We now have all the coordinates available in TM that are needed to assess these aspects. Since we've had Meridian Longitude available, I've been watching various charts, seeing how the geometry works in forming these aspects, and am starting to shift my initially (admittedly artificially) conservative definitions.
Two major issues have caught my attention in this reconsideration.
- I originally said everything - whether on horizon, meridian, or PV - needed to be within 3° (or defined minor angle outside orb) of its "angle." When I didn't have ML available, I didn't know how all the MLs splayed across space (since it's obvious that ML distribution near the PV itself is very different than what we see ecliptically or in moderate-latitude PVL. Now that I can easily see these distributions, I see it's not so crazy away from that space range. I'll make a new recommendation below.
- Because these are experimental, I'm ambivalent about having them replace other aspects. So far, my conservative experimental view has been that if there is any other aspect of the two planets, regardless of orb, don't list a PVP. This is based on the idea that we (currently) only want too see it if it will add new information. (That's how we can assess if it is adding anything.) - An alternate view is that (like mundane aspects now) these should appear if they have a smaller orb. - My request is that they initially appear only if the same two planet have no other displayed aspect (knowing this may, and almost certainly will, change in the future).
