Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Danica wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:50 pm

mikestar13 wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:32 pm
I'm still not convinced about Chiron, sorry Danica. I may add an experimental bodies option set someday, but not planning it for 0.4.2.

Oh, nothing to be sorry about.
It's not the first time that I need to work with incomplete data, going with estimation instead of precision, where/when precision is not available; nor is it the first time my words are considered worthless because they are not coming from a male mouth, and there is nothing in particular authoritative in the outer visible expressions of my being.

Danica, I find your response a bit sexist. I am one severely disabled human being without unlimited time to program. Many people here at Solunars.com help me test, including you for which I thank you, but no one else is writing code--anyone who knows Python is welcome to per this thread: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=5561. The reason I included the node is not because Steve wanted it (though I knew he would appreciate it), it was because many astrologers of both genders since time immemorial have used it (though neither Jim nor I). By definition that has not been true of Chiron, given it's discovery date of 1 November 1977. I recall reading articles alleging its astrological significance in 1978 (rather premature, and based solely on the mythological significance of it's name ).

That is the last word it have to say about sexisim is this context save by PM should you so desire. I would have written the above paragraph in a PM had you stated your concern in a PM. However, you called me out publicly, and I respond in kind. I find doing so by lumping me into a generic
statement more offensive than if you had called me out by name.

Thank you, JSAD for your spirited and well written response. Reading it cooled my anger to eye-for-eye rather than three-fold return (and I have been knows to do ten-fold return for challenges which touch my core identity).

All that said, Danica has made a legitimate feature request that wouldn't require complex code (though a fair amount of simple code).

For verision 0.4.1, no: it's nearly ready and has many improvements that users have shown enthusiasm for.

For version 0.4.2 also no. I want to add midpoints (which I haven't even stated writing) and do the long postponed transit module.

For version 0.4.3, I am taking a poll of users:

1. Should the option be given (which I will recommend in the documentation that beginners not use) to include additional bodies.
2. Which bodies should they be.

Minmum criteria for bodies:

1. Observed astronomically (no hypotheticals)
2. Has a name (to keep the number of bodies manageable--I won't do thousands of space rocks)

When voting for a specific body, I would appreciate a suggestion of a two-letter abbreviation for that body. I will also accept votes for the general concept of additional bodies, without specific bodies being suggested. I use the term bodies, because suggesting points (such as the vernal equinox) is also in order.

I will count Danica's post as one vote for yes, Chiron.

For version 0.5, I very likely will add the facility where a user can add any body they can provide a long form Swiss Ephemeris file for (freely available at https://www.astro.com/ftp/swisseph/ephe/longfiles/).

mikestar13 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:45 am For version 0.5, I very likely will add the facility where a user can add any body they can provide a long form Swiss Ephemeris file for (freely available at https://www.astro.com/ftp/swisseph/ephe/longfiles/).

I can't touch Solar Fire in appearance. TMSA is already beating it in functionality in the areas I have implemented. I suspect this is another instance of this. Solar Fire users, do you have this capability?

No, not available in SF exactly - although in v9 they do have something like 10,000 asteroids IIRC (maybe includes other bodies also) at user discretion. From those who thrive on such things, I get the idea it's not all that easy to set up but easy to maintain after that.

I like the astrodienst model better. Requires people to know something about the rock they're adding.

I'd rather you left any other bodies to version 0.5 because I think a simple plan your own adventure module for other bodies is a better idea and won't clutter up the main code. Our Aries all want it all now now NOW but I'd rather not see anything that still might turn out to be a space rock written in permanently.

Besides the Russians just blew up one of their own satellites and left about a million space rocks all looking for something to hit. Soon we may not have as many bodies out there as we do now.

If I do allow user-chosen bodies besides Eris, Sedna, and the Node, there will be an overall limit on the number in use. I won't let anybody insert a hundred much less 10,000 bodies in the same chart. To that degree I will protect users from shooting themselves in the foot. If Danica wants Chiron, she can have it in the fullness of God's time and mine, likewise user X can have Haumea and MakeMake, user Y can have Ceres and Vesta, ...

Votes so far:
Yes, Chiron --Danica
Not till 0.5, user supplies ephemeris file -- JSAD, Mikestar1313 (an expression of preference, not willingness)

Again when and if a planet achieves these levels of consensus among Fagan/Braley/Eshelhman Siderealists (not Tropicalists nor Vedics, they have no vote with regard to TMSA):

1. Sedna-like: optional, off by default.
2. Eris-like: optional: on by default.
3. Pluto-like: included, no longer optional.

This last will happen if consensus occurs in my lifetime, without regard to the outcome of this informal poll.