Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

One thing I have noticed is that if in Solar Fire I do User Progression Rate of 1.0, it generates progressions that are exactly equal to transits. And this is what I expected (so I am glad that it works!).

However, the only peculiarity is the progressed AC. I assumed that this User Progressed (rate=1.0) AC would be the same as the Mean Quotidian AC. And I checked it for the 4 combinations of (RA vs Long) & (SA vs Naibod), and they all give results that are close to Mean Quotidian, but none are exact. [Also, progressing the AC this way gives identitcal results for Q1 and Q2 - not sure why that is?]

So I am trying to understand what is going on here??

Can you give the data you're using - birth data and event - and what you get in each batch of settings. This is going to require careful replication to see what's going on. - Just so you know, this is going to take a lot of time to investigate, but I assume you have some good reason for wanting to know that this is behaving correctly.

I suspect the answer is somewhere in the fact that progressed angles are calculated independent of progressed planets - each variation from its own set of equations. Depending on the data you're using, I can see why most would be approximately the same, but - without replicating it - it's not cleare to me why the exact outcome you report would come about.

Thanks Jim.

I have tried it for several different charts and they all give similar results. So you can duplicate it with any chart you like.
I am just trying to understand why the position (in Solar Fire) of the Mean Quotidian is not the same as the position of the AC using a User Rate of 1.0. And like I said before, all 4 combos (RA/SA, RA/Naibod, Long/SA, Long/Naibod) give 4 different results that are all close to but not the same as the Mean Quotidian.

The reason I am trying to understand this is because I am trying to predict High and Low cycles on a stock (which I am not allowed to share the astro chart for) and I am getting very predictive results using the Progressed Moon's cycle in relation to the Progressed AC. And the Mean Quotidian AC seems to act as a trigger for these events.

And I am trying to get it more exact by honing in on the (most) correct settings for calculating the AC (and the Moon also). So far using past data, the only combo that is significantly off (less predictive) is SA/RA (whether or not using Geocentric correction for lattitude).

The Paralax Moon is also off, and the Bija (Q1) Moon is off. I have not checked the Q2 Moon in relation to the Q1 AC yet. I will have to do that "by hand".

So I am just trying to learn about these various settings for calculating the AC to figure out which one is most predictive.

I have seen the Mean Quotidian be a very consistent trigger for predicting events related to my personal progressed Sun-Moon cycle.

I am also looking into the Q1 Mean Quotidian. I have not used that in the past.

Are there any other pertinant variables that exist but that Solar Fire doesn't have?

If you won't give data, nobody can replicate your problem and figure out what's going on.
Please come up with data that produces the same problems that you can share.

You say this is off and that is off. Off against what? It sounds as if you're trying to use different methods of progression and getting different results. That's not off. It's to be expected.

Please pick one example, give the data for the example you pick - it deoesn't matter what it is. I need to be able to follow the exact thing you did with the exact same data and tell you the results I gave you, otherwise there's no obvious way to tell what's going on

So, while waiting on an exact description of what you are doing, a sample chart and event date you are using, and the results you are getting, let me comment on a few things:

BlueKnight22 wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:54 am I have tried it for several different charts and they all give similar results. So you can duplicate it with any chart you like.
I am just trying to understand why the position (in Solar Fire) of the Mean Quotidian is not the same as the position of the AC using a User Rate of 1.0. And like I said before, all 4 combos (RA/SA, RA/Naibod, Long/SA, Long/Naibod) give 4 different results that are all close to but not the same as the Mean Quotidian.

I can't duplicate it because I don't know what you're doing. If you write step-by-step, click-by-click, we likely can get an answer, possibly just from your description.

Does "AC" mean Ascendant? (I'm guessing from contact that it does, though it's an irregular abbreviation so I thought I'd ask.)

Part of my confusion: If you think the user rate of 1.0 is exactly the same as secondary progressions, then why are you using the customized user rate instead of secondary progressions?

Solar Fire uses for Secondary Progressions a rate of 1/365.24219907 = .00273790926. This has a couple of weaknesses, but most astrologers aren't likely to think they matter. First, the intention here is to equate one mean solar day to one tropical year. I think the rate should, instead, be one sidereal year and the theoretically best approach is for the program to use a tropical year if the chart is in the Tropical zodiac and the sidereal year if the chart is in the Sidereal zodiac - using the chosen zodiac to infer the astrologer's preferred theory on the matter. If one lives long enough, this difference accumulates enough to (minimally) notice. Second, even within their use of the tropical year, this value changes from year to year so they have picked a mean for some specific epoch. Again, for secondary progressions that difference will rarely be perceptible, but we need to acknowledge it.

A User Rate of 1.0 means you are saying that 1 mean solar day equals 1 mean solar day. I wouldn't expect the value to be anything like the secondary progressions to which you compare it. It should be indistinguishable from transits, not from the mean SNQ.

So, I presume I'm missing something.

The Paralax Moon is also off

I admit I haven't checked this (and barely even looked at it in SF) - since it seems overwhelmingly clear to me that parallax is not a factor. Astrological operation is geocentric, not topocentric. (Since - among many others - Donald Bradley and I both were born with Moon on the horizon, Sidereal Lunar Returns would never have impressed either of us if parallax were a factor.) In any case, I won't be any help to you on that.

and the Bija (Q1) Moon is off.

I don't think this is true. Can you demonstrate it? It seems exactly right to me. (If the Q1 timing is correct, them the Moon position will be correct.)

I have not checked the Q2 Moon in relation to the Q1 AC yet. I will have to do that "by hand".

I think I have no idea what you're doing here - why you would compare progressed Moon by the "1 mean solar day = 1 year" formula against progressed angles by the "1 sidereal day = 1 year" formula.

Going back to the Q1 calculations for a minute - I'm not sure how much you think they might be off. (Are we talking minutes or seconds? Or degrees? Or...?)

In round numbers, for every year of life, Q1 Midheaven lags [not quite] 1° behind Q2 MC. The timing of the Q1 secondary progressed chart lags [not quite] 4m of time behind the Q2 chart.

Sticking with round, crude numbers for the moment: I'm currently a little shy of my 67th birthday, so we'd expect my Q1 and Q2 MCs to be [not quite] 67° apart. Similarly, the timing of the Q1 vs. Q2 progressed charts would be [somewhat less than] 4h 28m different, putting progressed Moon (at its average speed) 2° earlier.

Calculating my Q1 and Q2 for right this minute for my residence gives Midheavens (respectively) of 7°37' Pisces and 15°56' Taurus, which differ by 68°19' close to the estimated 67° difference. The progressed Moons are 17°58' Leo and 20°19' Leo (2°21' different), again right on the "2°+ difference" estimated. Since progressed Moon's annual speed at the moment is 12°38', it is almost exactly 1°/month.

OK, thank you for your replies and sorry that I am having trouble describing this so here is the data for the 1st question that I have:

The chart is for 1/1/2000 at 0:00 am in New York, New York.
I am using Solar Fire v 9.0.29

The Natal Ascendant is 8LIB52.

And when I progress it to 8/19/2021 at 10:44:47 AM here are the results:
(all of these were run without applying Geocentric Correction to Latitude)

Mean Quotidian (Q2) 10CAN59
Mean Quotidian (Q1) 21GEM16

User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [SA-Longitude] 21GEM38
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [SA-RA] 21GEM40
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [Naibod-Longitude] 21GEM05
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [Naibod-RA] 19GEM45

The position for the Progressed-Ascendant using Q1 are always the same as Q2 when I run this User Progressed 1.0 rate:
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [SA-Longitude] 21GEM38
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [SA-RA] 21GEM40
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [Naibod-Longitude] 21GEM05
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [Naibod-RA] 19GEM45

Basically I am trying to fine tune timing/predictions of the Progressed Moon-Progressed Ascendant cycle. And I have been going through ALL of the settings to find which setting(s) are the most predictive.
The reason I ran the User Progressed 1.0 rate is because I assumed it would produce the same result as the Mean Quotidian.
I don’t understand the geometry behind all of these setting yet, but I am trying. Basically, I have found the Mean Quotidian (Q2) to be very close to precise as a trigger for the Progressed Sun-Progressed Moon cycle. And so I am now trying to find the settings for the Progressed-Ascendant that are the most predictive.

Since I really have had good results with the Mean Quotidian (Q2), I am wondering which settings for the Progressed-Ascendant are the same, only running at a different rate of speed. I assumed that it would be Naibod-RA, but now I’m not so sure.

Also, if there an astrology program that gives you a True Quotidian instead of just the Mean Quotidian and if so, how much does it usually differ by?

Thank you all very much for you help.

BlueKnight22 wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 9:15 am The chart is for 1/1/2000 at 0:00 am in New York, New York.
I am using Solar Fire v 9.0.29

The Natal Ascendant is 8LIB52.

OK, so you're working in the Tropical zodiac. Got it. Matching you for this exercise.

And when I progress it to 8/19/2021 at 10:44:47 AM here are the results:
(all of these were run without applying Geocentric Correction to Latitude)

Mean Quotidian (Q2) 10CAN59
Mean Quotidian (Q1) 21GEM16

Tropical zodiac and Secondary Progressions, yes? - I confirm.

User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [SA-Longitude] 21GEM38
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [SA-RA] 21GEM40
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [Naibod-Longitude] 21GEM05
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q2) [Naibod-RA] 19GEM45

Some points before I do the calculations. Firsts, Q1 vs. Q2 has no relevance in User Rate progressions because you are defining your own rate. (Q1 and Q2 rate rates: You are overriding them.) Second, a user rate of 1.0 is identical with transits - no difference - compare the progressed chart generated below with transits for the same moment and you'll find them identical.

Defining Rate for User Progs as 1.0 (= 1 day for 1 day).

The position for the Progressed-Ascendant using Q1 are always the same as Q2 when I run this User Progressed 1.0 rate:

That makes sense because it isn't using the Q1 vs. Q2 distinction. A Q2 secondary progression is like a user custom rate of 0.00273790926. Once you force the rate, instead, to 1.0, it is no longer 0..00273790926, right?

User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [SA-Longitude] 21GEM38
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [SA-RA] 21GEM40
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [Naibod-Longitude] 21GEM05
User Progressed (rate = 1.0) Ascendant (Q1) [Naibod-RA] 19GEM45

The Q1 element not being relevant at all, for a progression rate of 1.0 (day for a day), I confirm all your numbers precisely.

But.... ah, now I think I see your problem. The Q1 vs. Q2 distinction does seem to be affecting the angles. Probably the Q1 setting (which I'm sure the programmers never expected to be applied to user rate) is simply slowing the progression down by a certain percentage.

Calculate it as Q2 (quotidian rate) and you'll see immediately what's happening: Because your 1.0 rate is "a day for a day," we expect the progressed angles to be exactly the same as transiting angles. Working your sample as a Q2 quotidian gives an Ascendant of 1°55' Scorpio - exactly like the transiting Asc at that moment.

Applying Q1 here is meaningless and, therefore, produces a different set of results that are, themselves, meaningless.

What I don't get is why you are using a custom user progression rate that is identical in every respect to transits - will always produce the same result as transits - when you could more simply use transits.

Since I really have had good results with the Mean Quotidian (Q2), I am wondering which settings for the Progressed-Ascendant are the same, only running at a different rate of speed. I assumed that it would be Naibod-RA, but now I’m not so sure.

If I understand you correctly, it would be the quotidian rate (but for whatever different progression rate you pick).

Also, if there an astrology program that gives you a True Quotidian instead of just the Mean Quotidian and if so, how much does it usually differ by?

I don't know what you mean by "true quotidian." The "mean quotidian" calculation is true - the word "mean" here merely means that the flow of time is linear.

Possibly you mean that you want it to run at the apparent solar rate. I think that's the wrong rate, but it might be what you mean. This "apparent rate quotidian" is an option in the Janus software.

Oh right! That's makes sense why Q1 and Q2 are the same because they are not even part of the calculation. Got it!

OK, I'm done now.

Thanks for all of the info.

I’m not sure what you mean by:
“
But.... ah, now I think I see your problem. The Q1 vs. Q2 distinction does seem to be affecting the angles. Probably the Q1 setting (which I'm sure the programmers never expected to be applied to user rate) is simply slowing the progression down by a certain percentage.

Also, in responding to this:
“
What I don't get is why you are using a custom user progression rate that is identical in every respect to transits - will always produce the same result as transits - when you could more simply use transits.

Since I have had very precise timing using the Mean Quotidian (Q2) I have been trying to figure out which “slower” Secondary progression Ascendant runs in the same “style” as Mean Quotidian (Q2).

Also, I found out something interesting. If you take the secondary progression rate (SolarFire uses 0.00273790926) and you multiply it by itself you get 0.00000749614711599375.

When I do a User Progression of the Ascendant using this rate, it comes out very similar to secondary progressions, most specifically RA-Naibod.

Using the same chart of:
1/1/2000 at 0:00 am in New York, New York.
Tropical Zodiac
NOT using geocentric correction for latitude
Solar Fire v 9.0.29

If I user progress (0.00000749614711599375) the Mean Quotidian to 8/21/2021 at 0:00 am I get:
25LIB45
And if I secondary progress (S2) the Ascendant I get:
SA-Longitude 27LIB20
SA-RA 27LIB21
Naibod-Long 26LIB45
Naibod-RA 25LIB42

I have tried this for a few charts and this “Mean Quotidian Squared” rate is always very close to the Naibod-RA rate, but never exact, although it is a lot closer than the other 3 combinations.

Very interesting stuff.