sidereal right ascensions, 5

[Guest guest]

The practice of ignoring precession when dealing with the latitude, the

right ascension, and the declination of the planets evidences that sidereal

astrologers are using a definition of precession which is a simplification

of the astronomical complexities of precession in the real world. This is

not necessarily wrong as long as it is understood that it does not

correspond to the physical reality of precession.

 

In other words: sidereal astrologers often work with strictly tropical

--not sidereal-- coordinates. When tropical right ascensions and

declinations not corrected for precession are used, or when tropical time

units are the basis for the calculation of progressions (without the " bija

corrections " ) they are working in a tropical reference frame.

 

This happens because for most astrologers (tropical and sidereal alike) the

word " sidereal " means simply representing the zodiacal longitudes in some

historical or traditional zodiac (a merely spatial conception), failing to

see the time dimension, the fact that " sidereal " is not " in such and such a

zodiac " not subject to precessional displacement in longitude, but a

mathematically defined space and time reference frame.

 

NOTE: other examples of the paradigmatic emphasis on spatial relationships

in astrological thinking at the expense of more dynamical perspectives are

discussed in my essay " On the Seed Metaphor " :

http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/essays/seed.html

 

 

The astronomical incongruence of the way astrologers deal with precession

was discussed by Dieter Koch in the documentation to the Swiss Ephemeris.

He wrote [see the section " In search of correct algorithms " ]:

 

" ... the whole ayanamsa is subtracted from a planetary position which is

referred to the ecliptic of the epoch t... Because the ecliptic is not

fixed, it cannot be correct just to subtract an ayanamsa from the tropical

position in order to get a sidereal position... This does not make sense...

The traditional method of computing sidereal positions is geometrically not

sound and can never achieve the same degree of accuracy as tropical

astrology is used to. "

 

Dieter provides an example of what happens when the usual procedure of

adding the ayanamsa to a tropical position in order to (allegedly) obtain

its sidereal position is used over a long time span:

 

[begin quote]

" As an effect of this procedure, objects that do not move sidereally, e.g.

the Galactic Center, seem to move. If we compute its precise tropical

position for several dates and then subtract the Fagan/Bradley ayanamsa for

the same dates in order to get its sidereal position, these positions will

all be slightly different:

Date Longitude Latitude

01.01.-5000 2 sag 07'57.7237 -4°41'34.7123 (without aberration)

01.01.-4000 2 sag 07'32.9817 -4°49' 4.8880

01.01.-3000 2 sag 07'14.2044 -4°56'47.7013

01.01.-2000 2 sag 07' 0.4590 -5° 4'39.5863

01.01.-1000 2 sag 06'50.7229 -5°12'36.9917

01.01.0 2 sag 06'44.2492 -5°20'36.4081

01.01.1000 2 sag 06'40.7813 -5°28'34.3906

01.01.2000 2 sag 06'40.5661 -5°36'27.5619

01.01.3000 2 sag 06'44.1743 -5°44'12.6886

01.01.4000 2 sag 06'52.1927 -5°51'46.6231

01.01.5000 2 sag 07' 4.8942 -5°59' 6.3665

" The effect can be much greater for bodies with greater ecliptical latitude.

" Exactly the same kind of thing happens to sidereal planetary positions, if

one calculates them in the traditional way. It is only because planets move

that we are not aware of it.

[end quote]

 

You can see here the precession in latitude, or more exactly, the

accumulated displacement between the ecliptic of the epoch (here 1950) and

the ecliptic of date, normally ignored in sidereal practice. You can also

see how the longitude is rotating or librating around its 1950 value.

 

This example of a point which is known to be fixed or unmoving in

quasi-inertial space like the Galactic Center, shows to what extent the

usual sidereal practice is based not on a concept of " sidereal " as a

reference frame, but of " sidereal " as exclusively a representation of

zodiacal positions based on a conventional or traditional fiducial point

not subject to precession in longitude.

 

This is the traditional " sidereal astrology paradigm " : represent the

zodiacal positions of planets using a fiducial which is free of precession

in longitude, but ignoring how precessional motion is in the real world.

Ignore the precessional displacements in latitude, right ascension, and

declination. But even the " sidereal " longitudes have been calculated with a

simplification of precessional motion in longitude, so they are really

" quasi-sidereal " . The latitudes, the right ascensions, the declinations,

and often, the time units used by sidereal astrologers, are often strictly

tropical.

 

So, clearly, everything depends on how one defines the word " sidereal " . It

is one thing to be a " sidereal astrologer " (including of course the Indian

version), and a different thing to work astrologically in a sidereal

reference frame. The two things are assumed to come together in theory.

They are separate in practice. If understood in the astronomical sense,

" Sidereal " astrology is not wholly sidereal, or it is " sidereal " only in a

limited, inaccurate and simplified way.

 

Since precessing the right ascensions and declinations would result in very

large differences with what has already been done, one would think that it

is in the use of PRECESSION-CORRECTED POSITIONS --where the corrections are

small-- where a real and practical, truly accurate sidereal or " fixed " ,

quasi-inertial reference frame can come into place in Astrology.

 

Juan