Need equations, please

[Jim Eshelman]

I am ready to put this to a practical example and test.

According to Bradley in Solar and Lunar Returns, Tom Mooney was born December 8, 1882, 4:09 AM LMT, Chicago, IL, and was given a full, unconditional pardon on January 7, 1939, when he was in San Quentin, CA.

Elsewhere on this forum, I wrote of his SLR for his release as follows:

In contemporary style, we can't miss the 0°00' Moon-Venus conjunction, though we have to admit it's quite background. Foremost, Mercury is within a degree of Ascendant and - one has to look for it - sesqui-square Pluto 0°23'. This was, indeed, a dramatic, life-altering signature!

Sun is barely foreground... The rising Mercury conjoins natal Sun, Mars, and Venus. I'm not sure about the Mercury-Mars, but the other two (especially Venus) are quite appropriate. Can we learn something about mundane vs. ecliptical from the deployment? Here is a list of the planets, their zodiacal degrees, and the degrees with which they rose. First, the ecliptical:

18°17' Sco r Mercury
20°22' Sco r Venus
21°05' Sco SLR Ascendant
22°34' Sco SLR Mercury
23°09' Sco r Sun
23°53' Sco r Mars

Next, giving the planets by the degree where they rise, rather than their longitudes:

18°39' Sco r Mercury
20°11' Sco r Venus
20°38' Sco SLR Mercury
21°05' Sco SLR Ascendant
23°09' Sco r Sun
24°16' Sco r Mars

This is great! Notice that, when taken mundanely, transiting Mercury is exactly conjunct natal Venus - the best aspect of the set for an unconditional pardon! It is next closest to his Sun (the second best), and farthest from natal Mars (the one that almost doesn't make sense). This is an important example that gives us a rare chance to look at the difference in mundane vs. ecliptical behavior in the SLR!

I was using the "show the longitude with which a planet rises" trick to estimate the actual mundane orbs, proximity of natal planets to the angle, transits to natal planets, etc. With Derek's spreadsheet, we have a way of calculating this directly, and therefore have a way of testing which approach gives us better results.

[Jim Eshelman]

So, taking the positions ecliptically, we have:

18°17' Sco r Mercury
20°22' Sco r Venus
21°05' Sco SLR Ascendant
22°34' Sco SLR Mercury
23°09' Sco r Sun
23°53' Sco r Mars

Taking pseudo-positions that are meant to infer mundane positions, we have:

18°39' Sco r Mercury
20°11' Sco r Venus
20°38' Sco SLR Mercury
21°05' Sco SLR Ascendant
23°09' Sco r Sun
24°16' Sco r Mars

Let's compare this to real calculations.
It's easy enough to calculate the mundoscope by our usual methods. This gives us:

(12) 29°16' - t Mercury
--------------Asc ----------
(1) 9°26' - t Sun

Using Derek's spreadsheet, I copy the RAMC (LST), obliquity, SVP, and geographic latitude of the SLR on the first page. I export Mooney's natal planet longitudes and latitudes to the spreadsheet and generally tweak the data as he recommended. Soon, the desired calculations appear on the Main tab, as follows. Remember, these are the precessed mundoscope positions of the natal planets within the framework of the SLR. (You can compare them against the actual two-wheel SLR for comparison; I recommend that you do. As above, I have put the house number in parentheses before the degree and minute values within the house.)

(5) 28° 32' Neptune
(6) 3° 29' Saturn
(6) 7° 26' Pluto
(7) 11° 11' Jupiter
(9) 19° 58' Uranus
(12) 3° 25' Moon
(12) 27° 23' Mercury
(12) 28° 50' Venus
(1) 1° 36' Sun
(1) 2° 37' Mars

Here I will rewrite the relevant parts near Ascendant, interweaving the transiting (SLR) planets:

(12) 27°23' r. Mercury
(12) 28°50' r. Venus
(12) 29°16' - t Mercury
--------- Asc 0°00' ---------
(1) 1°36' Sun
(1) 2°37' Mars

And, to make comparison easier, here are the pseudo-longitudes:

18°39' Sco r Mercury
20°11' Sco r Venus
20°38' Sco SLR Mercury
21°05' Sco SLR Ascendant
23°09' Sco r Sun
24°16' Sco r Mars

This proves the basic point I was estimating originally: The closest transit mundanely is transiting Mercury to natal Venus - he got really happy news. Ecliptically, SLR Mercury was just below Ascendant, partile conjunct natal Sun, nearly partile conjunct natal Mars, and farthest (over 2°) from natal Venus. Mundanely, this is reversed: SLR Mercury is 0°26' from conjunct natal Venus, over 2° from Sun, and over 3° from Mars. Venus is the one we wanted closest, Mars the one we wanted farthest, and the mundane accomplishes this.

What do we learn about the accuracy of our pseudo-longitude estimation system? Well, the Mercury-to-Venus orb is 0°26' actually, and 0°27' by my earlier estimate - which is pretty good! Mercury-to-Mars is 2°21' actually (by the carefully calculated mundoscope) and 3°38' by my earlier estimate, which is good for crude work, but not at all for precise work. It's better to have this new calculation tool.

This is the kind of thing I anticipate our using it for.

[Jim Eshelman]

This can be used for a single chart such as a natal, also. It is (among other things) a way to calculate the mundoscope if you don't have Solar Fire, but do have the longitude and latitude of the planets. In this case, of course, the four values at the top of the Main page are those of the birth chart.

(I hope Arena sees this. It will be of great value to her.)

I calculated my own natal mundoscope this way, and got the following table. (The three numbers of each line are the house, degree, minute.)

Mon 6 26 45
Sun 1 19 19
Mer 2 14 34
Ven 2 29 32
Mar 4 27 40
Jup 11 2 54
Sat 2 11 2
Ura 11 2 33
Nep 1 27 33
Plu 11 28 19

Now, here's the next cool part: To relocate it, I only need to change two numbers, and everything recalculates! Change the LST and geographic latitude to those of the new location, and, as fast as you can hit the Enter key, you have the new mundoscope positions.

Mon 7 23 21
Sun 2 19 12
Mer 3 14 53
Ven 3 28 51
Mar 5 23 59
Jup 11 29 19
Sat 3 13 17
Ura 11 28 56
Nep 2 28 46
Plu 12 24 5

[Jim Eshelman]

I will post Derek's original and my simplified version in a thread in the Solar Fire section (just to have some place to put it, though I suppose it could go under Angularity). I want to create a better version that takes simpler input for those who are adding longitudes and latitudes manually (this will be forthcoming).

[DDonovanKinsolving]

Thanks for simplifying the spreadsheet, Mr. E. Just the ten regular planets is good enough for basic work for everyone.

I'm still testing a revision of the elaborate original. I think the biggest ease-making step will be in making Macros, but I need to be sure that Sorting isn't jumbling equations.

When I get a chance, I'll also check it, but it looks like you've done enough cross-checking that any discrepancy would have stood out.

-Derek

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes, I liked the idea of sorting - thought I could do it in the very last step, and then realized it WAS (at that point) shuffling equations - so I let it drop for now.