April 8th US Eclipse

[SteveS]

Jim, when you find the time, will you post the April 8 eclipse map for DC showing the parallel lines of the Sun-Moon-MC bisecting the US longitudinally a little east of Dallas & Houston. I think this map shows a Paran intersection of DSC-Pluto line in Oklahoma with the Sun-Moon-MC line. Thanks.

[Jim Eshelman]

Lol I have no idea what you're talking about. I get thst you want the eclipse chart for DC, I'm not sure what the rest means. (I may not be where I can do this (where I'm on the right computer) until the end of next week)

Or did you mean you want an Astro map? You threw me with the DC?

[SteveS]

Yes, an astro map, or in SF lingo---a Solar Map showing the locational lines of the planets. I am not sure how to properly do this task, but I have seen you do it several times. There is no hurry---end of next week will be fine Jim. I want to test something for the future with this eclipse. Thanks, and have a fun trip.

[Jim Eshelman]

Steve, I think you were asking for the eclipse path on the same map as a general astro-map so you could see other angularities. I don't think you can put both on the same map.

Here's a short map of where the Pluto MC and Jupiter-Uranus rising lines go.

[removed]

Here's the eclipse path through the U.S..

[removed]

Let me know when you're done with thee and I'll take them down.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Steve, I think you were asking for the eclipse path on the same map as a general astro-map so you could see other angularities. I don't think you can put both on the same map.

Yes Jim, these are the kind of astro maps I am interested in discussing about past earthquakes with an eclipse chart set for DC where we could analyze the planetary lines of the eclipse chart going across USA for possible danger zones, thanks! I have never seen any type of astrology except for eclipse path’s shadows possibly indicating danger zones for possible earthquake activity in the world, but this is sketchy?

Never in my life have I seen all kinds of media outlets a-buzz with the April 8 eclipse reading all kinds of dire indications for this eclipse for an earthquake in USA to follow the April 8 eclipse. I am pretty sure I know why this is: It’s because on social media outlets combined a little with mainstream media there is much discussions about two eclipse paths crossing forming an X at a specific location at the same general location in the USA. Not that I believe it is true for a significent earthquake, but I though it may offer interesting discussion if we combined SMA Solar/Moon Ingresses for DC combined with two eclipse paths forming an X in the USA---with the April 8 eclipse completing the X.

For example: On rare occasions, the shadow of two eclipses can cross the same place on the Earth within a period of seven years or less, which if plotted on a map would look like a giant X pattern.
How rare is this?

NASA Goddard programmer Ernest T. Wright mapped the paths of every total solar eclipse for the past 5,000 years, 11,898 of them, and found that for a total solar eclipse to cross the same place twice only happens once every 366 years.

Since 1776, America has had only a few times when the paths of two eclipses crossed each other within a seven year period, forming an X. One account was in the early 1800s. On June 16, 1806, the path of a solar eclipse crossed the entire American continent, passing over an area where the Ohio River and the Mississippi River meet in southern Missouri and Illinois. This area is called the New Madrid fault. Then, less than seven years later, on September 17, 1811, the path of another solar eclipse crossed that same New Madrid spot, making a giant X in the middle of America. Shortly after, that same New Madrid area experienced cataclysmic earthquakes with the ground shifting and geysers shooting water out of the ground. The Mississippi River flowed backwards for a day and earthquake tremors were felt as far away as New York City, Boston, Montreal, and Washington D.C. President James and Dolley Madison felt them in the White House. Shortly after, that same New Madrid area experienced cataclysmic earthquakes with the ground shifting and geysers shooting water out of the ground. Recently, on August 21, 2017, just seven months after President Trump took office, a solar eclipse crossed over the entire United States from west to east, one of only three to do that. The first was in 1806 and the second in 1918. Seven years later another solar eclipse crosses the United States, April 8, 2024. The path of the 2017 eclipse and the 2024 eclipse both cross Carbondale, Illinois. In other words, comparing these two crossing Xs in the USA with the 1806 & 1811 total solar eclipses; and, then with crossing Xs of the 2017 & 2024 total solar eclipses in the USA, we see the Xs in the same general area of the Madrid Fault in the middles of the USA. Please understand everyone---I am not predicting an earthquake to happen with this Madid Fault, only we have a unique repeating X completing itself with the April 8 total solar eclipse path over the middle of USA. It probably is just another one of those strange coincidences, but we just recently had a 4.5 quake in the New York area.

Jim, I know these astro maps eat into your expenses so delete the two you posted. But, since you have experience for reading these type mundo maps with their planetary lines in USA, I sure would appreciate your read on the Sept 17 1811 total solar eclipse set for DC. And then you’re read on the April 8 total solar eclipse planetary lines set for DC for USA. Correct me if I am wrong, but I see with SF Solar Maps for the April 8 total solar eclipse set to DC a Paran intersection of a DSC Pluto line with the Sun-Moon-MC line very close to the Madrid Fault line in southern Oklahoma. Is this correct? Thanks Jim.

[RingsOfSaturn22]

I'm curious about this too, because that red line goes right through my region. (I'm not sure which planet the red line is. Possibly the Pluto MC?)

Ever since Friday night here, the winds have been abnormally strong with lots of gusts up to 55mph. It continued like this for over 24 hours. As of Sunday morning now, they have finally calmed down. But I've learned that whenever the weather gets like this AND it's near a full moon/new moon, not to mention an eclipse, to watch out -- that's when the weather often gets very crazy. Some of the worst storms we've had in this area have been within a day of a new moon!

Also, I'm curious to see Jim's analysis of the earthquake in NJ from Friday. I was present for the last earthquake on the east coast back in 2011. To feel an earthquake on the east coast is bizarre to say the least. Same with tornados too. The weather is getting quite curious now, and if astrology can in any way be used to get a heads up on these types of events, it would be great!

@Steve,

I'm not sure if this is the exact same map that Jim made, but Astro-Seek has an option to making a map under their astrocartography section.

[SteveS]

Thanks Rings for your feedback. I am most interested in Jim’s analysis for the New Madrid, Missouri earthquakes beginning on Dec 16, 1811 with major aftershocks (earthquakes) into early 1812. I think, but not sure the Sept 17 1811 Total Solar Eclipse completed the X in the US near the New Madrid major fault line. When I do a chart for the Sept 17, 1811 Total Solar Eclipse for New Madrid---it calculated stunning/shocking symbolism for this fault line, but I can’t figure out the ringing symbolism for the earthquake happening on Dec 16, 1811 2:00 AM. Here is a link below to the Sept 17, 1811 Eclipse chart for New Madrid, Missouri sitting very near the center of the Madrid fault line:

https://ibb.co/SJMxYYt

When we analyze the ASC of this chart it’s absolutely startling!
Direct Midpoint of Mars/Saturn = ASC (0,53)
Direct Midpoint of Moon/Pluto = ASC (0,54)
Direct Midpoint of Sun/Moon = ASC (0,54)

As we can clearly see the eclipse degree is wired into Mars-Saturn-Pluto with direct midpoints! Plus the fact the way I implement “outstanding incident” aspects with charts, we see an angular ASC Mars partile 90 the eclipse degree! For sure par-excellent symbolism for a significant earthquake! But, what I can’t figure out is: where are the par-excellent symbolism for the first quake happening on Dec 16, 1811??? I have seen Jim do excellent work with planetary lines in the USA when he sets significant SMA charts to DC, he is an expert at reading these type charts, I am not.

Here is an excellent 26 min youtube video about the 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquakes discussed in part by scientists, which few people realize about this significant earthquake fault-zone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB2xAA3u1h0

And now social media is being flooded about the same X marks completed in the same general area of USA with the total solar eclipses Sept 17 1811, and April 8 2024, but, fortunately when we set a chart for the New Madrid, Missouri (major fault zone for potential earthquakes) for the April 8 2024 total solar eclipse, it is nowhere near aspected as severe as the total solar eclipse on Sept 17, 1811 for New Madrid.

[Jim Eshelman]

I am most interested in Jim’s analysis for the New Madrid, Missouri earthquakes beginning on Dec 16, 1811 with major aftershocks (earthquakes) into early 1812.

Please post day, time, and location (epicenter coordinates if possible) in a new thread with nothing else (except maybe a general link describing it such as a Wikipedia link). I'll run a standard breakdown when I return from Arizona late in the week. (We're leaving in a few hours and a lot to do.)

With earthquakes and eclipses, I think it's important to separate gravity-based physical effects from astrological effects. Solar eclipses (and to a slightly lesser extent lunar eclipses) are markers of the strongest tidal effects on Earth from their combined, aligned gravity. Tidal effects operate exactly the same on dry land as on the ocean except it the land that is dragged up and down minutely by rolling waves of force. (Ground and air patterns are both affected.) This isn't just at one time - at the time of the eclipse, but gradually increases (a rising trend with daily waves up and down from that) which peaks at the time of the quake. If the eclipse occurs on the meridian or, especially, the horizon of an area, the effect is quite extreme - not for any astrological reason at all but for purely geophysical reasons.

I made quite a splash in high school when I went around for a week saying, "There will be a big earthquake in California next week, around Tuesday." Then I showed up at school Tuesday) or whatever day of the week it was) and everybody was staring, a few asking me, "How did you know?" The Sylmar quake had occurred that morning. I was a scarry, self-satisfied dude for a few days. But it wasn't astrology (i thought it was, but it wasn't), it was geophysics: I knew there was a solar eclipse over the western states (it wasn't even over SoCal, I think it was overhead in Arizona, but the broad wave effect was quite strong) and that California was very seismic prone.

A few days ago, New Jersey had a 4.7 quake. New Jersey isn't quake prone. Then again, 4.7 isn't a big quake (it's as shaky as a really big truck driving past your house). But it freaked them out and fed a little "end of the world"" hysteria. I'm sure this was just part of the global rising tidal intensity as we approach the eclipse JUST LIKE EVERY YEAR THAT ONE OF THESE HAPPENS. Any little tectonic borders or other vulnerable places in the earth's crust that are about to shift a little anyway receive a tug and shift. (Online I called the New Jersey quake "tectonic flatulence," which drew some giggles and people scampering to figure out how to work that phase into normal conversation.)

[Jim Eshelman]

By the way, in dealing with a solar eclipse, remember that the time of the exact New Moon isn't the time of totality of the eclipse. Which is stronger astrologically? I'm not aware that anyone has ever studied this deeply.

In Solar Fire, if you use the Lunations button, you'll get the exact New Mon Time. For next week's New Moon, this is 2:27 PM PDT. If you use the Eclipses button, you'll get 2:17 PM, ten minutes earlier. That's the time of maximum totality, which is the strongest geophysical moment. These have angles 2-3° apart. At the time of the eclipse's maximum totality, here are Sun and Moon's longitude and RA so you can see it isn't what astrologer's call maximum exact:

Moon 24°17'06" Pisces, 17°44'
Sun 24°19;'13" Pisces, 17°54'

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

If the eclipse occurs on the meridian or, especially, the horizon of an area, the effect is quite extreme - not for any astrological reason at all but for purely geophysical reasons.

Jim, would this also include the other auxiliary angles of an area for geophysical reasons? But what is perplexing to me is as far as I know—most quakes occur after solar eclipses. This makes it appear to me there should be a symbolic astrological reason for a narrower time frame for the quake.
Jim wrote:

I made quite a splash in high school when I went around for a week saying, "There will be a big earthquake in California next week, around Tuesday." Then I showed up at school Tuesday) or whatever day of the week it was) and everybody was staring, a few asking me, "How did you know?" The Sylmar quake had occurred that morning. I was a scarry, self-satisfied dude for a few days. But it wasn't astrology (i thought it was, but it wasn't), it was geophysics: I knew there was a solar eclipse over the western states (it wasn't even over SoCal, I think it was overhead in Arizona, but the broad wave effect was quite strong) and that California was very seismic prone.

Interesting! So, if I understand, when we have a solar eclipse over a seismic area, the % are higher for earthquakes to eventually happen, correct? I never have worked astrologically with solar eclipses because I know most quakes will not occur on the exact day of a solar eclipse. When I started looking at these two X’s formed over the USA by eclipses; one of the X’s by the June 16 1806 eclipse and the Sept 17 1811 eclipse, and the other X over the USA by the Aug 21 2017 eclipse and the April 8 2024 eclipse, I could clearly see why social media is in somewhat of a frenzy----these two X’s are completed by the Sept 17 1811 eclipse and now the April 8 eclipse with Aug 21 2017 eclipse--very close to the New Madrid Fault line in the middle of the USA.

Jim, check me on this: When I take the Sept 17 1811 eclipse and locate it to DC using the time of the New Moon for DC, and then use Solar Maps to get the planetary lines---I see between the Mars & Saturn lines is exactly where most of the seismic activity was for the New Madrid quakes in 1811 & 1812. But this is only for one case. Jim, now check me on this one: When I take the time of the New Moon for the April 8 2024 eclipse and put it on the Solar Maps using DC as the location---I see the Sun-Moon-MC meridian line coming right over the New Madrid fault line with a DSC-Pluto line intersecting (a Paran intersection) very close to the New Madrid fault. This proves nothing unless we see another strong seismic activity following this April 8 2024 eclipse with the New Madrid fault.
Jim wrote:
By the way, in dealing with a solar eclipse, remember that the time of the exact New Moon isn't the time of totality of the eclipse. Which is stronger astrologically? I'm not aware that anyone has ever studied this deeply.
Jim, there is only one astrologer who I know who could possibly correlate anything with this, and that is you. But a-lot of work.

This link: https://nationaleclipse.wordpress.com/2 ... ven-years/ offers a birds-eye view of X marks the spot in USA.

[Jim Eshelman]

Steve, I won't be near a computer where I can check any of this or did any serious astrological calculation till the end of the week. Answering as best I can off my phone, the geophysical or tidal effect only is emphasized at the horizon and meridian, where it has a maximized pull on the geographic location. Also, in the sentence where you emphasize the word eventually, I would say no, that's the wrong line of thought. Speaking purely of the geophysical or title effect, this is going to occur either essentially at or very near the eclipse, or, for lesser quakes like the one this week in new jersey, it would occur close in time, as part of the rising or fading tidal peak. I have seen several quakes occur as a new moon a full moon is rising or setting, especially if it happened to be an eclipse. Of course, as you say, most wuakes don't occur in these conditions. There are more causes than the immediate tides.

[SteveS]

Got Jim, thanks.

[Jim Eshelman]

I just corrected several typos and wrong words n the post above. It was done by voice dictation while on the road. In reading it this morning I realized I got several words wrong. Sorry about that.

[SteveS]

Jim, have you had good experieces with your voice dictations for posting?

[Jim Eshelman]

Mostly, yes, but you have to proofread

[Arena]

Do you have any kind of interesting news for us? Do you see anything of great importance happening?

What I've seen in astrological terms about solar eclipses is that things can take time to come out or develop.
They say you need to check out how the solar eclipse chart falls on your natal chart to see how it will affect you. Since the eclipse was in the US, and it's election year, I just checked for the presidential candidates in the USA to see if there is anything significant.

Biden;
Solar eclipse MC falls close to his POF and Mars and squared by r. Pluto.
The Sun-Moon is square his r. Jupiter.

Trump;
The solar eclipse chart for his shows that the ASC and POF falls onto his EP and the solar eclipse MC for DC falls in his 10th or MC sign. His Pluto also squares that MC. The eclipse itself, the Sun-Moon conjunction and the nodes are opposing his Jupiter.

RFK jr.;
His birth time is not known, but it seems like there might be some kind of surprise for him as his r. Uranus is partile square that solar eclipse. His Nnode-Ven-Sun-Mer stellium is a wider square to the eclipse and his Mars falls close to the eclipse chart IC like Biden's Mars does.

PS. Since I noticed that the eclipse path was right on Little Rock, Arkansas - I checked the Clintons as well and it looks like the solar eclipse might be significant for Hillary Clinton's chart.

[SteveS]

The main issue I want to investigate with this eclipse Arena is possible earthquakes in the New Madrid, Missouri area where the very dangerous Madrid fault is located. On Sept 17 1811 another eclipse passed over the same area as the April 8 2014 eclipse did and there was an historical quake on the Madid fault Dec 16 1811 which some scientists claim was the most severe quake on the quake scale in the history of USA. I am trying to compare SMA & Eclipse charts to understand better if there were/are clear markers for the possibility of another quake happening on this Madrid fault area in 2024. Trying to learn new astrological things pertaining quakes.

[SteveS]

I am not a Social Media type person except I do entertain myself with Premium YouTube videos of my favorite old-time music (Rock & Roll), dance videos (I loved dancing in my youth), certain scenes to my old-time favorite movies, current YouTube pod casts to subjects which interest my mind.

A couple of weeks ago my Sister-In-Law started messaging me since she knows astrology is a passion of mine about the April 8 USA Total Eclipse. She is addicted to Twitter and started seeing a lot of chatter about the April 8 Eclipse associated with an earthquake with the New Madrid fault zone in the middle of the USA (long story). She asked me could the astrology I practice foretell an earthquake in the USA in the New Madrid fault zone. I told her I knew of no reliable astrology which could with high % predict when an earthquake associated with an Eclipse Shadow in a Nation could predict an earthquake, but I would give the matter some thought and get back to her. The first thing I told her is most earthquakes do not happen on the day of an eclipse but can happen weeks/months later with certain transits to the Eclipse degree. I told her I would look into this earthquake matter and tell her my best guess when/if an earthquake may occur on the New Madrid fault zone in the middle of the USA.

I have great faith in the methods of Sidereal Mundane Astrology (SMA) locating SMA charts to Washington, DC, or to a given location (city) for analysis with Jim’s SMA teachings, but please understand I am not saying Jim endorses my analysis here with a possible USA earthquake, and I am certainly not predicting an earthquake to strike the USA.

Anyway, I took the New Moon April 8 Eclipse chart and located it to DC and then took a look at the planetary lines of the April 8 Eclipse across the USA for analysis. This is the standard procedure we do for SMA charts, particularly the Master Chart of the Year—the Capsolar. We are trying to get an idea where possible danger/malefic lines across the USA exist for possible manifestations. I have seen Jim do some excellent locational work with locational planetary lines with native’s and mundane charts. Below is the April 8 New Moon Chart for DC (link) with the planetary lines, it’s somewhat interesting when we zero in on the New Madrid fault zone.

https://ibb.co/x8Rrt98

Note the New Moon degree of this April 8 eclipse with the MC runs very close to the New Madrid fault zone in the middle of USA, look at Kansas City, Mo on the above link to Solar Maps:

New Madrid fault zone: https://www.jacksongov.org/Government/D ... ake-Threat

But what I find more interesting is the DSC/Pluto line on the above Solar Map intersects the Eclipse MC degree lines on the border of Oklahoma and Arkansas. This calculates a DSC- Pluto- Sun- Moon- MC Paran location in the USA, a rare Paran locational occurrence for a Nation. In traditional astrology many think Pluto has much to do with earthquakes, but I have never seen any astrological statistical analysis for this. However, Pluto is symbolically associated with hidden underground forces. So, we have this glaring Paran involving Pluto located within the Madrid fault zone for possible earthquakes. And finally, I note on Memorial Weekend this May—transiting Mars conjuncts the April 8 Eclipse degree. I have seen astrological studies where Mars transiting the Eclipse degree soon after an Eclipse produces action (Mars), but this certainly does not mean this action will be an Earthquake. My sister-in law wanted my astrological analysis for the possibility of a USA earthquake associated with the Madrid fault zone---so this is my analysis—but I still think there is a very low % for an Earthquake in the middle of the USA.

[RingsOfSaturn22]

Anyway, I took the New Moon April 8 Eclipse chart and located it to DC and then took a look at the planetary lines of the April 8 Eclipse across the USA for analysis. This is the standard procedure we do for SMA charts, particularly the Master Chart of the Year—the Capsolar. We are trying to get an idea where possible danger/malefic lines across the USA exist for possible manifestations. I have seen Jim do some excellent locational work with locational planetary lines with native’s and mundane charts. Below is the April 8 New Moon Chart for DC (link) with the planetary lines, it’s somewhat interesting when we zero in on the New Madrid fault zone.

https://ibb.co/x8Rrt98

Note the New Moon degree of this April 8 eclipse with the MC runs very close to the New Madrid fault zone in the middle of USA, look at Kansas City, Mo on the above link to Solar Maps:

Just to be clear, what is the precise time that you are using for this?

The actual maximum for the eclipse would have been April 8, 2024 2:17:12 PM Eastern Time. But the local maximum point in DC, based on what I'm seeing, would be 3:20:40PM. Is this the value you are using, or is it another time?

[Jim Eshelman]

The actual maximum for the eclipse would have been April 8, 2024 2:17:12 PM Eastern Time. But the local maximum point in DC, based on what I'm seeing, would be 3:20:40PM. Is this the value you are using, or is it another time?

How are you calculating the DC maximum?

Thinking this through, the main reason for using maximum totality is that total solar eclipses release a sudden burst electrical discharge through the whole Earth atmosphere at that moment. That's the main (perhaps not only) reason I can see for using totality (which I prefer) rather than the ecliptical conjunction peak. But this totality moment wouldn't differ for different locations.

All that aside, I'm also curious how you are calculating a DC maximum in any case (which was only an 80-90% totality). At 2:17 PM EDT, luminaries were 0°02' apart ecliptically and 0°07' apart mundanely in DC. At 3:20:40 PM, they were 0°35' apart ecliptically and 0°38' mundanely, much farther apart. In both cases, they are too high in the sky (roughly the 9th cusp) for parallax to be a nontrivial amount. By any angle of looking at them, they seem much farther apart at the later time than the earlier time (0°36' / 0°38' is more than the visual diameters of Sun and Moon).

[RingsOfSaturn22]

The actual maximum for the eclipse would have been April 8, 2024 2:17:12 PM Eastern Time. But the local maximum point in DC, based on what I'm seeing, would be 3:20:40PM. Is this the value you are using, or is it another time?

How are you calculating the DC maximum?

All that aside, I'm also curious how you are calculating a DC maximum in any case (which was only an 80-90% totality). At 2:17 PM EDT, luminaries were 0°02' apart ecliptically and 0°07' apart mundanely in DC. At 3:20:40 PM, they were 0°35' apart ecliptically and 0°38' mundanely, much farther apart. In both cases, they are too high in the sky (roughly the 9th cusp) for parallax to be a nontrivial amount. By any angle of looking at them, they seem much farther apart at the later time than the earlier time (0°36' / 0°38' is more than the visual diameters of Sun and Moon).

In JHora, there is an option specifically for eclipses. You can choose to see the start, maximum, and end times as a global phenomenon (I'm assuming when the true eclipse occurs as if you're at the center of the earth), or as a local phenomenon for a specific location.

For my location in Omaha, the global maximum was 1:17PM Central Time. I was in the 83% totality zone, but the moon was barely over the sun at that time -- only maybe around 20% covering. 1:55PM was the local maximum time for me, and that indeed matched up with when the moon covered the sun the most for my area. (And I was watching the entire time from the start of the eclipse around 10:50PM or so.) For my friends and relatives on the east coast, the time around 3:20PM Eastern Time matches up with when they said they saw the maximum for their area.

How exactly these numbers are derived, I don't know. How do they factor in the angle of the nodes? I assume whatever the method, it's the same way they derive the path of the eclipse. Even on the news as they showed the path of the eclipse, the time that each area would see the maximum differed. I think it was a span of more than an hour as it was seen from west to east across the US (if you take out time zone differences). The chart towards the bottom of this CBS article has some of the local maximum times. The local maximum time I saw for Mazatlán, Mexico was around 11:07AM Pacific Time, which would have been 10 minutes before the actual maximum of the global eclipse. So the span of this for everyone in visible areas was more than an hour.

If you have any insight into these calculations, I would love to know!

As a side note, when the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction happened in 2020, I was watching the skies each night in anticipation of it. The day that they were supposed to be at maximum conjunction ecliptically as well as their closest point mundanely, I was watching, and was somewhat disappointed at still how far apart the two bodies seemed. It would not be what I would think of as a "conjunction" in my mind. I would say they were in the vicinity of each other, but not "conjunct". This is what led me to asking a lot of the questions regarding astronomy calculations vs. what one actually sees, especially in regards to what the ancients would have seen in the skies and how they would have judged and measured such things.

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm baffled how these numbers appear since, even with parallax considered, it doesn't produce this result.

Nonetheless, astrology doesn't work from the surface of the Earth nor by visual appearance. That's been established in numerous ways, among the most important of which are solunar returns and luminary ingresses. Everything I've ever seen in astrology is consistent with it operating from center points, e.g., we don't count the diameters of celestial bodies, we take the point that is their mathematical center; and after trying all sorts of exceptions, it still comes back to Earth's center being the point of measurement.

Regarding the Jupiter-Saturn example, what you were looking for is sometimes called "3-D aspects" or "True Body aspects." When I first heard this idea, I thought that just maybe it would turn out to be more accurate. It's hard to judge, though, because most of the planets are close to the same latitude zone - there isn't usually a great difference between ecliptical and "3-D" aspects. - Ah, but the exception to that is Pluto, especially when near its wider latitudes. So I took a few days and started comparing close Pluto hard aspects ecliptic vs. "3-D." It seemed very, very clear that when there was a "3-D" Pluto aspect and no ecliptical one, the aspect didn't fit; and when there was an ecliptical one and not a "3-D" one, it quite dramatically fit. (Fortunately Pluto aspects are quite dramatic.)

So the idea of an aspect measured by a great circle passing through both points (as a "closest path") isn't a valid aspect. As thought before, it seems astrological aspects work in reference to normalized planes. I have only been able to confirm that these work along the ecliptic and the prime vertical, the two circles that seem to be the basis of everything we do in astrology. (There is something that looks like squares in RA that are valid, but perhaps these aren't actually aspects but, rather, the simultaneous angularity on MC-IC and EP-WP axes of two bodies. There are also more complicated mathematical connections formed by the mutual perpendicularity of meridian, horizon, and PV to each other; but that probably goes beyond the idea of aspects as such.)

Of course, eclipses are all about "3-D" aspects, but with distances so small - just a few minutes of latitude at most - that this fact is almost incidental. And we don't know empirically whether the ecliptical aspect or moment of totality is more important, though I lean in practice on it being the moment of totality. (Maybe it isn't.)

So... back to what is probably the practical question... I don't know how the numbers you cited can be (though I'm not saying they're untrue) and I wish I knew. It does, seem, though, that they presume a location on Earth's surface, rather than a point of view from Earth's center "looking out through" a point on Earth's surface. If that's true, then I question whether they are important.

Mundane astrologers have (with rare exception) historically used the time of ecliptical conjunction or opposition for eclipses, treating them the same as any other syzygies. One of the things we don't know is whether that's the right idea. (Maybe it is.)

[RingsOfSaturn22]

I'm baffled how these numbers appear since, even with parallax considered, it doesn't produce this result.

I just realized the chart on that CBS article came from NASA. After digging around on their site a bit, I came across this article regarding calculations:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/re ... circT.html

I don't quite understand it (yet). I feel like I need a good diagram to go with what they are describing. Maybe you're able to make more sense of it than I can?

Nonetheless, astrology doesn't work from the surface of the Earth nor by visual appearance. That's been established in numerous ways, among the most important of which are solunar returns and luminary ingresses. Everything I've ever seen in astrology is consistent with it operating from center points, e.g., we don't count the diameters of celestial bodies, we take the point that is their mathematical center; and after trying all sorts of exceptions, it still comes back to Earth's center being the point of measurement.

That's actually a rather clever way of testing it. It's good to know!

Regarding the Jupiter-Saturn example, what you were looking for is sometimes called "3-D aspects" or "True Body aspects." When I first heard this idea, I thought that just maybe it would turn out to be more accurate. It's hard to judge, though, because most of the planets are close to the same latitude zone - there isn't usually a great difference between ecliptical and "3-D" aspects. - Ah, but the exception to that is Pluto, especially when near its wider latitudes. So I took a few days and started comparing close Pluto hard aspects ecliptic vs. "3-D." It seemed very, very clear that when there was a "3-D" Pluto aspect and no ecliptical one, the aspect didn't fit; and when there was an ecliptical one and not a "3-D" one, it quite dramatically fit. (Fortunately Pluto aspects are quite dramatic.)

So the idea of an aspect measured by a great circle passing through both points (as a "closest path") isn't a valid aspect. As thought before, it seems astrological aspects work in reference to normalized planes. I have only been able to confirm that these work along the ecliptic and the prime vertical, the two circles that seem to be the basis of everything we do in astrology. (There is something that looks like squares in RA that are valid, but perhaps these aren't actually aspects but, rather, the simultaneous angularity on MC-IC and EP-WP axes of two bodies. There are also more complicated mathematical connections formed by the mutual perpendicularity of meridian, horizon, and PV to each other; but that probably goes beyond the idea of aspects as such.)

This is rather helpful. Have you written more on this anywhere else?

Also, why then do I sometimes see you refer to a planet being in partile conjunction in mundo with the horizon even though it isn't ecliptically?

So... back to what is probably the practical question... I don't know how the numbers you cited can be (though I'm not saying they're untrue) and I wish I knew. It does, seem, though, that they presume a location on Earth's surface, rather than a point of view from Earth's center "looking out through" a point on Earth's surface. If that's true, then I question whether they are important.

Mundane astrologers have (with rare exception) historically used the time of ecliptical conjunction or opposition for eclipses, treating them the same as any other syzygies. One of the things we don't know is whether that's the right idea. (Maybe it is.)

For the geological effect that you mentioned earlier in this thread, might local 3D aspects have a greater effect than the astrological conjunctions?

This leads me to a new question. Based on the MC for the moon and sun in Steve's map, it seems that the time must be somewhere between 2:17PM (Eastern Time) and 2:27PM in order to be that close to Kansas City. Yet, the line for Pluto conjunct the descendant doesn't seem to add up for any locations along the path outlined. Is Solar Fire calculating these descendant lines in some different way than just an ecliptic conjunction with the ascendant/descendant?

[Jim Eshelman]

Regarding the Jupiter-Saturn example, what you were looking for is sometimes called "3-D aspects" or "True Body aspects." When I first heard this idea, I thought that just maybe it would turn out to be more accurate. It's hard to judge, though, because most of the planets are close to the same latitude zone - there isn't usually a great difference between ecliptical and "3-D" aspects. - Ah, but the exception to that is Pluto, especially when near its wider latitudes. So I took a few days and started comparing close Pluto hard aspects ecliptic vs. "3-D." It seemed very, very clear that when there was a "3-D" Pluto aspect and no ecliptical one, the aspect didn't fit; and when there was an ecliptical one and not a "3-D" one, it quite dramatically fit. (Fortunately Pluto aspects are quite dramatic.)

So the idea of an aspect measured by a great circle passing through both points (as a "closest path") isn't a valid aspect. As thought before, it seems astrological aspects work in reference to normalized planes. I have only been able to confirm that these work along the ecliptic and the prime vertical, the two circles that seem to be the basis of everything we do in astrology. (There is something that looks like squares in RA that are valid, but perhaps these aren't actually aspects but, rather, the simultaneous angularity on MC-IC and EP-WP axes of two bodies. There are also more complicated mathematical connections formed by the mutual perpendicularity of meridian, horizon, and PV to each other; but that probably goes beyond the idea of aspects as such.)

This is rather helpful. Have you written more on this anywhere else?

Only about that same amount. Wasn't much else to say: "Here's what it is, I tested it with Pluto, stuff doesn't work that way." There's just about that much information in the Big Book I'm working on.

Also, why then do I sometimes see you refer to a planet being in partile conjunction in mundo with the horizon even though it isn't ecliptically?

Prime vertical hard aspects are equally valid. That detail was mentioned over half a century ago by both Fagan and Bradley and has become completely obvious over the last decade first in Sidereal ingresses (where it is easiest to test), then in lunar returns, and finally became impossible to ignore natally.

What I never realized until I started pulling everything together in an orderly way in the Big Book - never sorted out, saw how simple it is - is that of all the little scraps of "this works, that doesn't work" etc. we'd confirmed one scrap at a time, they all boiled down to a ridiculously simple theory: Astrology works (in most ways interchangeably) through two great circles. One, the ecliptic, is celestial and independent of mundane considerations. The other, the prime vertical, is mundane and independent of celestial considerations.

The ecliptic and PV reference frames have identically structured mathematical forms. Both use the celestial sphere with a spherical coordinate system, one based on the ecliptic as it's "equator" (with north and south ecliptic poles) and the other with the localized PV as its "equator" (with the horizon's north point and south point as it's poles). In both cases, the "equator" (base circle: ecliptic or PV) is divided into 12 equal segments which divides the sphere into 12 equal areas (in case called signs and in the other houses, presuming of course (for the sake of this discussion) that houses exist. Aspects along both exist. The mathematical structures are always, invariably, exactly the same design, perfectly the same except for their orientation.

They have differences. One difference is that only conjunctions, oppositions, and squares appear operative in the mundane (PV) framework. We don't know the "why" (there are a lot of "why" questions for which we don't have answers), though it probably has something to do with the underlying nature of each framework: Philosophers have long linked the number 4 to material structure, and this "how you exteriorize into the mundane, material, sensory world" may only attune to ideas like this linked to the number 4 (they seem to). Similarly, there isn't anything quite like the angles in the ecliptical framework, although the Rim 0° points have a peak significance as ingress points for Sun and Moon (which other zodiacal 0° points). Again, nothing close to certainty on the "why" except that there is a common idea of "maximum exterior" both in how angles work and the idea of the Rim signs (Hub, Spoke, then Rim - moving from the center outward to the circumference - is the recurring pattern around the zodiac, and the "strength" of the angles is probably more along the lines of "manifestation" - my favorite word expression beginning with ex-, emphasizing an outward movement. These may be the same thing, but one working celestially and the other mundanely).

By "our celestial part" I would mean what we are innately, independent of context, i.e., what is true about your chart (and about you) no matter where you are on Earth. It is zodiacal only. It has sign placements and ecliptical aspects. These refer especially to character, and who the being is that is described by the horoscope. "Our mundane part" is all context - something that changes dynamically as we move about - something formed by the three interlocking, mutually perpendicular great circles of meridian, horizon, and prime vertical that are always about us. This framework has no zodiac to it and is indifferent to ecliptical aspects. It shows angularity and cadency, division into houses (presuming those exist), and mundane aspects, all things that historically have been viewed with interfacing with the environment and things called "events."

Sorry, I get carried away sometimes. Did I answer that question?

For the geological effect that you mentioned earlier in this thread, might local 3D aspects have a greater effect than the astrological conjunctions?

Looking at them side-by-side, the 3-D aspects (in the absence of a matching ecliptical or PV aspect) simply don't show, i.e., don't exist. I don't think they have any effect at all.

Based on the MC for the moon and sun in Steve's map, it seems that the time must be somewhere between 2:17PM (Eastern Time) and 2:27PM in order to be that close to Kansas City. Yet, the line for Pluto conjunct the descendant doesn't seem to add up for any locations along the path outlined.

I don't know which map you mean (don't have them in front of me) but the 2:17 PM EDT chart (maximum totality) has a Pluto setting line running from just west of New Orleans northwest across Arkansas, the plains states, and nipping a corner of Montana. The Sun-Moon culminating lines are barely inside the eastern border of Texas running due north-south. These intersect in western Arkansas, a bit east of Fort Smith. They continue on, diverging from there, but still pretty close in western Missouri, e.g., if I'd stayed in Kansas City I'd have experienced the eclipse with Moon 0°40' before MC, Sun 0°51' before MC, and Pluto 1°33' past Descendant. Is that relating to your question?

Is Solar Fire calculating these descendant lines in some different way than just an ecliptic conjunction with the ascendant/descendant?

Oh, I see. Yes, absolutely. We don't measure angularity by ecliptical conjunction with horizon and meridian but, rather, mundanely. This is the line where Pluto is actually setting. - BTW, that goes back to the point I made in long-winded passing above, that the celestial and mundane frameworks are independent. Mundane placement (the framework in which the angles exist) is independent of the zodiac (just as the zodiac has nothing to do per se with angles).

[Jim Eshelman]

[Here is an excerpt from the Big Book in progress. It includes, at the end, the one paragraph I wrote about 3-D aspects. The rest is all setup (or, rather, exists for its own purposes.]

Spherical Coordinates
We speak commonly of planet positions measured along the ecliptic even though most planets are almost never exactly on the ecliptic. Except for Sun, all planets have celestial latitude north or south of the ecliptic. To understand how aspects work (and much else in later chapters), you need to understand spherical coordinates.

You are likely already familiar with one system of spherical coordinates: the geographic longitude and latitude grid on a world globe.

Celestial longitude and latitude are celestial (sky) coordinates based on the ecliptic. They resemble what you already know of geographic longitude and latitude on Earth. Though celestial and geographic longitude-latitude do not line up with each other, both measure locations the same way (one in the sky and the other on Earth).

We measure both celestial and geographic longitude around a center circle. We call this circle the EQUATOR in geography and the ECLIPTIC for celestial coordinates.

For example, O’Hare International Airport in Chica-go is at 87°54' West longitude, while the Greenwich Royal Observatory near London is at 0°00' West longitude. Their separation in geographic longitude (87°54') is about one-fourth of a circle (90°). (If you can, follow this explanation using a globe.)

However, Chicago is not one-fourth of the way around the world from London. By direct flight, O’Hare is only 3,957 miles from Greenwich, about 15% of Earth’s circumference.

Neither Chicago nor London is on the equator. O’Hare’s latitude is 41°59' N.; Greenwich is 51°29' N. That is, O’Hare is 41°59' due north of a point on the equator 87°54' around the circle from the equatorial spot due south of Greenwich. These equator locations are 6,080 miles apart (about one-fourth of Earth’s circumference), much further apart than O’Hare and Greenwich are from each other. (Track this on the globe.)

To measure the equatorial distance, we project the geographic locations of O’Hare and the Greenwich Observatory onto the equator. This means that, instead of using the airport and observatory actual spots on Earth, we use the points on the equator that have the same geographic longitude. The angular distance between these equatorial locations is 87°54'.

Here is a second example that looks more complicated at first: Los Angeles centers on longitude 118°15' West. Sydney, Australia is 151°12' East. These longitudes are measured in opposite directions (one west, one east) from the 0°00' Greenwich longitude. If we add them (118°15' + 151°13'), we find that (travelling east) Sydney is 269°28' in longitude from Los Angeles. However, going the shorter route west (subtract 269°28' from 360°), the distance is 90°32'. The difference in longitude from Los Angeles to Sydney is about the same as that from London to Chicago. But in latitude, Los Angeles is 34°03' North and Sydney 33°52' South. Adding these gives a latitude difference of 67°55', nearly twice that between Chicago and London. Sydney and Los Angeles are 7,497 miles apart, about twice the distance between the first two cities; yet their differences in longitude are nearly identical. If these cities were planets in a horoscope, we would say that Greenwich closely squares Chicago and Los Angeles closely squares Sydney.

What matters in astrology for aspects is not the actual distance between two planets but, rather, the separation of their positions projected onto the measuring circle (in this case, the ecliptic).

At my wife’s birth, Pluto was 15°20' Leo and Moon 15°59' Leo, their longitude difference being 0°39'. However, her Moon is 3°53' north of the ecliptic (Moon has 3°53' N. celestial latitude) and her Pluto 13°36' north of the ecliptic. Much as if these were two cities at the same geographic longitude, but one 3°53' north of the equator and the other 13°36' north, if we measure directly between the bodies, we find her Moon and Pluto are not 0°39' apart. They are 9°44' apart!

In astrology, this added distance in latitude does not matter. It is the difference in longitude that matters.

Aspects measured between the actual positions of two planets (instead of between their longitudes) are sometimes called 3D or true body aspects. After experimenting with these (especially using aspects of Pluto, which can be far north or south of the ecliptic), I concluded that true body aspects are not an astrologically valid way to measure the distance between two planets.

[SteveS]

Rings asked:

Just to be clear, what is the precise time that you are using for this?

Rings, here is how I calculated the April 8 Eclipse chart I used for the planetary lines chart I posted using Solar Maps in Solar Fire.
1: I simply used Washington DC as the location for the April 8 New Moon, since DC is the Capital of the Nation. This gave me a time of 2:20:36 PM EDT. (I don’t know if this is the proper way of doing this specifically for Eclipses).
2: Then I go into Solar Maps with Solarfire and choose the USA Nation only for an astro Map for the New Moon time for DC. And look closely at the planetary lines generated over the USA. Like I said, I have seen Jim do very impressive work doing this method with Sidereal Mundane Astrology Ingresses. But I have never seen any type work like this done with an Eclipse Shadow crossing a Nation with the Nation’s Capital, so, this is actually a first time experiment. Here again is the Solar Map (astro map of the New Moon April 8 Chart for DC:

https://ibb.co/NWCpXkT

I was somewhat impressed with this Map because it showed the Eclipse Degree with the MC falling over and very near the Madrid fault zone, but really no big deal, just interesting. But then I noticed a Pluto-DSC line intersecting the Eclipse Degree-MC line over/close to the Madrid Fault zone. This is a Paran location, a rare occurrence! But again, really means nothing unless a major Pluto event happens near this Paran location in the USA. The only study I have seen with Eclipses which has impressed me was when Mars transits the Eclipse degree before the next Eclipse, which in this case happens Memorial weekend. Does this mean an earthquake will happen in the Madrid fault zone? Of course not!! It’s only an experiment because the DC New Moon chart for the April 8 Eclipse correlated an important Pluto Paran location in the USA very close to the Madrid fault line. I hope this answers your question about the timed chart I used for this analysis.

[RingsOfSaturn22]

Sorry, I get carried away sometimes. Did I answer that question?

Feel free to get carried away anytime. Your explanation was great and clarified a lot. Thank you.

I do have a question, though. With all the different coordinate systems out there, I sometimes get a little confused as to what exactly is the difference between all of them at times. Ecliptic coordinates, celestial coordinates, and terrestrial coordinates I feel like I understand, but the others throw me off a bit. Just to make sure I'm understanding prime vertical correctly, would that be equivalent to the azimuthal coordinate system for a particular location on earth, with the great circle that goes through the east point, zenith, and west point as one axis (based on Bob Makransky's explanation), and then the local horizon serving as the other axis? Or rather, is it prime vertical behaving as the equator, and the local north and south point behaving as the "poles"? How exactly does the meridian fit in with this? It is just one particular "longitude" along this prime vertical equator? Or can it form its own unique coordinate system along the azimuthal grid?

If we took the meridian as our "equator", then would that make the east and west points the poles? Is this a coordinate system that is in use?

Does the prime vertical system then fail at the north and south pole since the entire horizon would be the east/west point, and every "longitude" along it would also be equal to a meridian?

Is Solar Fire calculating these descendant lines in some different way than just an ecliptic conjunction with the ascendant/descendant?

Oh, I see. Yes, absolutely. We don't measure angularity by ecliptical conjunction with horizon and meridian but, rather, mundanely. This is the line where Pluto is actually setting. - BTW, that goes back to the point I made in long-winded passing above, that the celestial and mundane frameworks are independent. Mundane placement (the framework in which the angles exist) is independent of the zodiac (just as the zodiac has nothing to do per se with angles).

This is exactly what I needed to know. Thank you. So everything on that map is based on MUNDANE calculations, not celestial calculations. I've also seen types of maps where people try to fix signs to certain regions. I think that's why I was getting confused.

Is there an estimated time of completion for the big book?

[RingsOfSaturn22]

Rings, here is how I calculated the April 8 Eclipse chart I used for the planetary lines chart I posted using Solar Maps in Solar Fire.
1: I simply used Washington DC as the location for the April 8 New Moon, since DC is the Capital of the Nation. This gave me a time of 2:20:36 PM EDT. (I don’t know if this is the proper way of doing this specifically for Eclipses).
2: Then I go into Solar Maps with Solarfire and choose the USA Nation only for an astro Map for the New Moon time for DC.

Ok, now I see where the confusion came in. So you were using the new moon time rather than the maximum eclipse time. Earlier in the thread, Jim mentioned the new moon time was 2:27PM.

In Solar Fire, if you use the Lunations button, you'll get the exact New Mon Time. For next week's New Moon, this is 2:27 PM PDT. If you use the Eclipses button, you'll get 2:17 PM, ten minutes earlier. That's the time of maximum totality, which is the strongest geophysical moment. These have angles 2-3° apart. At the time of the eclipse's maximum totality, here are Sun and Moon's longitude and RA so you can see it isn't what astrologer's call maximum exact:

Moon 24°17'06" Pisces, 17°44'
Sun 24°19;'13" Pisces, 17°54'

That's why I was doubly confused. Between that and now understanding how solar fire calculates the ascendant/descendant lines on the map, all is clear now.

[Jim Eshelman]

Just to make sure I'm understanding prime vertical correctly, would that be equivalent to the azimuthal coordinate system for a particular location on earth, with the great circle that goes through the east point, zenith, and west point as one axis... and then the local horizon serving as the other axis?

You're unnecessarily mixing things.

The azimuth system is measured along the horizon. (The horizon is it's "equator," with zenith and nadir as its poles.) This is at right angles to the prime vertical.

The prime vertical, as you seem to know, passes through the east and west points of the horizon and through the zenith and nadir. Visualize this circle: The entire circle is at right angles to the circle of the horizon. - Similarly, both are at right angles to a third great circle, that of the meridian (which passes through zenith and nadir and through the horizon's south and north points). These three interlocking mutually perpendicular great circles form the three-dimensional mundane framework within which we all live.

Or rather, is it prime vertical behaving as the equator, and the local north and south point behaving as the "poles"?

Yes, exactly.

How exactly does the meridian fit in with this? It is just one particular "longitude" along this prime vertical equator? Or can it form its own unique coordinate system along the azimuthal grid?

This is too much to answer here. There are long posts in the Angularity forum going through this and I've written thousands of words building it up from scratch in the forthcoming book. As mentioned above, the three great circles are all mutually perpendicular. Each of the three measures the relationships of planets on the other two.

Yes, the meridian is "just one particular longitude" (so to speak) along the PV. For that matter, so is the horizon. (The horizon and meridian are exactly square each other measured along the prime vertical.) What we use as a standard horoscope wheel is a 2-D version of the celestial circle viewed with the horizon's north point at its center so that, in a flattened 2-D sense, the prime vertical is the outside circle, the meridian is the vertical axis, and the horizon is the horizontal axis.

If we took the meridian as our "equator", then would that make the east and west points the poles? Is this a coordinate system that is in use?

PV longitude is measurement along the prime vertical circle. (It's what's shown in the mundoscope.) Azimuth is measurement around the circle of the horizon. There is a third local coordinate framework that astronomers don't use, so I had to make up a name for it: I call it meridian longitude. It is simply position measured around the circle of the meridian (which has EP and WP as its poles).

Does the prime vertical system then fail at the north and south pole since the entire horizon would be the east/west point, and every "longitude" along it would also be equal to a meridian?

Yes, you cannot identify the prime vertical unless the zenith is distinct from the celestial north and south poles. However, this is more of a theoretical question than a practical one, since at the minutest fraction of a second of arc away from those two non-dimensional spots, you have a unique zenith.

This is exactly what I needed to know. Thank you. So everything on that map is based on MUNDANE calculations, not celestial calculations.

I probably just need to answer "yes" - but there is a caveat.

Everything on the horizon and meridian (Asc-Dsc and MC-IC lines) is measured mundanely. Major angles are great circles - the entire circle is the angle. However, minor angles are points - the spots where the horizon and meridian intersect the PV. Therefore, minor angles (Z, N, EP, WP) can be represented in celestial (ecliptical) longitude. Their longitudes, in fact, are precise ecliptical squares to the longitudes usually shown for Asc and MC. Therefore, when we adjust the astromap to show squares to the angles, these are taken ecliptically.

Is there an estimated time of completion for the big book?

Three-year project for its three volumes. Volume I is 80% written and is taking about two of those years overall. - You've been here long enough that you have access to the hidden "Comprehensive Sidereal Astrology" forum with current drafts of chapters. This is for your own private use and to allow you to give feedback, not for distribution in any form.

[RingsOfSaturn22]

Ok, I think I see the confusion now. It's regarding these different systems that are based in the local framework that have certain points in common.

I always have to make lots of diagrams and charts for myself to keep these concepts clear. But before I do that, I just want to make sure I'm saying everything correctly.

For each of these spherical coordinate systems, we have an "equator", a north and a south pole that are 90º from it, and great circles of longitude that run through the poles and 2 points on the equator that are 180º from each other.

In the equatorial system, the celestial equator serves as the "equator"; the celestial north and south pole serve as the poles; the great circles that serve as longitude we call "right ascension"; the latitude lines north and south of the equator that do not form great circles we call "declination".

In the ecliptic system, the ecliptic serves as the "equator"; the ecliptic north and south pole serve as the poles; the great circles that serve as longitude we call "(ecliptic) longitude"; the latitude lines are "(ecliptic) latitude".

In the azimuth system, the local horizon serves as the "equator"; the zenith and nadir serve as the "poles"; the circles that serve as longitude we call "azimuth"; and the latitude we call "altitude"

In the prime vertical system, the prime vertical through the east point, zenith, west point, and nadir serves as the "equator"; the (local) north point and south point serve as the poles; the longitude lines would be prime vertical longitude?; the latitude lines would be prime vertical latitude?

In the meridian system, the meridian going through the north point, south point, zenith and nadir would serve as the "equator"; the (local) east and west point would serve as the "poles"; the longitude lines would be "meridian longitude"; the latitude lines would be "meridian latitude", going up or down closer towards the east point.

What really confused me is that in the azimuth system, prime vertical system, and possibly "meridian" system, they all have 3 circles in common: the horizon, prime vertical, and the meridian. But what each of those circles represents in each system was eluding me. I always associated the azimuth system with the rise and set times of stars (and thus, the mundane grid) because that's what I always utilized when I wanted to observe specific stars or planets. Maybe that's why I got it mixed up with the angles.

If I have stated anything incorrectly here, let me know. Otherwise, I can go ahead and make my diagrams/charts.

[Jim Eshelman]

...I just want to make sure I'm saying everything correctly.

For each of these spherical coordinate systems, we have an "equator", a north and a south pole that are 90º from it, and great circles of longitude that run through the poles and 2 points on the equator that are 180º from each other.

This is all correct (though I'm unclear what relevance the equator has to the whole thing: you might, for example, have mentioned the ecliptic or that they each are intersected at opposing points by each of the other two circles).

In the prime vertical system, the prime vertical through the east point, zenith, west point, and nadir serves as the "equator"; the (local) north point and south point serve as the poles; the longitude lines would be prime vertical longitude?; the latitude lines would be prime vertical latitude?

In the PV system, the "latitude" lines are called PV amplitude. Other than this, you had all the details exactly right.

In the meridian system, the meridian going through the north point, south point, zenith and nadir would serve as the "equator"; the (local) east and west point would serve as the "poles"; the longitude lines would be "meridian longitude"; the latitude lines would be "meridian latitude", going up or down closer towards the east point.

I think the word "local" isn't needed because the three rings are all local coordinates. On meridian longitude, I've never felt the need to give the "latitude" lines a name, but "meridian latitude" certainly catches the idea (small circles on the celestial sphere parallel to the meridian).

What really confused me is that in the azimuth system, prime vertical system, and possibly "meridian" system, they all have 3 circles in common: the horizon, prime vertical, and the meridian. But what each of those circles represents in each system was eluding me. I always associated the azimuth system with the rise and set times of stars (and thus, the mundane grid) because that's what I always utilized when I wanted to observe specific stars or planets. Maybe that's why I got it mixed up with the angles.

Altitude (from the altazimuth system) reaches 0°00' exactly when PV longitude distance from horizon reaches 0°00'. In that sense they are showing the same thing and, yes, astronomers definitely use altitude for this purpose.

Our purposes are different, though.

Yes, all three are interlocked. It's difficult (not impossible) to define any of them without the other two. We all sit, walk, etc. every moment of our lives within a figurative sphere formed by these three interlocking circles.

Each circle has the other two form a cross (X) on it demarcating quarters. Each of the framework for measuring angular relationships between the other two.

A horoscope wheel is based on the circle of the prime vertical. On this circle, the horizon and meridian make a cross (and are always exactly square each other). They cross the PV at the zenith and nadir (meridian) and east and west points (horizon).

On the circle of the horizon, the prime vertical and meridian make a cross (and are always exactly square each other). They cross the horizon at the south and north points (meridian) and east and west points (prime vertical).

On the circle of the meridian, the prime vertical and horizon make a cross (and are always exactly square each other). They cross the meridian at the south and north points (horizon) and zenith and nadir (prime vertical).

Zenith and Nadir: intersect PV and meridian, serve as poles of horizon
Eastpoint and Westpoint: intersect PV and horizon, serve as poles of meridian
Southpoint and Northpoint: intersect horizon and meridian, serve as poles of prime vertical

[Jim Eshelman]

Here is an excerpt from the book in progress. Hopefully this will fill in the gaps. (Hopefully, since it's what the book relies on to get these important points across!)

A Visualized Model of the Angle System

We now must cover one of the most technical, albeit fundamental, matters in astrology. I defer most technical and mathematical topics to the Intermediate and Expert sections. This one, though, is so important that it falls in the realm of information everyone studying and practicing astrology needs to know and understand.

However, we need not approach it entirely as a technical (let alone mathematical) matter. We can explain the model visually and concep-tually. Because mathematical descriptions are readily available in libraries and online, I want to introduce this model solely through visualization.

My goal is for you to be able to imagine with understanding (anywhere, at any time) the three-dimensional framework of an astrological chart. I want this visualized model burned into your cells, becoming second nature to you. Benefits for the current study are substantial.

Our angularity model is three-dimensional. You can infer it looking at a two-dimensional horoscope wheel if you know how to look. To really understand it, though, you need to visualize a simple 3-D construct. In what follows, please make sure to visually imagine everything I describe. Do not simply read it or treat it as an intellectual abstraction. I have three suggestions for how to do this:

1. Physically stand, facing south, and build the construct I describe in your imagination. Your ability to do this plus the construct you build will serve you well.
2. Take a small Styrofoam ball and wrap three rubber bands around it to create a physical object like the sphere I describe (or take any small ball and draw on it).
3. As I write this, virtual reality is not yet so generally available and developed to be practical for most people. Surely it will be within a few years. The construct I will ask you to imagine could be crafted in VR.

The celestial sphere, so far as it relates to your local (mundane) place on Earth, is a sphere of infinite size with three mutually perpendicular circles called the horizon, meridian, and prime vertical. “Mutually perpendicular” means each circle is 90° from the other two.

I will describe them in visual terms. When you have visualized (imagined) them, you will have a single, simple image-construct always available that unlocks the angles system. (Because I am avoiding excessive math, I will let a few imprecisions slide.)

Think of the horizon as resembling the equator on an Earth globe. If you are using a physical ball, mark with a rubber band or draw an equator-like circle around the middle of the ball. This circle is approximately what you would see if you were standing at your spot on Earth with level ground in every direction and no buildings, trees, or other objects – a completely empty, level field where you can stare about in every direction at the surrounding circle of the horizon.

Imagine this.

Next, build the meridian. Start with the zenith, the point directly overhead: Standing, facing south, observe a point directly above your head. As the horizon resembles Earth’s equator, the zenith is its North Pole. (It is the north pole of the horizon.)

Imagine a vertical axis dropping from straight above you (zenith), through you, through the center of Earth, and out the other side: Where it comes out the other side is the nadir. (If you are marking a physical ball, put dots for the “north pole” and “south pole” – the “direct above” zenith and “direct below” nadir.)

Imagine all this.

Now visualize a circle passing through the zenith, curving down in front of you to due south on the horizon. It passes below the horizon, under the Earth, through the nadir, and then comes up behind you, crossing the horizon due north, curving back up to the zenith. (We call the points where it crosses the horizon due south and north the southpoint and northpoint of the horizon, respectively.) This great circle – which includes the zenith, southpoint, nadir, and northpoint – is called the meridian. (Add a rubber band or draw the circle connecting these dots on your ball.)

Notice (in your imagination, or standing facing south, or looking at your ball) that the circle of the meridian and the circle of the horizon are at right angles to each other, much like Earth’s equator and any circle of geographic longitude. Notice also that the horizon and meridian intersect in two places, the southpoint and northpoint.

Having established the horizon and meridian, next formulate the prime vertical. This is now easy: The prime vertical also passes through the zenith and nadir, but rotated 90° from the meridian, rising due east and setting due west. That is, the circle of the prime vertical crosses the horizon due east at the eastpoint, passes through the zenith, crosses the horizon due west at the westpoint, flows under Earth through the nadir, and comes back up to com-plete the circle at the horizon’s most eastern point.

Add a third rubber band or draw the third circle on your ball. The three circles now all will be at right angles to each other, though in different planes, with horizon square prime vertical in one direction, meridian square PV in another direction, and horizon square meridian in a third direction.

See this! (Do not just take my word for it.) If you have a physical prop, look at this three-circle mutually perpendicular structure on your prop. Especially, see it in your imagination. Practice until you can stand facing south, raise your arms to your sides left and right, and immediately see in imagination the circles of the horizon, meridian, and prime vertical about you, each at right angles to the others.

See clearly the horizon and meridian intersecting at the northpoint and southpoint, PV and meridian at the zenith and nadir, and PV and horizon at the eastpoint and westpoint.

[RingsOfSaturn22]

Thank you. You've clarified a lot. I will also check out the hidden forum that you mentioned.

This is all correct (though I'm unclear what relevance the equator has to the whole thing: you might, for example, have mentioned the ecliptic or that they each are intersected at opposing points by each of the other two circles).

I just said "equator" because I couldn't remember the proper technical terms, and that was the term you used earlier, so I stuck with it.

Not referring to your explanation in your last post, but the way that these concepts are typically explained in astronomy and mathematical texts does not make sense to me. In the sense that INTELLECTUALLY, it makes sense to me -- I know how to manipulate the numbers to yield a certain result. But what those numbers and concepts are really reflective of in the real world would often elude me. My goal for the past several years has been to understand the background mathematics and concepts of astronomy/astrology before really delving into the predictive side. So I've been regularly going outside, both during the day and night, looking up into the sky, and just simply watching and observing. Watching what the moon actually looks like during its different phases; how its rise and set times vary; how it changes color and size; the direction it rises/sets in; where the sun rises/sets; what things look like at twilight vs. dawn/dusk vs. midday vs. midnight; how the sun, moon, and planets arc in the sky; how the stars arc in the sky; how the stars around the pole behave; how comets move in the sky; how all of this relates to the seasons and angle of shadows; etc. This is the only way I feel I can have a real relationship with all of this information. Just reading about it in a book or seeing it in a chart, at least for me, creates an intellectual understanding, but not a true, in depth understanding. Once I have something concrete that I have experienced in my own world and know how it works, then I can attempt to relate it to all the mathematical and astronomical ideas. And sometimes, that's where they lose me a bit. So, I have to go and come up with my own explanations to have things make sense in a way that is relatable to my everyday world. And that's part of what you were witnessing in the post above -- me kind of clarifying things and relating things out loud for myself. (I'm also trying to do the same to get a sense of the "astrological energy" of each planet, but that is proving to be a bit more difficult!)

It's funny, though, the way the universe was described in ancient texts is more relatable to me than the modern explanations. For example, the idea of a celestial sphere that the stars are attached to and rotates everyday is FAR easier for me to grasp than the idea of the earth spinning like that everyday. For the same reason, it's also why I think of the sun as moving rather than the earth moving around the sun.

Anyway, thanks again, Jim, for your explanation above.

[Venus_Daily]

Since it was in Pisces, it seemed to reflect mass hysteria in otherwise normal people. So many people thought the world was going to end. I even heard about so many stories relating to how people killed themselves and their families in dramatic fashion.

[SteveS]

I wrote:

And finally, I note on Memorial Weekend this May—transiting Mars conjuncts the April 8 Eclipse degree. I have seen astrological studies where Mars transiting the Eclipse degree soon after an Eclipse produces action (Mars), but this certainly does not mean this action will be an Earthquake.

OK, this has happened and I think the manifestation of this Mars transit exactly timed the deadly tornado outbreak over the Memorial Holiday weekend near and on this US April eclipse path, particularly in Texas where the US eclipse path began.

[Jim Eshelman]

...Except the same terrible weather conditions including DAILY tornadoes across this middle of the country, has been going on for weeks. There was nothing special about the Memorial Day Weekend series of storms - pretty much the same as any time within the last (what has it been now?) two or three weeks.

[SteveS]

Not by the reports I got from 3 family members who have lived in texas for over 40 years. They said the news reported the tornado's in texas caused more power outages ever and widespred damage reports were still coming in which may become the worst damages ever in Texas by a tornado outbreak. I am only reporting what I hear from my family members. Maybe Lance can chime in what he is hearing or seeing with the reported news. But, no big deal to me---maybe all just a coincidence with this April 8 eclipse.

[Jim Eshelman]

Interesting. We arrived in Houston just after that and nobody has been talking about it so far. I didn't see anything in the news that sounded very different from everything else.

We're having lunch with Lance today, I'll try to remember to ask him.

This page has too much data to be useful on a quick scan and I don't have time to recompile it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... n_May_2024

There are more items listed on Sunday than most days - quite a few - and almost none on Saturday. There have been no EF5 storms in May and the only two EF4 storms were on the 3rd and the 21st. There have been 15 EF3 storms, and five of these occurred on Sunday.

[SteveS]

I will try to find confirming info online. If I am not mistaken I think the tornados/storms caused over 750,000 power outages in Texas---exactly where I don't know. Give Lance my regards.

[SteveS]

Strong storms with damaging winds and baseball-sized hail pummeled Texas on Tuesday, leaving one person dead and about 1 million businesses and homes without power as much of the U.S. recovered from severe weather, including tornadoes, that killed at least 24 people during the Memorial Day holiday weekend.
Around Houston, cars crawled through flooded highways and more than 300,000 customers were without power in the area,
Destructive storms over the weekend caused deaths in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia.
'I've been in Texas most of my life and this is one of the worst storms I've ever seen,' said tornado survivor…
Texas Gov. Greg Abbot issued disaster emergencies across four counties.
65 tornadoes were reported on the ground over the Midwest excluding the storms in Texas…

But, the media these days have tendency to over hype things-- so Jim--you may be right--just a coincidence all of these storms happened with Mars transiting the April 8 eclipse degree covering most of the areas near or on the April 8 eclipse path.

[Jim Eshelman]

The baseball-sized (and often softball-sized) hail has been reported through Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe Iowa for weeks. In fact, I rarely get add-on rental car insurance but, this time, I made sure we did because I was concerned that the car simply sitting outside - if such hail hit - the car could be totaled due to no fault of ours. After I did that (perhaps to make me feel better about it), the agent showed me a car that came back last week: It's roof was a mass of softball-sized dents, one of which was nearly through the roof.

So that part is "old news." I've been watching it more closely since we were coming here. Two weeks ago, Houston (no stranger to hurricanes) had winds as strong as a weak hurricane that blew out windows in Houston office buildings and took power down for a while. There have been a LOT of wide-area power outages (though I do seem to recall that the numbers from last weekend were higher).

You're right about the news: Not enough people have been dying so the focus is about power outages. There have been a lot of these in recent weeks through this part of the country, and they probably make the more dramatic news. Texas' power grid is notoriously frail, and it's been showing. If I were a foreign power wanting to sabotage things this year, I'd focus on taking down Texas' power grid just before the election.

No hint of flooded highways or any such aftermath when we arrived in Houston a day or so later, so it must have receded fast if there was car-floating flooding. You mention 300,000 customers without power, last week there was a day when the number was 600,000. Yes, it has been widespread all week.

[RingsOfSaturn22]

I will try to find confirming info online. If I am not mistaken I think the tornados/storms caused over 750,000 power outages in Texas---exactly where I don't know. Give Lance my regards.

For that particular one, it's mostly in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. But that was from the storm Tuesday morning. From talking with a friend there, he said he doesn't remember seeing a storm this bad there in a long time. He said it reminds him of Oklahoma type weather. They're not expected to get power back until Friday!

The one that affected Houston significantly was from the 17th. I don't remember the number of power outages with that particular storm, but definitely had friends who were affected by it.

[SteveS]

My three family members in Tx are probably over reacting and telling me of the horror weather because months ago we were discussing the eclipse paths coming-up through Texas. I told them Texas may get clobbered with something violent when Mars transits the eclipse point on Memorial Holiday weekend--but they are not astrologers. They probably think that eclipse path in Texas is causing more severe weather than normal.