazboudi wrote:
It's actually impossible to use primary or secondary directions of the angles and intermediate house cusps without this system.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about: when I want to direct the angles and the intermediate cusps, I use the method of Wim van Dam. This method does not use poles, but instead the relative ascension on the semi-arc. No need for the topocentric system here and remaining quite close to the original idea of Ptolemy.
Whether this system is less precise than topocentric, as Estadella is claiming, I don’t know, but it is most certainly an alternative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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