Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 In a message dated 3/10/04 8:27:35 AM Mountain Standard Time, dqm writes: << Can someone please explain to me how a Lahiri sidereal time calculation can be different from another Lahiri calculation? Example: Goravani software vs. Betz Ephemeris. Thanks, Debra >> ___ This is a very good question. I am glad you asked this question. I have noticed differences in calculations between software programs, even though they are both using Lahiri and seem to be using the same Lahiri calculations. I look forward to people's responses on this question. Susan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Hi Cynthia, wanted to correct the Lahiri ayanamsha that I gave for Betz Ephemeris earlier in our discussion on calculations. The Lahiri ayanamsha for Betz Ephemeris dated 7/3/1985 is calculated for 7/1/1985 at 23' 39' 1" and NOT 18' 35' 58" which is Betz's sidereal time for 7/3/1985. That being said the Lahiri ayanamsha difference between Goravani and Betz is as foloows: Goravani Lahiri for 7/3/1985 = 23' 39' 4". Betz Lahiri calculated for 7/1/1985 = 23' 39' 1". I am not quite sure how to interlope the ayanamsha for an additional two days to 7/3/1985. Even so, the way I researched through Betz is that to equal Goravani's ayanamsha would not be until 4 months later November 1, 1985. That's a huge difference placing planets in different signs and houses! Again I am not using location with Betz as Goravani does for time zone and am not sure if I have to. Geez, now what? What do you think? anyone else wish to investigate. There is a on- going thread to read for details. The details are driving me nuts. Debra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Dear Debra I'm not sure why you are so concerned about the ayanamsa difference of a few seconds. The ayanamsha is the difference for the precession of the equinoxes. The difference of seconds really is not significant. With the wobble of the Earth, any assumption that it will be exact would be foolish, the planets do not move precisely, then there are the eliptical orbits. I'm certain that folks who are more skilled with mathematics will have a better description, but for my part, don't sweat these few seconds. And give up any notion that astrology, which deals with the physical world, will ever be precise to that degree. smiles cynthia dqm51 [dqm] Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:02 PM gjlist [GJ] Lahiri Sidereal Time Hi Cynthia, wanted to correct the Lahiri ayanamsha that I gave for Betz Ephemeris earlier in our discussion on calculations. The Lahiri ayanamsha for Betz Ephemeris dated 7/3/1985 is calculated for 7/1/1985 at 23' 39' 1" and NOT 18' 35' 58" which is Betz's sidereal time for 7/3/1985. That being said the Lahiri ayanamsha difference between Goravani and Betz is as foloows: Goravani Lahiri for 7/3/1985 = 23' 39' 4". Betz Lahiri calculated for 7/1/1985 = 23' 39' 1". I am not quite sure how to interlope the ayanamsha for an additional two days to 7/3/1985. Even so, the way I researched through Betz is that to equal Goravani's ayanamsha would not be until 4 months later November 1, 1985. That's a huge difference placing planets in different signs and houses! Again I am not using location with Betz as Goravani does for time zone and am not sure if I have to. Geez, now what? What do you think? anyone else wish to investigate. There is a on- going thread to read for details. The details are driving me nuts. Debra Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat : gjlist- Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Dear Cynthia, You are correct. the seconds are not such a big deal and the wobble prevents precision. I guess I am wanting to be accurate with the right calculation because charts can change so easily. Different ayanamsha, different times (midnight, 6am, Noon), different software programs, different ephemeris's and atlas's and different opinions. Thanks Debra gjlist, "cynthianovak" <cynthianovak@s...> wrote: > Dear Debra > I'm not sure why you are so concerned about the ayanamsa difference of a few > seconds. The ayanamsha is the difference for the precession of the > equinoxes. The difference of seconds really is not significant. With the > wobble of the Earth, any assumption that it will be exact would be foolish, > the planets do not move precisely, then there are the eliptical orbits. > > I'm certain that folks who are more skilled with mathematics will have a > better description, but for my part, don't sweat these few seconds. And > give up any notion that astrology, which deals with the physical world, will > ever be precise to that degree. > > smiles > > cynthia > > > dqm51 [dqm@p...] > Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:02 PM > gjlist > [GJ] Lahiri Sidereal Time > > > Hi Cynthia, wanted to correct the Lahiri ayanamsha that I gave for > Betz Ephemeris earlier in our discussion on calculations. The > Lahiri ayanamsha for Betz Ephemeris dated 7/3/1985 is calculated for > 7/1/1985 at 23' 39' 1" and NOT 18' 35' 58" which is Betz's sidereal > time for 7/3/1985. That being said the Lahiri ayanamsha difference > between Goravani and Betz is as foloows: Goravani Lahiri for > 7/3/1985 = 23' 39' 4". Betz Lahiri calculated for 7/1/1985 = 23' > 39' 1". I am not quite sure how to interlope the ayanamsha for an > additional two days to 7/3/1985. Even so, the way I researched > through Betz is that to equal Goravani's ayanamsha would not be > until 4 months later November 1, 1985. That's a huge difference > placing planets in different signs and houses! Again I am not using > location with Betz as Goravani does for time zone and am not sure if > I have to. Geez, now what? > What do you think? anyone else wish to investigate. There is a on- > going thread to read for details. The details are driving me nuts. > Debra > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Namaste. I hesitated some time before deciding to offer my "two cents worth" on this subject. However, perhaps my background as an astrologer, astronomer, and computer programmer can...hopefully, shed some light on this subject. Please forgive me if I only confuse the issue further. As an astrologer, I am very much aware that if I do not have an accurately calculated chart, then my analysis can be faulty. So, this question is important to me...as are a number of similar questions with respect to how the various astrology computer programs make certain computations. We MUST check these programs against "known standards"! My reference for things of this nature is the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) who is well-respected for their research into these subjects and the author of the equations that are used in a myriad of applications...both scientific and commercial. Referring to information on their website about their online ephemeris application, Horizon: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons_doc.html I quote from this user's manual: (referring to the precession model used in this program) "...As published, this model is valid for only ~200 years on either side of the J2000.0 epoch. This is due to round-off error in the published coefficients and truncation to a 3rd order polynomial in the expressions for the Euler rotation angles." I do not expect many to understand all that is said here; however, the point I wish to make from this reference is that the calculation is QUITE COMPLEX, to say the least. I am not familiar with the set of equations that are used in the Betz Ephemeris; however, if memory serves me correctly, Das (author of "Goravani Jyotish) and Michelle (author of Parasari's Light) both use JPL's equation set for many (if not all) of the astronomical calculations performed in their respective software. Now, to compound the problem, sources of astronomical equations are not static over time. JPL continues their research on these things; and I am aware that they have published "improved" sets of equations over the past I-don't-know-how-many years. The equations that I used (more than 30 years ago when I was working on my own astrology program...which saw very limited use!) came from the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac...then, a very respected source for these equations. From this experience, I recall that the precession changed between 50 seconds (of arc) and 51 seconds (of arc) a year. Therefore, over three days, this amounts to less than 0.5" (of arc). From this, I conclude that the difference cited between Das' program and the Betz Ephemeris is due to some factor other than the change in the precession over this short period of time. Again from my experience, the programmer may choose to use a set of equations that provides an approximate answer (to some, programmer-selected degree of accuracy) for various reasons. However, as Cynthia has already pointed out, there is variation in our world enough to make a few seconds difference insignificant. (Reading through the material sited in the website reference above convinced me that there is LOTS of room for these small errors to creep in.) If we infer that the programs used for astrology chart and ephemeris calculation are the same, what are other possible sources of calculation differences? O The computer language used by the program's author. O The way the computer language used performs the calculations. O The accuracy of the computer language used in performing the calculations. O The precision of the calculations used in the program. (This is related to the previous item; but is different.) O The computer chips used in the computers on which the programs run. Bottom line, probably only the programmer's can say for sure what the source of these differences come from. And the individual astrologer has to decide if the differences are significant enough to question the accuracy of the chart or ephemeris under consideration. I question the accuracy of a computer program calculation if the same calculation by another program gives a value that differs by one degree...and in some cases I expect the difference to be no more than two minutes of arc. I don't every question anything less than one minute of arc different. Life is too short...for me, anyway. Hope this helps. Namaste, David David LaGrone P. O. Box 2339 Glen Rose, TX 76043-2339 dvdlagr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 David's answers to these questions were good and correct. There are many places where variations can creep in. All of the existing main programs are "darn good", that is, mine, PL, Kala, Haydn, Star, etc. The code is EXCEEDINGLY complex. It does mostly come from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. There are other sources. Some people license the "Swiss Ephemeris". Most of us who program astrology software are not astronomers, and often do not understand all that we are doing, rather, we are just faithfully copying down what is taught to us by NASA, or other astutes who write books on orbital methods of math. There are a number of books by astronomers on orbital math, and a number of them are couched in the form of computer code, so you can copy the equations directly, and they allow that. That for example, is how I added the Lunar Parallax correction later on to my program- by copying it straight out of Meeus's famous book. So like if somebody said "your lunar parallax is wrong, how did you compute it"? My answer would be "beats me!". I do not understand really any of the code in my program as far as the pure astronomy parts go. I can say however that the sources for the code surely do understand it, and use it for launching sattelites and space ships that go to other planets and cost billions of American tax dollars. My job then is to make sure it is DOT FOR DOT perfect and correct. This is something I'm good at. Staring at detail, and scanning it for errors. I'm really good at that. Comes in handy for the interlacing of minute lines found in Celtic art. To everyone I say, try as far as possible to stick with modern times charts and research. There are so many reasons to not trust programs in terms of ancient times and ancient charts. Also, don't haggle over minute details between programs. It is exactly as David said. Computers can round various ways. If one program rounds a root number differently than another program, then the result will appear to be minutes or seconds different. Don't sweat that. If you care to use the finest vargas and worry about accuracy, then get into psychic and omenic techniques for rectification, such as casting lots of some sort. That is very effectual as it is nature speaking, and nature never lies, but you must learn those methods and follow them as your God, strictly. Then they will work for you. I myself am gifted enough by nature to tell some things without math and such, so I can know if something is this way, or that way, and this intuition gives me the final guidance when there are questions. Nature does not lie. That is why the greatest yogis don't carry laptops. They know. They just know. Nature talks to them. Listen to the trees the Indian mystic said. The forest will talk to you. I love you all, fellow souls. Blessed is the fresh air in the morning, for it gives hope. Blessed is the full air of the eve, for it gives a hug. Blessed is everything, for it is all Divine. Blessed is life, for it is beautiful. Blessed is the Divine, for it is all that is. At the end of a circle, it begins again. Or-ain, golden bird, is young, and shy. Sami, grey and learned, sits atop my head and watches me type. Thus a day begins, where another has ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Namaste, hello to all. I also hesitated some time before going into this sort of discussion. I am physicist, worked also with numerical programs and know very well about rounding errors, pivot-technique in Gaussian quadrature, an such things. I now have another question about the rotation of the earth. In the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler is an example of at total solar eclipse on January 14, AD 484, which was observed in Athens. However, if the earth rotation velocity is assumed constant throughout the centuries, the path of the principal shadow of the Moon would be quite different, actually the displacement is about 30 degrees, i.e a whole sign! This can only be explained if the rotation of the earth slowly spins down due to effects by the Moon gravitational pull. My question: Is such an effect incorporated by the standard programs? The effect can be quite drastic for the ascendent, if one goes back a couple of centuries. Cheers, Christian Am Sa, 2004-03-13 um 06.56 schrieb David LaGrone: > Namaste. > > I hesitated some time before deciding to offer my "two cents worth" on > this subject. However, perhaps my background as an astrologer, > astronomer, and computer programmer can...hopefully, shed some light on > this subject. Please forgive me if I only confuse the issue further. > > As an astrologer, I am very much aware that if I do not have an > accurately calculated chart, then my analysis can be faulty. So, this > question is important to me...as are a number of similar questions with > respect to how the various astrology computer programs make certain > computations. We MUST check these programs against "known standards"! > > My reference for things of this nature is the Jet Propulsion Laboratory > (JPL) who is well-respected for their research into these subjects and > the author of the equations that are used in a myriad of > applications...both scientific and commercial. Referring to information > on their website about their online ephemeris application, Horizon: > > http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons_doc.html > > I quote from this user's manual: > > (referring to the precession model used in this program) "...As > published, this model is valid for only ~200 years on either side of the > J2000.0 epoch. This is due to round-off error in the published > coefficients and truncation to a 3rd order polynomial in the expressions > for the Euler rotation angles." > > I do not expect many to understand all that is said here; however, the > point I wish to make from this reference is that the calculation is > QUITE COMPLEX, to say the least. > > I am not familiar with the set of equations that are used in the Betz > Ephemeris; however, if memory serves me correctly, Das (author of > "Goravani Jyotish) and Michelle (author of Parasari's Light) both use > JPL's equation set for many (if not all) of the astronomical > calculations performed in their respective software. Now, to compound > the problem, sources of astronomical equations are not static over time. > JPL continues their research on these things; and I am aware that they > have published "improved" sets of equations over the past > I-don't-know-how-many years. The equations that I used (more than 30 > years ago when I was working on my own astrology program...which saw > very limited use!) came from the American Ephemeris and Nautical > Almanac...then, a very respected source for these equations. From this > experience, I recall that the precession changed between 50 seconds (of > arc) and 51 seconds (of arc) a year. Therefore, over three days, this > amounts to less than 0.5" (of arc). From this, I conclude that the > difference cited between Das' program and the Betz Ephemeris is due to > some factor other than the change in the precession over this short > period of time. > > Again from my experience, the programmer may choose to use a set of > equations that provides an approximate answer (to some, > programmer-selected degree of accuracy) for various reasons. However, as > Cynthia has already pointed out, there is variation in our world enough > to make a few seconds difference insignificant. (Reading through the > material sited in the website reference above convinced me that there is > LOTS of room for these small errors to creep in.) > > If we infer that the programs used for astrology chart and ephemeris > calculation are the same, what are other possible sources of calculation > differences? > > O The computer language used by the program's author. > O The way the computer language used performs the calculations. > O The accuracy of the computer language used in performing the > calculations. > O The precision of the calculations used in the program. (This is > related to the previous item; but is different.) > O The computer chips used in the computers on which the programs run. > > Bottom line, probably only the programmer's can say for sure what the > source of these differences come from. And the individual astrologer has > to decide if the differences are significant enough to question the > accuracy of the chart or ephemeris under consideration. I question the > accuracy of a computer program calculation if the same calculation by > another program gives a value that differs by one degree...and in some > cases I expect the difference to be no more than two minutes of arc. I > don't every question anything less than one minute of arc different. > Life is too short...for me, anyway. > > Hope this helps. Namaste, David > > David LaGrone > P. O. Box 2339 > Glen Rose, TX 76043-2339 > > dvdlagr Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 Namaste Das, David, Christian and All, Thanks to your input into my inquiry about Lahiri calculation and the question about planetary calculations in general. For information - Betz is quoted as saying she uses the equations from the book "Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, just as Das says he references. I apologize I neglected to include this information earlier. I hope this helps in the discussion. I find it all very interesting and mind boggling at the same time. I am glad the question is worthy of discussion and pondering. I would like to further this discussion by including again the birth data example I gave a few days ago when I first asked about how to know which calculation to use for accuracy. 7/3/1985 - 8:16am (DST) - Highland Park, Illinois - USA. Time zone 6:00, Longitude 87 W 39 Latitude 41 N 51. Goravani's program gives its Moon at 0' Capicorn. Betz gives the Moon at 23' 51' 5" Sagittarius. Other programs can give either a late Capricorn or a Sagittarius Moon. As one can see the difference is important because the chart can be altered by changing houses. This example begs one to question which calculation is best to use, to best identify the subject and give accurate reading and predictions. Thanks David to your advice about calculations from JPL. And to Dash also about the use by some - The Swiss Ephemeris. Christian your references are impressive but way out of my league to comprehend. Also, I would like to request a discussion on using others (Krishamuriti etc) calculations vs. using Lahiri. So lots of questions and inquiry. All answers and discussions will be very informative and educational for me. Thanks to all. Hare Krishna, Debra Das Goravani [] Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:18 AM gjlist Re: [GJ] RE: Lahiri Sidereal Time David's answers to these questions were good and correct. There are many places where variations can creep in. All of the existing main programs are "darn good", that is, mine, PL, Kala, Haydn, Star, etc. The code is EXCEEDINGLY complex. It does mostly come from Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. There are other sources. Some people license the "Swiss Ephemeris". Most of us who program astrology software are not astronomers, and often do not understand all that we are doing, rather, we are just faithfully copying down what is taught to us by NASA, or other astutes who write books on orbital methods of math. There are a number of books by astronomers on orbital math, and a number of them are couched in the form of computer code, so you can copy the equations directly, and they allow that. That for example, is how I added the Lunar Parallax correction later on to my program- by copying it straight out of Meeus's famous book. So like if somebody said "your lunar parallax is wrong, how did you compute it"? My answer would be "beats me!". I do not understand really any of the code in my program as far as the pure astronomy parts go. I can say however that the sources for the code surely do understand it, and use it for launching sattelites and space ships that go to other planets and cost billions of American tax dollars. My job then is to make sure it is DOT FOR DOT perfect and correct. This is something I'm good at. Staring at detail, and scanning it for errors. I'm really good at that. Comes in handy for the interlacing of minute lines found in Celtic art. To everyone I say, try as far as possible to stick with modern times charts and research. There are so many reasons to not trust programs in terms of ancient times and ancient charts. Also, don't haggle over minute details between programs. It is exactly as David said. Computers can round various ways. If one program rounds a root number differently than another program, then the result will appear to be minutes or seconds different. Don't sweat that. If you care to use the finest vargas and worry about accuracy, then get into psychic and omenic techniques for rectification, such as casting lots of some sort. That is very effectual as it is nature speaking, and nature never lies, but you must learn those methods and follow them as your God, strictly. Then they will work for you. I myself am gifted enough by nature to tell some things without math and such, so I can know if something is this way, or that way, and this intuition gives me the final guidance when there are questions. Nature does not lie. That is why the greatest yogis don't carry laptops. They know. They just know. Nature talks to them. Listen to the trees the Indian mystic said. The forest will talk to you. I love you all, fellow souls. Blessed is the fresh air in the morning, for it gives hope. Blessed is the full air of the eve, for it gives a hug. Blessed is everything, for it is all Divine. Blessed is life, for it is beautiful. Blessed is the Divine, for it is all that is. At the end of a circle, it begins again. Or-ain, golden bird, is young, and shy. Sami, grey and learned, sits atop my head and watches me type. Thus a day begins, where another has ended. Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat : gjlist- --- [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses by the YourNet Connection Virus system] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 Hello Christian, I carefully read your post as pasted below. As perhaps the only astrology programmer present, or one of the few, I wish to comment. Your post as it is, leaves open the question- are you clearly aware of the difference between Sidereal and Tropical zodiacs? It seems that perhaps the difference could explain your athens eclipse example. Other than that, I would like to say, that generally speaking, our calculations take everything into account, which is known to astronomers, about figuring out what we're interested in. In other words, in astrology, we are interested in either tropical or sidereal planetary positions along the longitude of the zodiac. There are many other things an astonomer or physicist may know about, but in astrology we only really look at that. But in coming up with that, we generate other things, other astronomically relevent numbers, but we mainly look at planet longitude along the zodiac. To that end, the people who originally write the code, are very certain they are using everything NASA and previous persons/groups can offer astronomically. Otherwise, software's would not agree from all over the world. We all agree pretty much, on where the planets are on any date, so we're all using the same base of astronomical knowledge. I don't know if what you ask about, the Moon's effect of slowing the Earth, is in my code, because I don't fully understand the code, as I said, but I have seen Delta-T for example, in the calculations, which is something you probably know about, which is some slippage in time is it not? Anyway, you could only really get solid answers about what's in the code deep in our programs if you ask someone who really knows the code and astronomy. Marc Pottenger comes to mind. He translated NASA's code once upon a time and actually understands it and can speak astronomy. He would know. The people at Swiss Ephemeris might know. The people who are sources for the code of the programs for real, the ones who really know what NASA's code is saying, they could answer your question, and nobody else really, not solidly. This list is mostly newer astrologer hobbyists. Not astronomers or phycicists, though there may be a few. Thanks, Roik MacKay Das Goravani, President Service http://www.Goravani.com http://www.DancingMoonInc.com Goravani Jyotish and Jyotish Studio, Darn Good Jyotish Software! > > Namaste, hello to all. > > I also hesitated some time before going into this sort of discussion. > I am physicist, worked also with numerical programs and know very well > about rounding errors, pivot-technique in Gaussian quadrature, an such > things. I now have another question about the rotation of the earth. > In the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler is an example of at > total solar eclipse on January 14, AD 484, which was observed in Athens. > However, if the earth rotation velocity is assumed constant throughout > the centuries, the path of the principal shadow of the Moon would be > quite different, actually the displacement is about 30 degrees, i.e a > whole sign! > This can only be explained if the rotation of the earth slowly spins > down due to effects by the Moon gravitational pull. > My question: Is such an effect incorporated by the standard programs? > The effect can be quite drastic for the ascendent, if one goes back a > couple of centuries. > > Cheers, Christian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 Hello Roik. thank you your answer. Well, I am aware of the difference between tropical and siderical zodiac, actually I started astrology with the tropical zodiac, had my first encounter with vedic astrology in Nepal, and now switched to the siderical zodiac. I am just convinced. The problem I posted is really not a problem of tropical vs siderical. A total eclipse happens where it happens and has a definite and calculable path of visibility on the surface of the earth. The example I came with shows to me, how careful astrologers have to be with this astronomical issues, if one goes far back in time, let alone the question if exact and reliable birth data exist of human beings who lived in Greek/Roman and mediveal times. In some sense vedic astrologesr are lucky, because they do not deal with Pluto or even Chiron. Chiron has a very unreliable orbit about the sun, and as it turn out, Chiron positions before about 1000 and after 2400 are senseless. Chiron had and will have a close encouter with Saturn, which pushs Chirons orbit just somewhere. And for Pluto no final theory of its orbit exists. The observation time is still to short to give reliable long term (i.e. many centuries) predictions of the position in the zodiac. The example of the eclipse shows that the earth was ahead in its rotation of about 30 degrees in comparison to 1900 resp. 2000, which has the consequence that the rising sign (Aszendent) of a specific location. here Athens for a specific time of the day, will also change by about 30 degrees. Maybe you have the possibility to look into the book I mentioned. There the path of the eclipse is depicted, as calculated without spin-down of the earth, and as observed. This makes up for 800 years a shift of the Ascendent of about 10 degrees, in 80 years one degree. This has serious consequences for all the sub-horoskopes, D-2, D-3..... The position of the plantes remain as they are, because their position is not affected by earth's rotation. But the houses will change. Our ancestors may have been better off without knowing about this problem, because they observed the sky every knight, so to speak, and could make their calculations from yearly-updated or so printed ephermerides comig from observations. This kind of problem now is a problem of the computer age. You are right, I will ask the Swiss people of that. I assume, they will know. And I will tell you about their answer. Best greeting Christian Am Di, 2004-03-16 um 13.49 schrieb Das Goravani: > Hello Christian, > > I carefully read your post as pasted below. As perhaps the only astrology > programmer present, or one of the few, I wish to comment. > > Your post as it is, leaves open the question- are you clearly aware of the > difference between Sidereal and Tropical zodiacs? It seems that perhaps the > difference could explain your athens eclipse example. > > Other than that, I would like to say, that generally speaking, our > calculations take everything into account, which is known to astronomers, > about figuring out what we're interested in. > > In other words, in astrology, we are interested in either tropical or > sidereal planetary positions along the longitude of the zodiac. There are > many other things an astonomer or physicist may know about, but in astrology > we only really look at that. But in coming up with that, we generate other > things, other astronomically relevent numbers, but we mainly look at planet > longitude along the zodiac. To that end, the people who originally write the > code, are very certain they are using everything NASA and previous > persons/groups can offer astronomically. Otherwise, software's would not > agree from all over the world. We all agree pretty much, on where the > planets are on any date, so we're all using the same base of astronomical > knowledge. > > I don't know if what you ask about, the Moon's effect of slowing the Earth, > is in my code, because I don't fully understand the code, as I said, but I > have seen Delta-T for example, in the calculations, which is something you > probably know about, which is some slippage in time is it not? > > Anyway, you could only really get solid answers about what's in the code > deep in our programs if you ask someone who really knows the code and > astronomy. Marc Pottenger comes to mind. He translated NASA's code once upon > a time and actually understands it and can speak astronomy. He would know. > The people at Swiss Ephemeris might know. The people who are sources for the > code of the programs for real, the ones who really know what NASA's code is > saying, they could answer your question, and nobody else really, not > solidly. This list is mostly newer astrologer hobbyists. Not astronomers or > phycicists, though there may be a few. > > Thanks, > > Roik MacKay > Das Goravani, President > > > > > > > > Service > > http://www.Goravani.com > http://www.DancingMoonInc.com > > Goravani Jyotish and Jyotish Studio, Darn Good Jyotish Software! > > > > > > > > Namaste, hello to all. > > > > I also hesitated some time before going into this sort of discussion. > > I am physicist, worked also with numerical programs and know very well > > about rounding errors, pivot-technique in Gaussian quadrature, an such > > things. I now have another question about the rotation of the earth. > > In the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler is an example of at > > total solar eclipse on January 14, AD 484, which was observed in Athens. > > However, if the earth rotation velocity is assumed constant throughout > > the centuries, the path of the principal shadow of the Moon would be > > quite different, actually the displacement is about 30 degrees, i.e a > > whole sign! > > This can only be explained if the rotation of the earth slowly spins > > down due to effects by the Moon gravitational pull. > > My question: Is such an effect incorporated by the standard programs? > > The effect can be quite drastic for the ascendent, if one goes back a > > couple of centuries. > > > > Cheers, Christian > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2004 Report Share Posted March 16, 2004 Hello, I checked your data (July 3, 1985, 8:16 am) with the programs Solar fire, IO Edition (Mac), and the free vedic "Jagannatha Hora Light". My result is Moon: 2 Cap 08, AS 3 Leo 28. for all three astrology programs with Lahiri Ayanamsa. Christian Am Di, 2004-03-16 um 04.52 schrieb Debra Marian Quinn Mehren: > Namaste Das, David, Christian and All, > > Thanks to your input into my inquiry about Lahiri calculation and the > question about planetary calculations in general. For information - > Betz is quoted as saying she uses the equations from the book > "Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, just as Das says he references. > I apologize I neglected to include this information earlier. I hope > this helps in the discussion. I find it all very interesting and mind > boggling at the same time. I am glad the question is worthy of > discussion and pondering. > > I would like to further this discussion by including again the birth > data example I gave a few days ago when I first asked about how to know > which calculation to use for accuracy. > > 7/3/1985 - 8:16am (DST) - Highland Park, Illinois - USA. Time zone > 6:00, Longitude 87 W 39 Latitude 41 N 51. > > Goravani's program gives its Moon at 0' Capicorn. Betz gives the Moon > at 23' 51' 5" Sagittarius. Other programs can give either a late > Capricorn or a Sagittarius Moon. As one can see the difference is > important because the chart can be altered by changing houses. > > This example begs one to question which calculation is best to use, to > best identify the subject and give accurate reading and predictions. > > Thanks David to your advice about calculations from JPL. And to Dash > also about the use by some - The Swiss Ephemeris. Christian your > references are impressive but way out of my league to comprehend. > > Also, I would like to request a discussion on using others (Krishamuriti > etc) calculations vs. using Lahiri. > > So lots of questions and inquiry. All answers and discussions will be > very informative and educational for me. Thanks to all. Hare Krishna, > Debra > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Dear Roik, this is the answer of Alois Treindl! -> of course this is included. It is dealt with in the difference between Universal Time and Ephemeris Time, called delta-T The reports on historical eclipses serves exactly for getting this tidal friction right. <- So this is a solved problem! Christian see http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph.htm#_Toc6813700 -- || Alois Treindl, Astrodienst AG, alois || Zollikon/Zurich, Switzerland || Free astrological charts at http://www.astro.com/ || SWISS EPHEMERIS Free Edition at http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ Am Di, 2004-03-16 um 13.49 schrieb Das Goravani: > Hello Christian, > > I carefully read your post as pasted below. As perhaps the only astrology > programmer present, or one of the few, I wish to comment. > > Your post as it is, leaves open the question- are you clearly aware of the > difference between Sidereal and Tropical zodiacs? It seems that perhaps the > difference could explain your athens eclipse example. > > Other than that, I would like to say, that generally speaking, our > calculations take everything into account, which is known to astronomers, > about figuring out what we're interested in. > > In other words, in astrology, we are interested in either tropical or > sidereal planetary positions along the longitude of the zodiac. There are > many other things an astonomer or physicist may know about, but in astrology > we only really look at that. But in coming up with that, we generate other > things, other astronomically relevent numbers, but we mainly look at planet > longitude along the zodiac. To that end, the people who originally write the > code, are very certain they are using everything NASA and previous > persons/groups can offer astronomically. Otherwise, software's would not > agree from all over the world. We all agree pretty much, on where the > planets are on any date, so we're all using the same base of astronomical > knowledge. > > I don't know if what you ask about, the Moon's effect of slowing the Earth, > is in my code, because I don't fully understand the code, as I said, but I > have seen Delta-T for example, in the calculations, which is something you > probably know about, which is some slippage in time is it not? > > Anyway, you could only really get solid answers about what's in the code > deep in our programs if you ask someone who really knows the code and > astronomy. Marc Pottenger comes to mind. He translated NASA's code once upon > a time and actually understands it and can speak astronomy. He would know. > The people at Swiss Ephemeris might know. The people who are sources for the > code of the programs for real, the ones who really know what NASA's code is > saying, they could answer your question, and nobody else really, not > solidly. This list is mostly newer astrologer hobbyists. Not astronomers or > phycicists, though there may be a few. > > Thanks, > > Roik MacKay > Das Goravani, President > > > > > > > > Service > > http://www.Goravani.com > http://www.DancingMoonInc.com > > Goravani Jyotish and Jyotish Studio, Darn Good Jyotish Software! > > > > > > > > Namaste, hello to all. > > > > I also hesitated some time before going into this sort of discussion. > > I am physicist, worked also with numerical programs and know very well > > about rounding errors, pivot-technique in Gaussian quadrature, an such > > things. I now have another question about the rotation of the earth. > > In the book "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler is an example of at > > total solar eclipse on January 14, AD 484, which was observed in Athens. > > However, if the earth rotation velocity is assumed constant throughout > > the centuries, the path of the principal shadow of the Moon would be > > quite different, actually the displacement is about 30 degrees, i.e a > > whole sign! > > This can only be explained if the rotation of the earth slowly spins > > down due to effects by the Moon gravitational pull. > > My question: Is such an effect incorporated by the standard programs? > > The effect can be quite drastic for the ascendent, if one goes back a > > couple of centuries. > > > > Cheers, Christian > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Hello Christian, Thanks so much for comparing Lahiri calculation with your three programs. Very Interesting!!! Could the adjustment for 54 seconds Delta T make a difference in programs or other ephemeris using Lahiri calculation - or am I confusing the matter? Debra Christian.Grosche [Christian.Grosche] Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:39 AM gjlist RE: [GJ] RE: Lahiri Sidereal Time Hello, I checked your data (July 3, 1985, 8:16 am) with the programs Solar fire, IO Edition (Mac), and the free vedic "Jagannatha Hora Light". My result is Moon: 2 Cap 08, AS 3 Leo 28. for all three astrology programs with Lahiri Ayanamsa. Christian Am Di, 2004-03-16 um 04.52 schrieb Debra Marian Quinn Mehren: > Namaste Das, David, Christian and All, > > Thanks to your input into my inquiry about Lahiri calculation and the > question about planetary calculations in general. For information - > Betz is quoted as saying she uses the equations from the book > "Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, just as Das says he references. > I apologize I neglected to include this information earlier. I hope > this helps in the discussion. I find it all very interesting and mind > boggling at the same time. I am glad the question is worthy of > discussion and pondering. > > I would like to further this discussion by including again the birth > data example I gave a few days ago when I first asked about how to know > which calculation to use for accuracy. > > 7/3/1985 - 8:16am (DST) - Highland Park, Illinois - USA. Time zone > 6:00, Longitude 87 W 39 Latitude 41 N 51. > > Goravani's program gives its Moon at 0' Capicorn. Betz gives the Moon > at 23' 51' 5" Sagittarius. Other programs can give either a late > Capricorn or a Sagittarius Moon. As one can see the difference is > important because the chart can be altered by changing houses. > > This example begs one to question which calculation is best to use, to > best identify the subject and give accurate reading and predictions. > > Thanks David to your advice about calculations from JPL. And to Dash > also about the use by some - The Swiss Ephemeris. Christian your > references are impressive but way out of my league to comprehend. > > Also, I would like to request a discussion on using others (Krishamuriti > etc) calculations vs. using Lahiri. > > So lots of questions and inquiry. All answers and discussions will be > very informative and educational for me. Thanks to all. Hare Krishna, > Debra > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat : gjlist- Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 Delta T does not matter anything. It is included in all the standard programs if thes use Swiss ephemerides or the NASA JPL ( I have asked Alois Treindl from astrodienst). I have no idea what went wrong in these 54 seconds. You can never be sure of bugs in programs. Cheers Christian Am Sa, 2004-03-20 um 23.50 schrieb Debra Marian Quinn Mehren: > Hello Christian, > > Thanks so much for comparing Lahiri calculation with your three > programs. Very Interesting!!! Could the adjustment for 54 seconds > Delta T make a difference in programs or other ephemeris using Lahiri > calculation - or am I confusing the matter? Debra > > > > > Christian.Grosche > [Christian.Grosche] > Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:39 AM > gjlist > RE: [GJ] RE: Lahiri Sidereal Time > > Hello, > > I checked your data (July 3, 1985, 8:16 am) with the programs > Solar fire, IO Edition (Mac), and the free vedic "Jagannatha Hora > Light". > My result is Moon: 2 Cap 08, AS 3 Leo 28. > for all three astrology programs with Lahiri Ayanamsa. > > Christian > Am Di, 2004-03-16 um 04.52 schrieb Debra Marian Quinn Mehren: > > Namaste Das, David, Christian and All, > > > > Thanks to your input into my inquiry about Lahiri calculation and the > > question about planetary calculations in general. For information - > > Betz is quoted as saying she uses the equations from the book > > "Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, just as Das says he > references. > > I apologize I neglected to include this information earlier. I hope > > this helps in the discussion. I find it all very interesting and mind > > boggling at the same time. I am glad the question is worthy of > > discussion and pondering. > > > > I would like to further this discussion by including again the birth > > data example I gave a few days ago when I first asked about how to > know > > which calculation to use for accuracy. > > > > 7/3/1985 - 8:16am (DST) - Highland Park, Illinois - USA. Time > zone > > 6:00, Longitude 87 W 39 Latitude 41 N 51. > > > > Goravani's program gives its Moon at 0' Capicorn. Betz gives the Moon > > at 23' 51' 5" Sagittarius. Other programs can give either a late > > Capricorn or a Sagittarius Moon. As one can see the difference is > > important because the chart can be altered by changing houses. > > > > This example begs one to question which calculation is best to use, to > > best identify the subject and give accurate reading and predictions. > > > > Thanks David to your advice about calculations from JPL. And to Dash > > also about the use by some - The Swiss Ephemeris. Christian your > > references are impressive but way out of my league to comprehend. > > > > Also, I would like to request a discussion on using others > (Krishamuriti > > etc) calculations vs. using Lahiri. > > > > So lots of questions and inquiry. All answers and discussions will be > > very informative and educational for me. Thanks to all. Hare > Krishna, > > Debra > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 THANK YOU Christian, I appreciate your information and time! Debra Christian.Grosche [Christian.Grosche] Monday, March 22, 2004 3:22 PM gjlist RE: [GJ] RE: Lahiri Sidereal Time Delta T does not matter anything. It is included in all the standard programs if thes use Swiss ephemerides or the NASA JPL ( I have asked Alois Treindl from astrodienst). I have no idea what went wrong in these 54 seconds. You can never be sure of bugs in programs. Cheers Christian Am Sa, 2004-03-20 um 23.50 schrieb Debra Marian Quinn Mehren: > Hello Christian, > > Thanks so much for comparing Lahiri calculation with your three > programs. Very Interesting!!! Could the adjustment for 54 seconds > Delta T make a difference in programs or other ephemeris using Lahiri > calculation - or am I confusing the matter? Debra > > > > > Christian.Grosche > [Christian.Grosche] > Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:39 AM > gjlist > RE: [GJ] RE: Lahiri Sidereal Time > > Hello, > > I checked your data (July 3, 1985, 8:16 am) with the programs > Solar fire, IO Edition (Mac), and the free vedic "Jagannatha Hora > Light". > My result is Moon: 2 Cap 08, AS 3 Leo 28. > for all three astrology programs with Lahiri Ayanamsa. > > Christian > Am Di, 2004-03-16 um 04.52 schrieb Debra Marian Quinn Mehren: > > Namaste Das, David, Christian and All, > > > > Thanks to your input into my inquiry about Lahiri calculation and the > > question about planetary calculations in general. For information - > > Betz is quoted as saying she uses the equations from the book > > "Astronomical Algorithms by Jean Meeus, just as Das says he > references. > > I apologize I neglected to include this information earlier. I hope > > this helps in the discussion. I find it all very interesting and mind > > boggling at the same time. I am glad the question is worthy of > > discussion and pondering. > > > > I would like to further this discussion by including again the birth > > data example I gave a few days ago when I first asked about how to > know > > which calculation to use for accuracy. > > > > 7/3/1985 - 8:16am (DST) - Highland Park, Illinois - USA. Time > zone > > 6:00, Longitude 87 W 39 Latitude 41 N 51. > > > > Goravani's program gives its Moon at 0' Capicorn. Betz gives the Moon > > at 23' 51' 5" Sagittarius. Other programs can give either a late > > Capricorn or a Sagittarius Moon. As one can see the difference is > > important because the chart can be altered by changing houses. > > > > This example begs one to question which calculation is best to use, to > > best identify the subject and give accurate reading and predictions. > > > > Thanks David to your advice about calculations from JPL. And to Dash > > also about the use by some - The Swiss Ephemeris. Christian your > > references are impressive but way out of my league to comprehend. > > > > Also, I would like to request a discussion on using others > (Krishamuriti > > etc) calculations vs. using Lahiri. > > > > So lots of questions and inquiry. All answers and discussions will be > > very informative and educational for me. Thanks to all. Hare > Krishna, > > Debra > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > Links > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat : gjlist- Links 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.