Transits in prime vertical longitude

[Jim Eshelman]

[Another thread raised the question of transits in prime vertical longitude. This is identical to the question of interfacing any two charts by PVL, as in synastry. I'm moving the answer here to start its own thread. After my original answer, I'll spot check a few examples.]

There has been no work done on the question of transits in prime vertical longitude because the math is unsurmountable by almost everyone (it's overwhelmingly labor-intensive for me) and we have no software to do the job for us. Since we haven't done any testing, we don't know whether they work or not.

I can conceive of three different scenarios which, based on pure theory, deserve to be examined. They are dramatically different. If they're all valid, astrological life gets insanely complicated except we would probably usually ignore two of them because they deal with brief minutes-long periods in the course of a single day. We already tend to ignore things like that (e.g., when natal or transiting planets cross angles - the easiest to check - or when mundane aspects by transiting planets are formed and vanish in the course of the day). Let's go through these three scenarios.

The important part of the first two is understanding that PVL positions exist within the mathematical context of a specific space-time intersection - a specific orientation of horizon, meridian, and PVL at a specific point in time. This is easy with a single wheel (a single chart), since the single chart. However, for a second set of planets - such as transits - we have to orient the second set's positions within the horizon-meridian-PVL-time framework of the first wheel. One of the biggest considerations is precession.


SCENARIO 1: Transit positions within a natal framework. The simplest answer to "What do we mean by transits in PVL" is the motion of transiting planets within the framework of a natal chart. This means that the transiting positions have to be precessed back to the natal epoch (with its specific horizon and VP), new equatorial coordinates derived, and then these positioned within the horizon, meridian, and prime vertical of the location and moment of birth. For one moment in time, this is easy by computer and demanding without a computer: Precess the longitude to the earlier date, convert ecliptical to equatorial coordinates, use these equatorial coordinates to calculate prime vertical longitude within the H-M-PV of the birth moment and place. (This is the reverse of what TM does for natal planets in the framework of a return chart.)

It's easy by computer for a snapshot moment in time. However, for something ongoing, like a list of transits for the month, one has to have a tactic. I'm guessing that, in 24 hours, these PVL positions usually will shift about as much as planets shift in longitude, so they can be linearly interpolated. No biggie.

This is the simplest scenario and perhaps what you meant. I should also mention in all of these that there will be significantly different outcomes with natal and local charts, so the number of factors doubles (each has to be addressed separately).


SCENARIO 2: Natal positions within a transit framework. But if Scenario 1 is true and valid, why not the opposite? Our natal planets seem to operate within the transient mundane framework, e.g., within the passing angles. (My natal Venus crossed Nadir just now as the power came back on and I confirmed that everything I had written in this post had been saved.) If that works, then why wouldn't everything else about our natal planets moving about in the shifting current-time mundane framework also apply?

This would mean that the mundane relationships between natal planets would shift constantly during the day, forming and separating from various mundane aspects we might never suspect (much the way that parans of natal planets come to the angles then move away: parans are special case examples of PV aspects). And these continually changing mundane placements and relationships of natal planets would be in ever-shifting PV aspect with the transiting planets, which would go through their own shifts throughout the day. - It's complicated, even if the concept is simple.


SCENARIO 3. Is there a "mundoscope zodiac"? I use the term "mundoscope zodiac" mostly tongue-in-cheek, picking it because geometric design of the mundane sphere is theoretically identical to that of the celestial sphere (just oriented differently, with different equators and poles). What I really mean is: Does the mundoscope framework have persistence in and of itself, independent of any celestial positioning of anything in the chart?

That is: If you have a planet precisely on Midheaven at birth, does every passing planet that rises, culminates, sets, and anticulminates form a mundane conjunction, opposition, and square with it? And the same with any places off the angles? - To get this idea, set the mundoscope of your birth chart side by side with the mundoscope of an event chart.

This one is at least easy to test for specific events. I'll probably do a bit of that before I'm through here.


MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS: Mike Nelson was on his way to overcoming the calculation problems of most of these matters. In fact, he might have already coded the solution. He spoke of finishing specific parts. It's really the same thing Time Matters already does with solunars, where the mundoscope positions of the natal planets are calculated within the local-temporal context of the return chart.

When Mike N and I began to discuss synastry tools, we touched on what is essentially this same problem: Does each person's chart within the framework of another person's chart work mundanely as well as ecliptically? If I put my planets inside my wife's natal time-place prime vertical framework, would we get different aspects that are comparably important to the ecliptical ones? (I have opinions, but no data to back or dispute them.)

Mike's solution was simple: He saw TMSA containing a simple feature whereby any two calculated charts could be melded this way, any one chart viewed within the mundane framework of any other calculated chart. I think he'd already finished this - perhaps not the buttons to call it up etc. The essential method is already there in the solar and lunar return code. It's just a matter of creating a UI that asks for the two charts to merge and (ideally) let's you flip between which is primary and which secondary (which is context and which is content).

Having the calculating tools available to everybody is the real way to resolve these questions.

[Jim Eshelman]

Let's spot-check a couple of events using my chart. These events require very precise timing, so I'll use my wedding, which I know to the second (May 27, 2018, 6:01:44 PM PDT, 33N46'27" 117W00'18") and the few seconds that completely altered the course of my life (for reference, let's call it the Tahuti Event) December 9, 1987, 5:15 PM, Santa Ana, CA.

The theory is to take my natal mundoscope - and, alternately (perhaps preferably) my local chart mundoscope - and place the mundoscope of the event around it. For easier reference, we can use the straight Z-Analogue Prime Vertical feature from Solar Fire which expresses mundoscope position as if they were zodiacal longitudes (6th House = Virgo, etc.) - hence the word "analogue."

For the Tahuti Event, mundoscope-to-mundoscope transits to my natal mundoscope I get only no partile aspects - and the closest aspect, t Saturn to r Moon 1°12', is quite inappropriate. Using my local mundoscope for Santa Ana, I also get no partile aspects.

For my wedding (transiting mundoscope around natal mundoscope for birthplace), I get t Saturn conjunct natal Venus 0°06'. I'm inclined to say doesn't at all, though you could argue otherwise. (I'll it indecisive.) With my local mundoscope for San Jacinto, I get no partile aspects, though a few minutes earlier transiting Sun's mundoscope position crossed my natal (local) Moon.

All in all, these do not encourage me to think that Scenario 3 is valid.

[Jim Eshelman]

Let's next check Scenario 1, which logically seems to be the most likely to be valid if any of these are. This is going to take some work. (First I have to figure out where I put that conversion spreadsheet I haven't used in years.)

For the Tahuti Event, calculating PVLs of transiting planets within the framework of my birthplace natal chart gives the following. (Yes, it was the moment of Uranus exactly crossing my natal IC, which shows clearly.)

Mon H11 14°03 - sq r Mercury H2 14°34'
Sun H3 20°39
Mer H3 12°58
Ven H4 19°06 - sq r Sun H1 19°19'
Mar H2 12°17
Jup H7 21°38
Sat H3 26°23 - sq r Moon H6 26°45'
Ura H3 00°00
Nep H4 11°12
Plu H2 9°47

These aren't bad. Moon-Mercury (flitting) was exact. Venus to Sun might be mood of the time, though I wouldn't have taken it as Venus exactly. Saturn to Moon seems wrong except the ecliptical transit was there anyway so I can't complain. And, of course (mostly outside what I'm looking at here) the main feature was transiting Uranus 0°00' from my IC both ecliptically and mundanely.

Calculating the transiting planets' PVLs inside my local natal for Santa Ana gives the following:

Mon H12 9°36
Sun H4 20°51
Mer H4 13°41
Ven H5 16°18
Mar H3 13°59 - r Mercury H3 14°28' [r Saturn H3 12°51']
Jup H8 22°13
Sat H4 26°27
Ura H4 29°19
Nep H5 9°45
Plu H3 17°52

This is not nearly as good. It might be considered correct because of the rapid flood of information force-downloaded into my brain in seconds, though I'm also keenly aware that I easily could have had an auto accident - and didn't. I'm not convinced.

Switching to the wedding, here are the wedding planet PVLs inside of my birthplace natal:

Mon H6 22°47
Sun H9 8°41
Mer H9 17°00
Ven H8 16°42
Mar H10 11°18
Jup H3 24°07
Sat H4 24°06
Ura H8 5°54
Nep H6 21°20
Plu H4 27°03 - r Mars H4 27°40', r Neptune H1 27°34'

Ecliptically, Pluto was also in partile conjunction with Mars (not Neptune). In either case, I'm not impressed with this.

Here are the wedding planet PVLs inside my local (San Jacinto) natal:

Mon H7 20°43 - r Moon H7 22°16' [too wide, but worth mentioning]
Sun H10 9°45
Mer H10 17°3
Ven H9 18°47
Mar H11 9°17
Jup H4 24°14
Sat H5 21°17
Ura H9 7°15
Nep H7 18°30
Plu H5 23°51 - r Mars H5 22°57'

Same as above.

These aren't impressive to me. They might suggest that other events should be tested (take this study further).

[Jim Eshelman]

This is the weirdest variation. Placing natal planets within the mundane framework of the event chart will, at best, capture things that are flitting - last for only minutes (if they are mundane phenomena distinct from concurrent ecliptical phenomena). If we validate this, I don't know that it will be useful to us. However, if we validate this it will tell us something important about how the universe works, and perhaps we can springboard from that into other knowledge.

Here are my natal planets placed within the chart for the Tahuti Event:

Mon H10 13°42
Sun H5 9°07
Mer H5 24°41
Ven H6 2°42
Mar H7 27°28
Jup H2 4°58
Sat H5 26°56 - t Mars H5 26°28'
Ura H2 4°27
Nep H5 16°59
Plu H3 19°12

Transiting Mars conjunct natal Saturn doesn't fit well, certainly not in isolation. However, it was also there ecliptically - barely - separating 0°54'. At best, it added nothing new. At worst, it more strongly stated something that did not fundamentally define the event.

Here are natal planets placed within the wedding chart mundoscope:

Mon H5 2°27 - t Moon H5 2°13'
Sun H12 0°55 - t Saturn H3 29°58'
Mer H12 28°27
Ven H1 14°08
Mar H3 5°01
Jup H9 8°11
Sat H12 24°18
Ura H9 8°05
Nep H12 10°16
Plu H10 8°45

Mixed. Having the two Moons minutes apart is quite good (ecliptically they were 1°10' apart: the lunar return was a couple of hours in the future). However, t Saturn partile square natal Sun doesn't fit at all.

[Jim Eshelman]

A related concept (I'll tie this all together in the next post) is in synastry: What happens when you place one person's planets in the context of the other's chart and view as a mundoscope. I think it's something we need to be able to test easily so we can draw some solid conclusions about its validity.

Here are my planets placed inside of Marion's chart, with any Class 1 major hard aspects to her natals:

Mon H11 18°56 - her Moon H5 18°47'
Sun H6 7°43 - her Jupiter H12 6°28'
Mer H6 17°22
Ven H6 22°42 - her Venus H12 22°37', Neptune H5 22°52'
Mar H9 2°48
Jup H3 13°06
Sat H6 20°50 - her Venus H12 22°37', Neptune H5 22°52'
Ura H3 12°32
Nep H6 13°36
Plu H5 12°31

The 0°09' on the Moon-Moon opposition is stunning! (Simply being in opposite signs has felt like they are in aspect; this would be even sharper.) My Sun to her Jupiter is closer (though it exists ecliptically). The Venus-Venus 0°05' alignment is startlingly exact. (It confirms my Venus on her Descendant, though with a wider orb than ecliptically.) OTOH my Saturn that close to her Venus-Neptune is not as easy to see: We have two Class 2 Venus-Saturn aspects ecliptically which has seemed solid for securing devotion etc. without being repressive. These orbs are pretty extreme.

BTW, if this technique turns out to be valid, it seems that my planets in her mundane framework - her whole objective universe, so to speak - would mean how I show up in her universe rather than the other way around (or bidirectional). Just a theory.

Here are my planets within her local mundane framework:

Mon H12 25°57 - her Moon H6 27°01'
Sun H7 13°47 - her Jupiter H1 12°12'
Mer H7 27°57
Ven H8 9°27
Mar H11 18°15
Jup H5 21°19
Sat H8 0°57
Ura H5 21°19
Nep H7 20°43
Plu H6 24°29

Notice that my Moon is mundanely within a few degrees of her local Ascendant (though ecliptically it is exact nearly to the minute). The rest is nothing we haven't already seen (softer versions of what the birthplace story was).


Marion's planets in the mundane framework of my natal (birthplace) chart are:

Mon H12 13°15
Sun H9 11°23
Mer H8 23°42
Ven H8 15°46 - my Mercury H2 14°34'
Mar H12 2°22 - my Venus H2 29°32'
Jup H7 14°38
Sat H5 27°40 - my Pluto H11 28°18', Venus H2 29°32'
Ura H12 5°42
Nep H2 15°40 - my Mercury H2 14°34'
Plu H12 9°41

This is a mix - and mostly of aspects that exist (with different orbs) ecliptically. At best, I'm not convinced; at worst, there are some serious misfits.

Her planets in my local chart framework:

Mon H1 10°02
Sun H10 12°17
Mer H9 26°40 - my Venus H3 28°51', my Pluto H12 24°05'
Ven H9 17°54 - my Mercury H3 14°53'
Mar H12 28°15 - my Venus H3 28°41'
Jup H8 14°24
Sat H6 23°24 - my Pluto H12 24°05'
Ura H1 1°42 - my Venus H3 28°51'
Nep H3 17°54 - my Mercury H3 14°53'
Plu H1 7°02

Most of these fit. (Mostly they are also ecliptical aspects, so hard to distinguish.) Her planets on my angles are really obvious this way, though they also are ecliptically.

[Jim Eshelman]

I remain skeptical of the PV aspects this way for synastry, but may have to change my mind on that.

I'm really unimpressed with transits by PVL, but this is so few examples that I may have to change my mind on that, also.

In contrast, we know that natal planets within the framework of solar and lunar returns are decisively active and form some of their most important aspects this way. I would no longer think I was actually getting the meaning of a return chart correct if I left out those mundane aspects.

Why would it be that this works in some situations and not in others? I have a theory. The theory is based on the preliminary conclusions above, so, if any of them turns out to be wrong, I'd probably have to abandon the theory.

The theory is this: For planets to exist mundanely within the framework of another chart, they have to actually be that other chart. Only a given chart's planets can exist meaningfully within its narrow mundane framework.

This would mean that things like transits and other people's nativities do not work this way. They are "outsider" charts. Transits aren't "our" transits - they're just transits.

But, for this theory to be sound, we have to accept that the natal chart is always innately part of the return - that the return chart is a "next stage" of the natal (or, rather, than the natal is a more primitive - ancestral? - part of the return chart.

BTW, this same "line in the sand" may differentiate when planet-angle contacts only exist mundanely and when they only exist ecliptically. (This leaves unaddressed what progressions are and how they work.)

This theory isn't really thought through. Doing that is limited by not having concrete data with which we can test whether all of these other scenarios are actually sound.

[Mike V]

Wow, thank you this. I didn't consider how involved this actually was to calculate. No wonder no one is talking about it!