Angularity Calculation in Astrology Software

[sidus_illuminans]

Could someone help me understand some discrepancies I am seeing when trying to calculate planetary angularities? Time Matter's calculated PVL seems to be different than the angles I am seeing in other astrology software.
For example, in my natal chart created by Time Matters I see that my Saturn's PVL is 91° 7', which I understand to be Saturn conjunct IC, or simply 1°07' off the IC angle. When I create the same Natal Chart in Janus 6.1, Saturn is 0°15'23" off the the IC. In LUNA I am seeing the same numbers as in Janus for Saturn on the angle. I first noticed this when trying to compare Time Matters calculations with SSRs created in Janus and LUNA. All planet to planet aspects are consistent with Time Matters, just the planet to angles are consistently in disagreement. Am I missing something, perhaps I am not using the correct settings in Janus and LUNA for generating proper angle placement?

[Jim Eshelman]

For example, in my natal chart created by Time Matters I see that my Saturn's PVL is 91° 7', which I understand to be Saturn conjunct IC, or simply 1°07' off the IC angle. When I create the same Natal Chart in Janus 6.1, Saturn is 0°15'23" off the the IC.

Measured how? In prime vertical longitude? When I run your chart in Janus 5 and display it in prime vertical longitude (Wheels > Alternate Coordinate Systems > Prime Vertical), Saturn is 91°04' vs. 91°05' when I use the same data in Solar Fire.

That's for July 19, 1994, 4:30 PM MDT, Hill AFB, UT 41N14 111W57.

If you were taking it ecliptically, it would be 0°13' (Solar Fire and Janus: both give IC 16°56' Aqu, Saturn 17°09' Aqu).

[sidus_illuminans]

Measured how? In prime vertical longitude? When I run your chart in Janus 5 and display it in prime vertical longitude (Wheels > Alternate Coordinate Systems > Prime Vertical), Saturn is 91°04' vs. 91°05' when I use the same data in Solar Fire.

That's for July 19, 1994, 4:30 PM MDT, Hill AFB, UT 41N14 111W57.

If you were taking it ecliptically, it would be 0°13' (Solar Fire and Janus: both give IC 16°56' Aqu, Saturn 17°09' Aqu).

Ah, it seems I was conflating two different data points. I failed to understand that Prime Vertical Longitude was different and had to be calculated separate from the chart. I've been trying to wrap my head around finding the angle of the Nadir and thought looking at the planet's location on the chart relative to the angles might be a clue. I can see the PVL for a planet on a minor angle within Time Matters, but don't know the exact ° of the angle itself.

Elsewhere you mentioned that the Nadir and Zenith contacts are ecliptical squares to Ascendant, but I am having difficulty understanding what this means. The Nadir and Zenith aren't at predefined angles the same way the Asc is always at 0°, right? In beginner friendly language, how might I calculate or determine these minor angles so that I can, for example, refine a given planet's placement in an SSR?

[Mike V]

I think you've almost got it.

Ah, it seems I was conflating two different data points. I failed to understand that Prime Vertical Longitude was different and had to be calculated separate from the chart.

Yes, this is not evident just by looking at a typical chart. What you see in a horoscope view in basically any software is called longitude, or ecliptical longitude when needed for clarity, which involves the signs of the zodiac; for example, going by Jim's figures, Saturn is at 17°09' Aquarius in your chart. This is its (ecliptical) longitude. (In most software, this is just called "longitude.")

Prime vertical longitude is a completely separate measurement that is not usually displayed in the horoscope view - although in Time Matters, a planet's distance into a sidereal house (which is measured in PVL) is displayed, which should make it clear at a glance if a planet is near Ascendant, Descendant, MC, or IC in PVL. It also shows the full ( 0-360°) PVL in the data table at the bottom, like you mention, which is another place to see that same information. There are other things which are called "longitude" too, like your geographic longitude (i.e. of a place on earth, not a planet), or the relatively new calculation Meridian Longitude. But for a planet, just referring to it's "longitude" always means "ecliptical longitude."

However, Zenith and Nadir are not measured in PVL. They are measured in longitude, i.e. ecliptical longitude. They are exact squares to both Ascendant and Descendant.

Elsewhere you mentioned that the Nadir and Zenith contacts are ecliptical squares to Ascendant, but I am having difficulty understanding what this means. The Nadir and Zenith aren't at predefined angles the same way the Asc is always at 0°, right? In beginner friendly language, how might I calculate or determine these minor angles so that I can, for example, refine a given planet's placement in an SSR?

The Ascendant is always at 0° in PVL, but not longitude. The Ascendant has a regular (ecliptical) longitude just like the other bodies on the chart, and conjunctions to Zenith and Nadir are measured purely in longitude.

You will typically not see points given on the chart for Zenith and Nadir, or the squares to MC, which are Eastpoint and Westpoint (and they work the same way in this context). You need to look at the longitude of the Ascendant, or MC, and go 3 signs over. For example, one charting software I have access to at the moment (Astro Vizor) gives the longitude of my Ascendant at 16°06' Leo. The signs that are square to Leo are Scorpio and Taurus. Therefore, the Nadir in my chart is at exactly 16°06' Scorpio and the Zenith is at exactly 16°06' Taurus. Taking a look just visually, Scorpio is at the exact bottom of the chart and Taurus is at the exact top, so that checks out.

However you get the longitude of the Asc and MC and the planets - a data table or a chart view - you can calculate it like this. I find it easiest to look at a chart view. In the next release of Time Matters (on the horizon, but not dropping immediately), information on these angles will appear in the data table at the bottom alongside the planets. That should help with these kinds of measurements.

I've been trying to wrap my head around finding the angle of the Nadir and thought looking at the planet's location on the chart relative to the angles might be a clue. I can see the PVL for a planet on a minor angle within Time Matters, but don't know the exact ° of the angle itself.

PVL is only used for conjunctions to major angles - Ascendant, MC, Descendant, and IC. It is not used for minor angles. For Eastpoint/Zenith/Westpoint/Nadir, only longitude is used. (There is another way of calculating conjunction to Eastpoint or Westpoint in right ascension, which is another way of calculating a conjunction with one of those minor angles. These are given usually as EP-a, or alpha, and WP-a. Time Matters says that a planet on one of those angles is on Ea or Wa, respectively, due to character limits. I can go into that if you want but I don't want to throw even more info at you unless you want it.)

Does this answer your question?

[sidus_illuminans]

The Ascendant is always at 0° in PVL, but not longitude. The Ascendant has a regular (ecliptical) longitude just like the other bodies on the chart, and conjunctions to Zenith and Nadir are measured purely in longitude.

You will typically not see points given on the chart for Zenith and Nadir, or the squares to MC, which are Eastpoint and Westpoint (and they work the same way in this context). You need to look at the longitude of the Ascendant, or MC, and go 3 signs over. For example, one charting software I have access to at the moment (Astro Vizor) gives the longitude of my Ascendant at 16°06' Leo. The signs that are square to Leo are Scorpio and Taurus. Therefore, the Nadir in my chart is at exactly 16°06' Scorpio and the Zenith is at exactly 16°06' Taurus. Taking a look just visually, Scorpio is at the exact bottom of the chart and Taurus is at the exact top, so that checks out.

Ahhh. Ok, so in this SSR I'm looking at, my Ascendant's longitude is 14°37'41" Aries, which would mean my Nadir is 14°37'41" Cancer. My transiting Venus is at 14°40'43" Cancer, so that means it's angularity is +0°03' on the Nadir? If that's the case then I totally get it now.

[Jim Eshelman]

I strongly suggest that you visit the private (hidden to general public) CSA subforum to which you have access and read all the draft chapters of my book-in-progress to get all the basics plugged in. (This will also enable you to give me feedback.)

[Mike V]

Ahhh. Ok, so in this SSR I'm looking at, my Ascendant's longitude is 14°37'41" Aries, which would mean my Nadir is 14°37'41" Cancer. My transiting Venus is at 14°40'43" Cancer, so that means it's angularity is +0°03' on the Nadir? If that's the case then I totally get it now.

Yep, that's correct, as long as you are talking about the Ascendant of the transiting chart, i.e. the SSR Ascendant, not natal Ascendant. I also second Jim's recommendation to go over the CSA chapters.
(A square to natal Ascendant is a valid transit - but it is not angular in the SSR chart by definition, since only the SSR chart's angles matter for that. If the angles between the two happen to line up, then they happen to line up - but they're not related per se.)

[fivesight]

So if I list (and calculate using a spreadsheet) all the key midpoints in the Radix (using my local chart instead of the birthplace) using PVL, RA and Azimuth, I should come up with a number of mundane halfsums that will respond to the Solunars cast for my current Longitude and Latitude, correct?
I'm trying to build a spreadsheet and don't wish to do it twice.
I figure that transits to Natal Midpoints will give the best results, and Time Matters (or any other software) does not list them out so I know the PVL to look out for. I can get full lists from Solar Fire, but they are only in Ecliptic Longitude (or RA if I choose to redo all the charts, but I'd rather have the important data from TMSA).
When I run the charts for my Solunars, I don't see midpoints at all and have to calculate two separate charts which do have them and try to compare. So far, my opinion is that transits (from angular planets) to natal halfsums work best, rather than the other way around.
I want to start using the TMSA sheets for client work, but want to test things like this on myself first. I believe the Class 1 aspects are calculated this way from my experience so far with the program, and maybe the halfsums are too, but I don't want to move forward with these techniques unless I have a reliable method.
I'm sure there are other factors involved, but I am in a deep dive and don't want to go down a blind alley.

[Jim Eshelman]

This is going to take a long time to answer properly. You have made a number of assumptions that are correct, if I haven't read this to hastily. For example there is no such thing as a transit to a pvl position in the sense that I think you mean. I'll try to find an hour to dig into this tomorrow

[fivesight]

Thanks Jim.

[fivesight]

It came to me why there are no transits (I meant that to mean between planets in Solunars) to Prime Vertical Longitudes. I can see significant Prime Vertical Parans as features of the Solunars, but not otherwise.
But I'm still interested in how the ML's work and if their planets can enter the midpoints of radical planets.
Thanks again.

[Jim Eshelman]

But I'm still interested in how the ML's work and if their planets can enter the midpoints of radical planets.

You have access to the ML's in TM right now and can play with these. Adding PVP aspect to the aspectarian will be coming in the future.

[Jim Eshelman]

My broad overview is I think you are going way overboard on midpoints by spending that much energy taking them across reference systems - in any kind of chart but especially in return charts.

At the same time, there is no reason for me discourage you from exploring (though if this gets too wild I'll likely move it to the Experimental, Speculative, Exploring section of the forum that, at the moment, you can't yet see.

Here is one of the biggest flaws IMO in what you are trying to do: In return charts, your proposal treats all planets as more or less equal in the return regardless of their place mundanely. However, the entire approach of interpreting returns and ingresses centers (with minor exceptions) of the premise, "If a planet isn't foreground, act like it doesn't exist."

The kind of exceptions to this are that partile aspects seem to have some say more or less regardless of where they are mundanely. Even then, they are supplemental, minor factors; and midpoints are dramatically inferior to aspects in importance. Aside from the vast confusion of hundreds of independent factors across multiple reference systems, it also ignores the most fundamental practical approach to returns, "If it isn't foreground, it more or less doesn't exist."

We're not at all sure that midpoints exist in non-ecliptical frames. (I was going to talk about ingresses and realized the explanation would take several paragraphs I don't want to write at the moment.) Exceptions (things that at least look like midpoints are operating) would be isolating only those few factors already deemed valuable for some other reason and seeing if the conditions of the charts sharpen when looked at through a midpoint filter; e.g., two planets on Vertex in azimuth and, though both are a little wide, we notice that their midpoint is very close. - Then again, please feel free to look for yourself.

The core principle of evidence-based astrology is to assume that nothing at all works until evidence so overwhelms that assumptions requiring that we abandon it. Unfortunately, most astrologers start with n idea closer to "everything probably works, we just have to figure out how to fit it into everything else."

When I run the charts for my Solunars, I don't see midpoints at all and have to calculate two separate charts which do have them and try to compare.

Midpoints have not been turned on for returns yet in TM. The plan is that they will be. My wild (no promise) guess is that this will take about another year, but it will be there. A great deal of development and code refinement is needed and there are other priorities ahead of it.

You can get them - ecliptically - in Solar Fire, though. (I don't remember if you have SF.)

So far, my opinion is that transits (from angular planets) to natal halfsums work best, rather than the other way around.

Since my biggest problem with the simple, elegant system of lunar returns is usually that there is usually SO MUCH that I have to find ways to filter and prioritize, I'm curious how you handle the additional volume of data.

Nonetheless, the above concise statement of what you have seen is interesting and I'll keep it in mind.

Now that I've gone over your post carefully, I'm not sure if I answered all your specific questions, so feel free to reask anything I missed.

[fivesight]

Yes, I got that; I'm not looking for all of them, just the ones coming from angular planets in the Solunars to return angle/radix planet combinations. I'm kicking the PVL column off the sheet for now, and focusing on the Solunar Vertex and AVx planet combinations to them in azimuth, and others in meridian longitude.
As a side note, will we be getting NSR & NSRD anytime soon (in TMSA)? Ive been using them in client and personal work since you brought them to my attention. Somehow the first edition paperback has, along with Bradley's and Fagan's books, survived several moves and a flood, despite other books on calendar construction, mathematics, and history etc. I am currently doing them in Solar Fire as 36th harmonics and recasting them in TMSA but would like to see the mundane data that TMSA produces without having to go back and forth with the different programs.
Thanks again,, Jim.

[Jim Eshelman]

As a side note, will we be getting NSR & NSRD anytime soon (in TMSA)?

Eventually. MikeV may have other ideas. My thought had been to get a solid 1.0 out with current planned extended features before adding new predictive methods in the march toward 2.0.

But, yes, the NSR is planned. I don't know what you mean by NSRD. (10-Day solars?) - There is a way to force TM to do them now, though it's tedious: A one-time setup (per person) that you can use going forward .

[Mike V]

As a side note, will we be getting NSR & NSRD anytime soon (in TMSA)?

Eventually. MikeV may have other ideas. My thought had been to get a solid 1.0 out with current planned extended features before adding new predictive methods in the march toward 2.0.

But, yes, the NSR is planned. I don't know what you mean by NSRD. (10-Day solars?) - There is a way to force TM to do them now, though it's tedious: A one-time setup (per person) that you can use going forward .

My thoughts are basically in alignment with Jim's on having these be post-1.0... but they're pretty much at the top of my personal priority list for immediately after 1.0. The other predictive methods are also high up, but considering that we already have a means for rendering charts (and we'd have to at least briefly discuss the format for something like transits), I think they're easier to include than other things.

I also hope to include several other types of charts (like KLRs), roughly at the same time. The past 2 weeks I've been totally wrapped up in work and other commitments; the next 2 weekends are pretty much called for (though the week nights aren't necessarily); and then I'm back to primarily working on TM.

[fivesight]

And yes, the NSRD's are the Decilia.
Thanks for your reply Mike.
I've been out of the loop with the Sidereal community for several years because of other well-paid work, so I understand your situation totally. And yes, I'm doing the Novienic returns and their Decilia in a round about way by getting the dates and times from Solar Fire - a little more time consuming, but it's the only way I could figure to get the Mundane Data for these charts.
Thanks again.

[Mike V]

Without getting too into the details in this unrelated thread, I hope to have 1.0 either ready, or close to ready, for release by the end of 2024, and we'll get there in increments (so hopefully the final release in this cycle is mostly cleanup and polishing, and not really any user-significant features). The immediate next increment is probably the biggest one, since I'm doing a heavy rewrite of core logic for future maintainability.

You can see the state of things at a glance in the Trello board I made for the project:
https://trello.com/b/NpRZTYxh/tmsa-roadmap

[Jim Eshelman]

And yes, I'm doing the Novienic returns and their Decilia in a round about way by getting the dates and times from Solar Fire - a little more time consuming, but it's the only way I could figure to get the Mundane Data for these charts.

If it's for yourself, a client you do a lot for work for, you can do this. (Remember, I said it was tedious but only once.)

Go into the TM charts folder: Documents\tmsa\charts

Navigate to the chart you want to work with (first letter of last name, then the full name).

Copy the .dat file to the clipboard and paste them back into the same folder as many times as you want, e.g., eight times for the other Enneads. Rename the files for what you want (add something to the end like NSR1, NSR2 or something like the three-digit Ennead Sun longitude degree). Then open each .dat file in Notepad and find the Sun section. The first entry under Sun is its longitude. Edit this number ONLY, moving it 40° per file.

When you have all of these .dat files created, you can find them under Find Chart. Do not run Calculate on them or it will undo your edits. You can call up one of them and run a solar return for it. (If you get really clever you can do all the 10-Day Solars by running demi- and quarti-solars to these.

When you pick one of these and run the SSR for it, you will have exactly the Ennead EXCEPT the natal Sun line will be wrong. You can edit this on the chart face or just "read around it."

[fivesight]

Oh that's cute! Never thought of a backdoor hack! I might try that with 10 degrees of the Moon for my upcoming Return in August!
Thanks.