The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Q&A and discussion on Angularity.
Post Reply
Lance
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 10:49 am
Gender:

The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Post by Lance » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:17 am

I'm having a hard time understanding the "Equatorial Ascendant" in Solar Fire.

I know it's different from the East Point, which is 90° from the Midheaven.

I know the East Point is a valid minor angle. Is the EQ *another* similar, valid one? And isn't there something to the affect that these need to be read elliptically instead of mundanely? Could someone help me clear this up?

If I'm not mistaken, these minor angles have orbs of 2°. Is that correct?

Thank you.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9266
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:31 am

Lance wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:17 am
I'm having a hard time understanding the "Equatorial Ascendant" in Solar Fire.

I know it's different from the East Point, which is 90° from the Midheaven.

"Equatorial Ascendant: (I term I despise) is exactly the same as what is usually called Eastpoint. The EP added to a chart (historically as an E with a circle around it, but SF doesn't allow that graphic option) is the longitude of the point square MC in right ascension. It has no intrinsic value at all, except that it is a place-marker to alert you that a planet may be square MC in RA, so you can check the RA directly.

You are also correct that the point on the ecliptic that is (ecliptically) square MC is the longitude of EP. (In practice, it's less confusing to most people to call it "the square to MC.") Note the wording difference: The first (above) is the longitude of a planet with zero latitude that is 90° from MC along the equator. The second is the longitude 90° from MC.

In both cases, we are addressing the point where the horizon, prime vertical, and celestial equator all intersect, due east on the horizon. The difference is that in the latter case a great circle passes through that point at right angles to the ecliptic, passing through the ecliptic's north and south poles. In the former case, though, a great circle crosses the ecliptic while passing through that point at right angles to the celestial equator, passing through the equator's north and south poles.

FWIW the equatorial way of measuring this (the point historically called EP and bastardized as "Equatorial Ascendant") seems stronger and more important. I can statistically demonstrate its validity out to 3° orb (in RA), though it spikes much stronger within 2°. The ecliptical square to MC I can only statistically demonstrate valid to 1° orb and, empirically, to 2°.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Lance
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 10:49 am
Gender:

Re: The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Post by Lance » Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:40 am

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, there are, in practice, two minor angles there, both ways of measuring the East Point: The Ecliptical East Point, "The [ecliptical] square to the MC;" and the RA East Point, the so-called "EQ".

So I have the following chart. I see the "EQ," so now in Solar Fire, I need to run what? - A "Z-Analogue Right Ascension" chart to check the correct position and orbs?

But I can also just look at this chart ecliptically, and see the Square to the MC at 27°01' Sagittarius.

If I do the above, then in the "Z-Analogue RA" chart, Saturn is on the RA East Point ("EQ") 1°14'.

And Pluto is on the Ecliptical East Point ("square to the MC") at 0°09'.

Would this be correct?

Ecliptical then Z-Analogue RA

Image

Image

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9266
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:06 pm

You've basically got it right, and I can make it easier. (You don't need to to the RA analogue chart.)

There are three close angularities in this chart.

Venus sets, 0°37' below Dsc. (I measured this in prime vertical longitude.)

Pluto squares MC 0°09' in longitude. This is technically an ecliptical conjunction with EP.

Saturn is 1°14' from EP (i.e., square MC in RA). The fastest way to get this is hit the Reports button when you have the chart open and see Saturn RA 289°08', EP RA 290°22' (the "Rt. Asc." column of the basic report.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Lance
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 10:49 am
Gender:

Re: The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Post by Lance » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:47 pm

Yes... that was a potential SSR relocation almost gone horribly awry. We have since settled on putting Jupiter on the angle instead, with none of the lurking ominous.

Thanks for the help in understanding that.

User avatar
Arena
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1062
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:24 pm

Re: The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Post by Arena » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:46 pm

Lance, this is not a minor angle - but rather a major angle.
You can also see it clearly by casting the charts with EP on 1st. SF has this setting within the house system when you cast a chart.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9266
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

Post by Jim Eshelman » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:09 pm

Arena wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:46 pm
Lance, this is not a minor angle - but rather a major angle.
You can also see it clearly by casting the charts with EP on 1st. SF has this setting within the house system when you cast a chart.
Or you can get the same effect (and a better representation of the RA-dependent structure) by picking the Meridian house system.

But I disagree on it being a minor angle. By "minor angle" we don't necessarily mean anything about its strength but about the width of its orb base. Horizon and meridian have orbs potent within 3° and fully present within 10° along the prime vertical. EP/WP have orbs no further than 3°, with acute potency generally within 1°.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest