USA Horoscope: Q1 vs. Q2

[Jim Eshelman]

I've said for years that the only striking evidence that leaves me entertaining even the reasonable possibility that the Q1 rate of Secondary Progressions is the USA chart for the deaths of US presidents.

That's based primarily on secondary progressed Moon for these deaths. I've either never done, or can't find, a side-by-side of Q1 vs. Q2. I thought I should at least work this up in this section. (I may have to amend the figures once Mike gets progressions working in TMSA since no existing software QUITE gets secondaries correct - a problem amplified across the two-plus centuries of US history.

The chart for which these have looked good in the past is Lewellyn George's final rectification polish of the Hazelrigg-George chart: July 4, 1776, 12:10:42 PM LAT, 39N56'56", 75W09'00".

[Jim Eshelman]

April 4, 1841, 0:30 AM LMT, Washington, DC

Q1
p Moon 21°18' Gemini co r Sun 12', sq t Su 28'
p EP-a co p Moon < 1°
p MC co t Sun 60'

Q2
p Moon 23°32' Gem sq r Saturn 21'
p Asc sq r Mars 57', op t Uranus 29'
p MC op t Jupiter 01'

Either is acceptable. The lunar progressions are better for the Q2 and the chart would be entirely sound except for the angular Jupiter, which seems out of place.

[Jim Eshelman]

July 9, 1850, 10:35 AM LMT, Washington, DC

Q1
p Moon 11°59' Libra - no aspects
p Asc co r Saturn 18'
p MC co t Sun 37', t Moon 08'
p EP-a op t Saturn < 1°

Q2
14°27' Libra - no aspects
p MC sq. r Venus 43'

The Q1 angles are spectacular and easily wins this one.

[Jim Eshelman]

Death: April 15, 1865, 7:22 AM LMT, Washington, DC

Q1
p Moon 6°57' Taurus - no aspects
p MC op. t Saturn 14'
p EP-a co p Jupiter ~13'

Q2
p Moon 10°26' Taurus - no aspects
p EP-a op t Sun ~29'

As an aside, there was a progressed Venus-Saturn conjunction partile in both versions.

This one is a draw. I briefly thought the Q1 had it nailed with that obvious Saturn angularity, but it has an equally strong Jupiter angularity which, at the least, keeps me from awarding it a win.

[Jim Eshelman]

Shot: July 2, 1881, 9:30 AM, Washington, DC
Died: September 19, 1881, 10:20 PM, Elberon, NJ
Both events mapped for Washington, as an event for the country.

Q1
SHOT:
p Moon 26°57' Scorpio - no aspects
p MC co t Sun 53'

DIED:
p Moon 29°41' Scorpio op r Mars 04'

Q2
SHOT:
p Moon 0°37' Sagittarius sq. r Neptune 11', op. r Mars 60'
p MC sq r Pluto 29'
p EP-a op p Jupiter ~08'

DIED:
p Moon 3°23' Sagittarius - no hard aspects (sextile p Sun-Saturn conjunction)
p MC op r Sun 20'
p EP-a op r Saturn ~1°
p Asc sq r Mercury 14', p Jupiter 14' , op p Saturn 14', op p Sun 64'

As an aside, there is a progressed Sun-Saturn conjunction through all this, partile for both versions; same with p Jupiter conjunct r Mercury.

For the shooting, the Q2 Moon is a solid hit, exactly what's expected. The angles are good except, again, for the Jupiter, which might have to be accepted as a feature of this type of event but in any case is outweighed by thew rest. - The Q1 Moon then gets that Mars hit for the death (but the actual violence was at the shooting), but the Q2 is quite remarkable with the progressed Sun-Saturn conjunction coming right to an angle while natal Saturn and Sun are on different angles.

I'd say the Q2 wins this one, though the Q1 made an OK showing.

[Jim Eshelman]

Shot: September 6, 1901, 4:07 PM EST, Buffalo, NY
Died: September 14, 2:15 AM EST, Buffalo, NY

Q1
SHOT:
p Moon 0°19' Virgo co r Neptune 29', sq r Mars 42'

DIED:
p Moon 0°33' Virgo co r Neptune 15', sq r Mars 58'
p MC co p Moon 18', r Neptune 28', sq r Mars 43'

Q2
SHOT:
p Moon 4°25' Virgo co p Neptune 20'
p Asc op t Mars 38'

DIED:
p Moon 4°38' Virgo co p Neptune 06'
p MC co p Pluto 25', op p Jupiter 33', sq p Saturn 55'
-- p Jupiter-Pluto op. 58'


It's a tie. Q1 has both Mars and Neptune in orb to Moon; Q2 only has Neptune. But for the shooting, the Q2 puts Mars exactly angular for the day. Then for the death, the Q1 brings the Moon-Mars-Neptune right to the angles, while the Q2 the credible (for a political assassination) Jupiter-Pluto opposition and an angular Saturn, with Pluto quote close to MC.,

[Jim Eshelman]

August 2, 1923, 7:35 PM PST, San Francisco, CA (but calculating for Washington)

Q1
p Moon 22°28' Gemini co r Sun 57', sq r Saturn 43'
p MC co t Sun 17', sq t Jupiter 04'

Q2
p Moon 27°51' Gemini sq. t Moon 11'
p Asc sq r Sun 42', op t Saturn 39'
-- t Saturn sq r Sun 03'


It's close. The Q1 has the lunar aspects, the Q2 has the angles - which means it marks the day. Slight advantage to Q2, but either is respectable.

[Jim Eshelman]

April 12, 1945, 3:35 PM CWT, Warm Springs, GA (calculating for Washington)

Q1
p Moon 1°31' Aries sq p Jupiter 15'
p MC co t Mercury 19'

Q2
p Moon 8°12' Aries - no aspects except sextile to p Sun (not yet in orb to p Saturn)


Both are quite disappointing. Q23 Desc almost reaches natal Mars, but not partile (it's within 2°). Neither impresses me but at least I can say that the Q1 is flatly wrong, and therefore the "says nothing" Q2 is better.

What the progressions have to show (essentially the same for both methods) is a progressed Venus-Saturn square.

[Jim Eshelman]

November 22, 1963, 12:30 PM CST, Dallas, TX (calculated for Washington)

Q1
p Moon 0°27' sq r Neptune 21', op r Mars 50'
(This is the progression that Bradley used to predict the event.)
p Asc sq t Neptune 22', co t Saturn 61'

Q2
p Moon 7°16' Sagittarius
p Asc co t Pluto 25'
p MC co r Uranus 17'

Both are quite good, but the Q1 is stellar. The Moon aspects not only bring it home by themselves (and were the basis of Bradley's prediction of the event), but the quotidian angles then capture the rest of the deep tragedy.

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm not going to draw any conclusions from this. It isn't that much data and it's mixed. Nonetheless, I wanted to have it documented here somewhere for reference.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Since you said it here, I hope here is the right place to ask for clarification.

You've built some suspense with your statement, "(I may have to amend the figures once Mike gets progressions working in TMSA since no existing software QUITE gets secondaries correct - a problem amplified across the two-plus centuries of US history."

Do you mean here, secondary progressions in general or specifically relating to the quotidian?

As for regular secondary progressions, they appear to be right (at least) to arc minutes, if one advances the angles/cusps by the true solar arc in right ascension.

[Jim Eshelman]

Do you mean here, secondary progressions in general or specifically relating to the quotidian?

As for regular secondary progressions, they appear to be right (at least) to arc minutes, if one advances the angles/cusps by the true solar arc in right ascension.

I'm speaking of the underlying rate of secondaries in the first place. The "day for a year" formula begs the questions, "What kind of year? What kind of day?"

AFAIK, all existing astrology software calculates secondary progressions as 1 tropical year = 1 mean solar day. (For Q1, it's 1 sidereal day.) I assert that the correct rate for Q2-theory secondaries should be 1 sidereal year = 1 mean solar day. From a program design perspective, matching the astrologer's theoretical model, at the very least it should use the year that matches the zodiac theory of the chart in question.

This accumulates over a lifetime at something close to the rate of precession (easy to work out), but a separate matter - precession also accumulates. This is most visible in the quotidian angles but it affects the whole chart. (What you referred to as the cusps, I think of as primary angles - the actual secondary angles are quotidian: MC advances ~361° in a mean solar day, so progressed MC advances that in a year.)

In any case, TMSA 0.5.x will calculate secondaries on the rate of 1 sidereal year = 1 mean solar day.

[Jim Eshelman]

The length of the year varies in tiny amounts from year to year and throughout the year. For example, the ST between two consecutive Sidereal Solar Returns is about 6h 9m, but from year to year can vary from this by about 10-12 minutes either side.

In terms of rates, though, this remains small. One could always get the exact length of the sidereal year at any point just by calculating the next SSR. Something I've never seen mentioned - which is probably useless information in an age when nobody calculates secondaries by hand from a printed ephemeris - is that in the day=year formula the progressed chart date comes back to your exact birth time (one day later) exactly the moment of your solar return each year. (As I said, useless information in practice but something strangely never mentioned.)

The sidereal year for epoch 2000.0 was 365.256363004 ephemeris days (days measured in ET which, within a second or two, are nearly the same as "clock time"). The tropical year for the same epoch was 365.242190402 ephemeris days. These differ by 0:20:24.5 UT.

Therefore, dealing with averages that seem to vary in only tiny amounts, progressions unfolding one mean solar day conclude 0:20:24.5 days later each year when equated to a sidereal year than when equated to a tropical year. Ignoring, for this purpose, the miniscule difference between ET and UT, and using a rate of 1 mean solar day = 1 sidereal year,

0:20:24.5 UT = 0.0141724537037037 mean solar day
0.0141724537037037 days / 365.256363004 days = 3.880138757103185e-5 (which is the part of "year" the progressions are delayed per year, and thus the part of one mean solar day that the timing of secondaries need to be retarded) = 3.35 seconds/year

This is tiny. It's about the time it takes MC to move 0°01' of arc. However, that means that about age 60, it aggregates to the amount of time it takes an angle to move 60' or 1° of arc. (It's actually at age 72, but the way I just wrote it makes the point more understandably.) During the same time, progressed Moon only moves about 0°02', so one isn't likely to notice (one is more likely to think a 2' difference in progressed Moon's orb isn't a big deal), but it would throw an exact progressed Moon aspect off by about a day. With the progressed angles, though, since the orb is only 1° (or at most 2°), a 1° difference is significant.

[mikestar13]

I am convinced 1 mean solar day = 1 mean sidereal year is the correct rate for Q2. Were we to use the true sidereal year at birth, we should equate it to the apparent solar day, which varies considerably from 24 hours, depending on the season.

[Jim Eshelman]

I am convinced 1 mean solar day = 1 mean sidereal year is the correct rate for Q2. Were we to use the true sidereal year at birth, we should equate it to the apparent solar day, which varies considerably from 24 hours, depending on the season.

There remains, among Siderealists (inherited from the very late Fagan era and never updated in the sense of practical finalization) a question of whether a mean or apparent solar rate should be used for the unfolding of progressions throughout the year. I have no serious question in my mind - it's the mean rate - but (when possible) I can see that TMSA, to be serviceable to the Sidereal Astrology community as a whole, should be able to calculate the SNQ, SQ, and PSSR either way.

At the very least, this gives us the chance to finely determine/prove which is correct. (We dinosaurs are probably 50-509 split on the question, more or less.) More broadly, it makes the program flexible and attractive for more Siderealists, (Since it's especially important to test the PSSR both ways, the basic code would be available.) The math is simple, t Sun RA - last SSR RA (i.e., precessed natal Sun's RA) divided by 360°00'03.5" for the % of the year elapsed (for the SNQ and SQ; or with a multiplier for the PSSR). Perhaps a check box in the progressions options?

(I probably should have put this in a TMSA thread, but it was easy to respond to you directly here.)

[mikestar13]

Will offer both rates by option for Quotadians and PSSRs . I will even offer Q1 either way. The default will be Q2 mean and PSSR mean.