Loma Prieta -- Bob

[Guest guest]

>

RN: Mathew the quotidian method of progressing the solar return is

straight forward as described by Fagan, Stahl, and Eshelman. Using

this method I cannot come up with the angles you have for either the

progressed Capsolar or Cansolar. I am assuming you used Solar Fire to

progress the charts for you. When I first got Solar Fire I compared

their results against Fagan's many times and found them to be in

error, much to my great disappointment.

 

Doing the progressions by hand works out to 11:48:04 for the

quotidian progressed RAMC of the Capsolar (redone for the epicenter

by the way) and 22:09:10 for the Cansolar.

----------------

Bob,

 

Before you declare calculations done by Solar Fire or any other

software to be " in error " , or

incorrect or wrong, I think you should remember that there are many

different methods of

progressing angles. I specified that I was using the Mean Q1

quotidian rate. Your calculations are

Apparent rate. Be honest yourself. You may prefer Apparent, I may

prefer Mean. Your way is

not " wrong, " neither is mine; they're different approaches. Both need

to be explored by many

users. And, BTW, the Solar Fire 5 calculation of LST/RAMC for the Q1

agrees to the second

with calculations from CCRS. If anyone wants to know the math for the

calculations, I can dig it

up and post it.

-----------

 

> I would have to disagree with Bob that the CanSolar does not show

> anything, especially through

> progressions.

 

RN: Here is what I had to say, cut and pasted from my post. Please

note that I said nothing was on the angle of the PROGRESSED chart,

not the return chart.

 

[RN: I looked at the Western Sidereal Cansolar and its quotidian

progression. Nothing in the return, its quotidian progression, or

transiting, is on an angle of the progression.]

------------

[MQ] The Apparent rate quotidian angles have no hit, but the Mean Q1

do, as I said in my post.

---------------

>(...) Uranus and Pluto are

> just about equi-distant from

> the MC on either side; UR/PL = 12 Sco 49, again a fairly obvious

> midpoint to see.

>

RN: 'just about'. A 2 degree difference is a difference of 2 days in

the timing of solar returns.

-------------

[MQ] But I was speaking of the midpoint picture involving the ingress

MC, not timing an ingress

or SSR. There's a difference. Also the point was that with two

planets on either side of an angle

and _about_ equidistant, I look to the midpoint itself to see how

tight it is to the angle. It's called

a " direct midpoint, " and that type is easy to eyeball.

--------------

> The mean Q1 progression of the CanSolar brings the Moon to conjoin

> Saturn within a degree,

 

RN: Again, a matter of timing, but in this case a difference of about

a whole month.

------------

[MQ] I would actually consider it more like a two month period, +/- a

degree of exact, during

which time a whole BUNCH of Moon-Saturn events are likely in the

world. However, the lunar

timing does alert us to a period during which the probabilities of a

Moon-Planet event of some

sort are likely. Other methods theoretically can refine the time.

-------------

> The quotidian ASC conjoins ingress Jupiter, sesqui-

> squares ingress Pluto;

> quotidian MC at 11 Aqu 06 was still within one degree of the

ingress

> Jupiter/Pluto midpoint (10

> Leo 08).

>(...)

> Sidereally yours,

> Matthew

 

RN: Please hand calculate the progression of the angles. You will not

get these contacts. How long have you been using Solar Fire to

progress solar returns Mathew?

-------------

[MQ] Bob, I've used Solar Fire 5 since shortly after it was

released. I've also contacted

Astrolabe many times with corrections that have been included in

their updates. Most of their

calculations (SF5) match fairly closely to CCRS, which is pretty much

benchmark astrological

software. If you're asking about my credentials as a

sidereal " techie " , that's another thing

altogether. I " switched " in 1972, before the days of scientific

calculators, so as to hand

calculations been there, done that, a LOT.

 

I feel that the most productive progression rates are based on an

equation of 1 rotation = 1

revolution. I have not decided yet if I prefer mean or apparent

rates. The PSSR rate which runs

from ingress or SSR a turn and a quarter to the next year doesn't fit

that equation, though it

would have its own elegance if it were consistent. But, then, I'm not

sure that ANY quotidian

rate is really " consistent, " i.e., producing an appropriate event

_every time_ something hits an

angle.

 

 

I've been trying to get other astrologers to experiment with " techie "

stuff for over a decade in a

couple of different internet venues. I'd like to be able to compare

results and ideas with other

people about the methods, but it's just " too much math " for most

folks. I'm simply glad that

software like Solar Fire allows quotidians to be done _in some

way/rate_ easily enough for

people to try it. So I present what I've found and explain what I

can.

 

And what's your problem with that?

 

Sidereally yours,

Matthew