Question About Progressions

[mikestar13]

Primaries, secondaries, tertiaries, minor progressions, Q1, Q2, PSSR..., not to mention the converse versions of all of the above. All of them come down to a ratio based on the specific progression, for example 0.0027378030919862 for Q2 ( day for a year) or 0.0366009950851544 for tertiaries (day for a month).

So in all cases (when using mean rather than apparent progressions), multiply the elapsed time from the chart to be progressed to the time in question by the applicable ratio and add to the radix time, then cast a chart. So if I want NQ for my upcoming birthday, I will be checking the ephemeris for 6/2/1957, 62 days after my birth.

Jim has written about understanding transits as "day for a day" progressions (ratio 1.0).

Now that computers have made it feasible to investigate them, has anyone investigated progressions with ratios greater than 1.0? This would have the progressed planets moving faster than transits. These are probably too fleeting to be of practical use, but is there a good theoretical objection to them, given that progression are valid, for which there is good evidence. They might be of some use in finely tuned timing.

For example (analyzing a hypothetical event after the fact) let's say I experience an event typically associated with transiting Saturn being on an angle at that moment, but Saturn is nowhere near an angle and there is no satisfactory substitute symbolism (moon rising in Capricorn...). Might it be that a Saturn "fast progression" has become exact at the moment in question?

[Jim Eshelman]

In theory, there is no reason ratios of cycles couldn't go in that direction. To be absurd for a moment, one could have a year of symbolic time for every day of "real time" just as much as the opposite. However, no, I haven't done any looking at this.

If I were to experiment with something within normal theoretical bounds (though this might be too low on the scale of ratios to matter much_ I might try one synodic month for every sidereal month: on average, 29.530587981 of progressed time for 27.321661 "real time," or a ratio of 1.0808489271937.

But first, for the practical problem you mentioned, you might want to experiment with converse progressions. (Same rate as those you're used to, but a day backwards for every year forward.) Bradley and Firebrace both did a fair bit of work with this, as well as several respected Tropicalists (IIRC Ronald Davison and Alexander Marr). They've held up well enough to take them seriously (including - or, I might say especially - converse transits).

[mikestar13]

That's about what I thought. But another absurd thought comes to mind. Let's say if your extreme example of "year for a day" were validated, it might help investigate slow moving points. For example Sedna, whose sidereal year is ~12,000 earth years takes ~32 years to progress around the zodiac at the year for a day rate. Now let a "fast secondary" progression of the US birthchart SVP tickle your imagination.