The East Point and the Equatorial Ascendant?

[Lance]

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.

[Jim Eshelman]

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°.

[Lance]

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

[Jim Eshelman]

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.)

[Lance]

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.

[Arena]

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.

[Jim Eshelman]

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°.

[parsfortuna]

I am sure this is well-covered in other posts, but cannot locate via search.
What are the mathematics to calculate the Z-Analogue Right Ascension of the Eastpoint, vs the Tropical Eastpoint value on Solar Fire Charts?
Typically I see it's roughly a 0-3 degrees difference.
I always use the RA value in the report (actually added a column in the Flexible Points List) of course.
Example image attached (I know those here understand the question anyway, but for graphical reference).
I'm doing some programming with SwissEph and am stuck on getting the correct Eastpoint RA value. Thank you.
https://ibb.co/0rpXRmj

[Jim Eshelman]

RA of MC plus 90 degrees.

[Soft Alpaca]

It depends on the validity of mundane aspects and the valitiy of the D9 charts if I agree or disagree with you on this being a minor angle Jim.

I'd say I see Uranus as libertine - which is exactly the premise of my whole view point on existence, it's why I can crawl in my skin away in the hills when other Sagittarius angular sun individuals may be busy promoting banning light bulbs and drag queens. As they debate the cost toblow up tatchers pass..

Now am I arguing the Orbs, no. I actually think we should tighten orbs on all angles anyway, with Luminaries and possibly Mars having wider ranges.