Revisiting the Kinetic Solar Return
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2023 9:28 am
I've been extremely impressed with Kinetic Lunar Returns. They are the next tool I'd add routinely if I were adding one. Bizarrely, I've been utterly disappointed with Kinetic Solar Returns. This doesn't make a lot of sense, but I've taken it for what it is.
As my Demi-KSR is today (which I really don't expect much from since even Demi-SSRs are disappointing), the whole topic came back to my mind. Some recent other work - on secondary progressions - is fresh in my mind, so it got me thinking about the possibility:
Maybe we have been calculating the KSR wrong.
I've said for a long time that we should be calculating secondary progressions at the rate of one mean solar day = one sidereal year. Solar Fire calculates it using the tropical year instead. Over time, discrepancies develop. These discrepancies would cause a larger shift in the timing of a KSR and negligible shifts in the timing of a KLR.
So... how much is the difference?
Solar Fire calculates my current KSR for December 21, 2022, 5:20:27 PM PST (MC 22°23' Aquarius). I already know that there are a couple of places for small errors. For example, SF's Sun calculations are (for modern times) slightly inferior to TMSA's, but that doesn't make a meaningful difference. Second, since SF doesn't calculate KSRs directly, I'm calculating this as transiting Sun conjunct natal Sun. This is another minor problem because SF's transit timing isn't quite as good as its return calculation. In this case, though, that's not a factor since both transiting and progressed Suns are 1°01'09" Sagittarius (I've seen them a minute or two different).
I have an Excel spreadsheet that calculates secondary progressed times based on one mean solar day = one sidereal year. What does it give for my secondary progressions December 21, 2022, 5:20:27 PM PST, the time SF calculated for the KSR? It says my secondaries should be calculated for December 17, 1954, 6:57:38 AM PST. Letting Solar Fire do the calculation, it gives Sun's longitude as 1°01'40" - or 0°00'31' later than SF's tropical year calculation.
How much does this 31" displace things? On the day of the KSR, transiting Sun moved 1°01' (61') so, approximately, it would move 31" in just over 12 minutes of time. That's 3° on the angles, on average. While it isn't a HUGE amount, it's enough to make a difference in how one felt about the chart. In this case, calculating a return for 1°01'40" Sag gives MC 25°40' Aquarius, 3°17' closer to Neptune and with transiting Venus 3° closer to Dsc. (The chart is primarily a closely angular Venus-Neptune square on the angles with Moon opposite natal Sun and square KSR Mercury.)
It's a separate question whether this newly-calculated KSR is a correct and meaningful. As a one-off, I could argue that it is - that at least I've been more lovey-dovey and romantic this calendar year - but one chart does not make a case.
The important part of this post is that - if I am correct about the proper rate for secondary progressions - the way Siderealists have always calculated Kinetic Solar Returns is guaranteed to produce progressively wrong results as one ages. My previous conclusions about them need to be revisited. If the new mode of calculation is correct, KSRs may be the way to confirm it (or, of course, deny it).
As my Demi-KSR is today (which I really don't expect much from since even Demi-SSRs are disappointing), the whole topic came back to my mind. Some recent other work - on secondary progressions - is fresh in my mind, so it got me thinking about the possibility:
Maybe we have been calculating the KSR wrong.
I've said for a long time that we should be calculating secondary progressions at the rate of one mean solar day = one sidereal year. Solar Fire calculates it using the tropical year instead. Over time, discrepancies develop. These discrepancies would cause a larger shift in the timing of a KSR and negligible shifts in the timing of a KLR.
So... how much is the difference?
Solar Fire calculates my current KSR for December 21, 2022, 5:20:27 PM PST (MC 22°23' Aquarius). I already know that there are a couple of places for small errors. For example, SF's Sun calculations are (for modern times) slightly inferior to TMSA's, but that doesn't make a meaningful difference. Second, since SF doesn't calculate KSRs directly, I'm calculating this as transiting Sun conjunct natal Sun. This is another minor problem because SF's transit timing isn't quite as good as its return calculation. In this case, though, that's not a factor since both transiting and progressed Suns are 1°01'09" Sagittarius (I've seen them a minute or two different).
I have an Excel spreadsheet that calculates secondary progressed times based on one mean solar day = one sidereal year. What does it give for my secondary progressions December 21, 2022, 5:20:27 PM PST, the time SF calculated for the KSR? It says my secondaries should be calculated for December 17, 1954, 6:57:38 AM PST. Letting Solar Fire do the calculation, it gives Sun's longitude as 1°01'40" - or 0°00'31' later than SF's tropical year calculation.
How much does this 31" displace things? On the day of the KSR, transiting Sun moved 1°01' (61') so, approximately, it would move 31" in just over 12 minutes of time. That's 3° on the angles, on average. While it isn't a HUGE amount, it's enough to make a difference in how one felt about the chart. In this case, calculating a return for 1°01'40" Sag gives MC 25°40' Aquarius, 3°17' closer to Neptune and with transiting Venus 3° closer to Dsc. (The chart is primarily a closely angular Venus-Neptune square on the angles with Moon opposite natal Sun and square KSR Mercury.)
It's a separate question whether this newly-calculated KSR is a correct and meaningful. As a one-off, I could argue that it is - that at least I've been more lovey-dovey and romantic this calendar year - but one chart does not make a case.
The important part of this post is that - if I am correct about the proper rate for secondary progressions - the way Siderealists have always calculated Kinetic Solar Returns is guaranteed to produce progressively wrong results as one ages. My previous conclusions about them need to be revisited. If the new mode of calculation is correct, KSRs may be the way to confirm it (or, of course, deny it).