UncleAries wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:02 am
but something is bugging me, like the capricorn ingresses having 90 or 91 percent accuracy, i always feel we should be around 94 95 96 percentile
The standard of viability for the different techniques has pretty consistently always been "about 7 out of 8), meaning abut 88% or better - some of them inching a bit up from that. That's actually a very high performance level IMHO. I think the key to "Why aren't they even better?" is that it's not about a single chart - it's about a chorus of charts converging and aligning to isolate a peak point.
Where we do
get the numbers you are suggesting - the high end of your range and even a little better - is in this kind of convergence. Consider that each event has one or two
charts applicable to it in each of three categories (solar, lunar, daily): A Year and Quarter chart among the solar ingresses, a Month and Week chart among the lunar ingresses, and the Capsolar set (CapQ & transits) and Cansolar set (CanQ & transits) among the dailies. There is a very sweet result obtained when we ask the question: How many events have at least one solar, one lunar, and one daily supporting the event?
Of 301 events in the current catalogue, 97% have the solar ingresses meet this criterion (either
the Year chart or the Quarter chart is descriptive), 96% have either
the Month or Week chart hit it, and 99% (298 out of 301) have either the Capsolar dailies or Cansolar dailies hit it. The system is more complicated than a single chart or a strict hierarchy of "has to show top to bottom."
Only 92% have one from each column - one solar, one lunar, one daily - although the phrase "only 92%" is kinda silly IMHO, since that's a very high level of predictability. When we only require that two of the three categories show the event, this number naturally goes higher. You may remember that in the earliest editions of SMA
I had an appendix showing just the results from two factors, the most recent non-dormant lunar ingress and the CapQ results, and these two things alone were showing nearly everything quite clearly - they are still the two highest scoring individual techniques. Well, when we ask, "How many of the events have a lunar and a daily showing?" - meaning, either the Month or Week chart AND either the Cap or Can dailies - we get 95%.
It's in the convergence, in the chorus of voices finding a matching theme. One chart alone won't do it.
we have to be on the lookout for that last angular framework if it exists, maybe a different breed of angularity compared to the known angles
Well, there are a few techniques that are proving worthy add-ons, especially the idea - not as angularity, but as aspects - that mundane aspects between the prime vertical and horizon or meridian are valid. These are performing very well. Even with that, I don't know that it will tip the percentages up much, but it might tip it a percent or two. I'm in the middle of a nearly one-year project to address this exact question (i.e., of these supplemental ways of looking).
We also need to be careful, though, not to bloat the system. The charts have to be capable of failing, for example, otherwise it all turns into a bad joke (as do we).
what could we see in meridian longitude if we had it?
Exact orbs of mundane squares between planets on the prime vertical and planets on the horizon. As it is, I can estimate these pretty close (maybe very
close) by interfacing PV amplitude of one with altitude of the other, but that would really be all. We aren't going to get more angularity, because we already have easy ways to calculate planets on the meridian, planets on the horizon, and planets on the prime vertical.
[quote[conjunctions, midpoints, parrallels, angularity contacts?[/quote]
None of those. Only mundane squares between horizon and PV.