The Midequator +

[BlueKnight22]

The Midequator is the celestial longitude of the points where the celestial equator intersects the meridian (the 10th and 4th cusps of the Morinus house system).
The East Point and West Point are the points where the celestial equator intersects the prime vertical.

Where are the points where the celestial equator intersects the horizon? And how can you calculate them in both longitude and right ascension?

In Solar Fire, if you look at the right ascension of the ascendant, is this the right ascension of the horizon intersecting the equator or is it the right ascension of the horizon intersecting the ecliptic?

This is all kind of confusing to me but I am very interested in learning more about it all.

Thanks in advance.

[Jim Eshelman]

The equator intersects the horizon at EP and WP: horizon, prime vertical, and equator all intersect at EP and WP. Their longitude is 90 degrees from MC in longitude. Their RA is 90 degrees from MC in RA.

SF RA of Asc is RA of the horizon's intersection with the ecliptic. RA of Asc is an astrologically meaningless measurement because there is nothing there.

BTW I did a check of the ME using thousands of charts that had high precision contacts to known-valid angles (ingresses and their quotidians for worst of their kind disasters) and found ME hits were only statistical noise. They couldn't be substantiated. This forced me to revise my model of how angles are formed, which had predicted ME would be valid. It wasn't.

[BlueKnight22]

I feel like I am understanding the "pieces" of all of the major angles and points, but it would be great to have a visual of the entire thing put together. I can only find parts of it on the internet.

One additional question I have is that in Solar Fire, under Reports, the Right Ascension of the Equatorial Ascendant and the Midheaven are always 90 degrees apart, which makes sense, but the Equatorial Ascendant does not have a declination of 0 which makes me think that what is being calculated here is a Longitudinal calculation that is then converted to Right Ascension. And if so, would this Right Ascension value be the same as the Right Ascension of the true East Point (which lies on the plane of the equator and thus has a Declination of 0)?

Does my question make sense?

Like I said, without a visual, this is difficult to understand, as is the distinction (in Longitude) of the Equatorial Ascendant vs the Square to the Midheaven.

[Jim Eshelman]

I feel like I am understanding the "pieces" of all of the major angles and points, but it would be great to have a visual of the entire thing put together. I can only find parts of it on the internet.

I don't do pictures. I'm a word guy. I do my best to get people to visualize it in their minds and carry it with them. There are threads where I describe this in great detail.

One additional question I have is that in Solar Fire, under Reports, the Right Ascension of the Equatorial Ascendant and the Midheaven are always 90 degrees apart, which makes sense, but the Equatorial Ascendant does not have a declination of 0 which makes me think that what is being calculated here is a Longitudinal calculation that is then converted to Right Ascension.

No, it's the other way around; but I understand why you think that.

What's being calculated is the longitude on the ecliptic (zero degrees latitude) that is 90° from MC in RA. In a sense the declination is meaningless (and in TMSA, in a version coming soon, the EP-a won't have declination shown - for that reason). The thing to get is that it isn't a real point. It's a pointer that you have to check out in RA. What's valid is the planet being 90° from meridian in RA. We only put the EP-a in the chart at all to infer that you better look at a planet near it to see if that planet is within close orb of the RA contact. It's longitude is meaningless (except by accident, as when Sun or a planet with 0° latitude is conjunct it).

And if so, would this Right Ascension value be the same as the Right Ascension of the true East Point (which lies on the plane of the equator and thus has a Declination of 0)?

It IS the true Eastpoint.

I have to conclude that you haven't read my long threads laying out the entire angle system. Did I possibly fail to refer you to them? If so, let me know and I'll provide links. IIRC there are two main long threads that lay out the entire schema.

Like I said, without a visual, this is difficult to understand, as is the distinction (in Longitude) of the Equatorial Ascendant vs the Square to the Midheaven.

Ah, this may simplify that confusing thing: There IS no square to the Midheaven. Angles make no aspects. None. Every seeming valid aspect to an angle is actually a conjunction with another angle - such as points 90° in longitude from MC not being important because they are aspects to MC but because they are the actual celestial longitudes of the Eastpoint and Westpoint.

[Jim Eshelman]

I recommend these threads:

Reflections & Inquiries on Angularity
Digging around in what I consider the remaining puzzles on the subject. But this also is the fullest visualization description of the entire scheme in one place.
https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5508

Astrological Structures - the post on Angles (Mundane Framework)
https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php? ... 772#p11305

Why some "angles" and not others?
Probably of interest to you as a follow-on,
https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4079

And, finally, some language updating...
Rebranding EP & WP?
https://www.solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4659