Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I was reading more on this constellation, I have Eta ser. (Donghai) Conjunct my angular Sun. Nanhai Conj. my almost angular Mercury. Ba and Tianru conjunct my Venus (3 degrees away from Unukalhai the brightest star in the constellation). Note that Venus is In the first 30 degrees of the constellation, the Sun and Mercury are in the end. Ophiuchus is in the middle of the snake.

I have only one planetary connection to Saggitarius constellation. On further reading on Serpens, I found it has issues with poison (aka drugs ie cigs and alcohol etc), these issues run in my family and I do vice myself. Is it possible I have a more personal connection to this constellation than Saggitarius?

Do any of you know where I can read more about Serpens?

The standard reference on historic lore of constellations and individual stars is Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning by Richard H. Allen.

What longitude do you have for Eta Serpentis? It's too small to be on any lists available to me.

I can find the galactic longitude of it at 26.9 degrees. I don't know where to look past that, astro.com doesn't run eta (Donghai). The longitude of Klaus Austrailus is close, but the declination is way off. I'm not denouncing the traditional constellations Jim (just to clarify).

I don't know what "galactic longitude" means (perhaps oriented to the galactic plane instead of the ecliptic) - if someone can do the conversion (I don't have the routine programs setup), here are its equatorial coordinates for 2000.0:

RA 18:21:18.60056
Dec 2°53'55.7766 S

Jim it's 9.819

My suns longitude is 10.31 I believe

Location of η Serpentis
Observation data
Epoch J2000 Equinox J2000
Constellation Serpens
Right ascension 18h 21m 18.60056s
Declination –02° 53′ 55.7766″
Apparent magnitude (V) 3.260

Other designations
58 Serpentis, BD−02° 4599, HD 168723, HIP 89962, HR 6869, SAO 142241.

Data from the SIMBAD database.

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:00 am Jim it's 9.819

How did you calculate that? - Before saying anything I'd like to confirm we have right numbers.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_ ... ate_system
The galactic coordinates use the Sun as the origin. Galactic longitude (l) is measured with primary direction from the Sun to the center of the galaxy in the galactic plane, while the galactic latitude (b) measures the angle of the object above the galactic plane.

Equatorial coordinates J2000.0 of galactic reference points[1] right ascension declination constellation
north pole (+90° latitude) 12h 51.4m +27.13° Coma Berenices
(near 31 Com)
south pole (−90° latitude) 0h 51.4m −27.13° Sculptor
(near NGC 288)
galactic center (0° longitude) 17h 45.6m −28.94° Sagittarius
(Galactic Center)
anti-center (180° longitude) 5h 45.6m +28.94° Auriga
(near HIP 27088)

Jim you take the minutes and hours together and divide them by 60. Then you add in the seconds after dividing them by 3600. This number is .655 (approx) then times by 15 for degrees. So using this approx number I got 9.82 which is close to the 9.819 I got the first time.

That changes the right ascension from hours to degrees, but doesn't switch it from right ascension (equatorial) to longitude (ecliptical). Depending on its celestial latitude, it could be very close to the same value, or wildly different.

There are small errors in your approach, but they are not as important as the fact that this has to be converted to longitude. To convert 18:21:18.60056 to degrees, 18h is 270°, 21m is 5°15', 18.60056s is just under 05', so that would be 5°20' Capricorn; adjusting for SVP for your date of birth, that becomes 10°36' Sagittarius; except it still hasn't been converted from equatorial to ecliptical, so it could be even 30-40° off.

Ok Jim. I don't know how to do that second conversion. I can search into it more. Where are we going with this btw?

There's a trigonometric formula - in the '70s and had it memorized and hand-punched this stuff into a calculator almost daily, but haven't had to use it in decades. At the moment, I don't have anything on hand that will make the conversion. I threw this out as an open request in case anyone here has something that will make the conversions.

I meant what will finding the longitude mean for this topic. It means it's closer than the Saggitarius constellation, however with 3 (4) aspects coming from Serpens and only one from Sag, I think this would make up for the longitudinal difference.

If there is a partile conjunction with your Sun, it would mean one set of things. If not, it wouldn't mean anything at all, because it would be irrelevant to the discussion. So far, you haven't demonstrated any contacts from these stars at all because we don't have the longitudes.

What is the orb for longitude?

1°

Jim I believe the geocentric RA of the Sun at my time of birth is 18:23:2.9. Can we compare the two bodies equatorial longitudes as long as they are in the same system?

Where
α is Right Ascension
β is longitude
ɗ is declination
λ is latitude
ɛ is the obliquity of the ecliptic

sin ɗ = cos ɛ sin β + sin ɛ cos β sin λ cos ɗ
tan α = -(tan β sin ɛ)/cos λ tan λ

sin β = sin ɗ cos ɛ - cos ɗ sin ɛ sin α
tan λ = (sin ɛ tan ɗ)/cos α + cos ɛ tan α

George Noonan, Spherical Trig for Astrologers

Oooh flashbacks of log tables!

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:26 pm Jim I believe the geocentric RA of the Sun at my time of birth is 18:23:2.9. Can we compare the two bodies equatorial longitudes as long as they are in the same system?

We can do that, but it wouldn't tell us much useful, since the conjunction in RA would not resembler the conjunction in longitude.

Yes but you calculated the equotorial longitude for one, we could find the equotorial longitude for the other and compare them as they will be proportionally the same in their elliptical longitude.

No, they won't. Not at all. There's no such necessary relationship.

The formula to calculate them should be the same should it not?

I'm going to stop answering on this because (1) you don't know what you're talking about and (2) you won't listen when you're told you don't know what you're taking about.

Maybe this will make it clearer: The star has 3 degrees south declination. What's the declination of your Sun? (It has to be close to 23.) The two are at least that far apart in space. How this translates to longitude will be known if someone converts those equatorial coordinates to longitude.

I'm trying to listen, I don't understand why the two systems vary so much if you use one calculation to change the formula from one system to the other. I know I'm wrong Jim, I'm trying to learn here. Like I said I'm not good at mathematics, however I thought it was founded on patterns and relationships. (Which could be why I'm so wrong).

You are right about the declination Jim.

So, at minimum they are 20 degrees apart in space. This may translate to no difference in their longitudinal separation, or about 20 degrees difference, ior much more than that - we have to actually do the full math - but I thought this factor would let you see that they aren't necessarily :in the same place" regardless of how similar their RA might be.

It did help Jim. I was overlooking the thousands of miles in between aspects (like we do with all of the other ones) this star is bigger than the Sun and if we don't typically have concern with longitude between other aspects to the sun I didn't comprehend why we needed it here. I'll take the longitude being off by even 20 degrees over the 10 degrees some people allow for hard aspects in the natal chart.

Btw I found it et,Ser is also called tang on astro.com. 10:55:57

My mercury 29:27:4 to Nehushtan 29:48:0.
Venus to Leiolepis 0:48:43 to 1:11:38. Both under a one degree orb.

Probably all wrong, especially if you're basi g it on RA.

I'll probably have time the first week of June to build a tool to do these conversions.

Jim I used astro.com I did not hand calculate this.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:29 pm Where
α is Right Ascension
β is longitude
ɗ is declination
λ is latitude
ɛ is the obliquity of the ecliptic

sin ɗ = cos ɛ sin β + sin ɛ cos β sin λ cos ɗ
tan α = -(tan β sin ɛ)/cos λ tan λ

sin β = sin ɗ cos ɛ - cos ɗ sin ɛ sin α
tan λ = (sin ɛ tan ɗ)/cos α + cos ɛ tan α

George Noonan, Spherical Trig for Astrologers

Thanks, JSAD. - OK, I found something at home I was able to repurpose slightly, and, if I haven't screwed things up too much, the conjunction is pretty tight.

Eta Serpentis appears to be 10°57' Sagittarius, with your Sun 10°32'. That's damn close!

It is so close their is a star in Sag that is 13 minutes closer I believe, but when it gets down to that amount of time I find it hard to argue either way. The closer star only denotes a quiet nature (I do have this however I get loud). I have read a lot on Serpens and actually relate fairly well, espicaly when modernising the interpretation.

Can we look at the stars aspecting Mercury and Venus too?

Damn close in longitude. Not so much in latitude or declination.

ASTRODIENST AG
www.astro.com

ScarletDepths
born on Mo., 27 December 1999
in Carlisle, PA (US), 77w11, 40n12
Time 7:00 a.m.

Sun
Longitude 10°32'13"
Latitude 0° 0' 1" N
Declination 23°20' 2" S

Tang
Longitude 10°55'57"
Latitude 20°26' 8" N
Declination 2°53'57" S

Jim you are very close astro.com has my Sun at 10:33 and eta Serpentis at 10:56.

How close is close enough may I ask?

ScarletDepths wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:49 pm I have read a lot on Serpens and actually relate fairly well, espicaly when modernising the interpretation.

Of course you do., You've been lusting for a serpent identification

Here's the punch line, though: We have no reliable evidence that the fixed stars have any value at all! There are inferences, hints, possibilities, an occasional ringing true but, overall, I can't think of any other area of astrology that I'm tempted to think has meaning but has less evidence for it. (We're tenuous and timorous about houses around here, but there's vastly more evidence for houses than there is that individual stars mean anything.

Which isn't to say they don't; but which is to say that wishful thinking is different from hard evidence.

I see your point Jim. I have 4 stars from the same constellation baring down on my chart. (This is a large constellation I must admit). Lusting is a great word, however the serpent reputation is something I live without the zodiac, my only tattoo is of a snake skeleton, my spirit guide (found via Oracle reading) is said to be a snake. I find them comforting creatures. Oh I guess too that I'm a slytherin and a horned serpent in the wizarding world for whatever that's worth. I also have the last inital of s, so I sign papers just with a snake shaped like an S. It would be cool if it aligned in the stars too, however just speculation as you said.

Jim in theory would Serpens be ruled by Mars/Saturn (maybe Pan too?). What if elements would you personally denote to It? (This is all theoretical so I'm asking for your opinion [it is highly respected even amongst tropical astrologers].)



We can only reflect on the myth here, originally (after it was sheep and a wall) Al hayyah (one constellation of Serpens and Ophiuchus) represented Mans struggle with the serpent. Pointing directly to the bible and in a metaphorical way man's struggle with sin, and the weight of his actions.

The serpent teaches ophiuchus many "immoral things, such as raising the dead. Arabic astrologers may have viewed this differently, the snake also denotes wisdom, and therefore you must bare the weight of what you know.

Separately the serpent represnts wisdom, feeble will (impulse?), poison (alcohol ,drugs, but also toxic relationships in general), deceit (sly, Snake mofit?), malice (will to harm others, however I must note that most snakes are rather docile, maybe self harm too(?)), and craft (I don't know if this denotes skill, or craft as in crafty).

Taking the snake meaning further I note the transformation, shedding of the skin. Also it has different meanings in areas of the world (tieing it to the culture aspect of Saggitarius). I experience this cultural view disparity frequently myself in life.

Just food for thought.

Instead of looking at myths, which, as you note, change depending on who's looking, we try to go on observation here. And by observation, Serpens and so on don't have enough meaning to be observed by people who were looking for some over the last several thousand years.

It's not long lost buried knowledge of the Ancients. If it were, we'd have found something when we looked.