Post by John RothPost by a***@yahoo.comI read that Bernadette Brady does like to use projected stars onto the
the ecliptic. She talked about the mythology of the
constellations,stars are important. She says that if we put them on
the ecliptic, we are losing their mythology and stories. She said
that it's wrong to force the stars on the Sun's path. She says that
the planets work on the ecliptic because they are part of our solar
system and that the stars don't work on the ecliptic because they are
not part of our solar system.
My question is how does she view Right Ascension and Declination?
They have nothing to do with the ecliptic. Both of them are equatorial
coordinates.
Do a planet and star connected by Right Ascension and Declination have
a real connection?
Astronomers use both coordinates to locate objects. They don't use
ecliptic coordinates.
I wonder if fixed star ascension,declination coordinates could be more
relevant in Visual Astrology.
She uses the Egyptian/Roman day
previous sunrise
what about Babylonian/Hebrew
previous sunset
what about Astronomical
local moon
what about Modern Day
local midnight
the parans vary according to the say that we use
it seems that the perception of what a day is relative and human-made
construct.
Since we live in modern times, wouldn't it make sense to use a modern
day paran method.
Raymond
You might want to read her book, Brady's Book of Fixed Stars.
It lays out the arguments and the methods. You might also
want to look at the newsletter she puts out monthly where she
(and one of her students) does an analysis of something using
this technique. The newsletter archive is at:http://www.zyntara.com/starlight_newsletters.htm
Visual Astrology. What you see is what you get, and if you don't
see it, you don't use it. It's astrology as it might have been before
the Greeks got their hands into the stew. A calculated relationship
is no relationship.
I'd certainly be willing to talk about it more if anyone's interested,
but answering hypothetical questions simply isn't my thing. If you
want to know why it's sunrise to sunrise rather than sunset to sunset,
you'll need to collect the data. Maybe all of us will learn something.
John Roth
Yes.........I have her book. I bought it back in late January of
2002. I got her Starlight program in late 2002. I like the work
that she has done with fixed stars, and it got me wondering if using
the projected ecliptic degrees are wrong.
I found my answer to my question about Brady's view about Right
Ascension
"The ecliptic is the circle of the zodiac, and is shown in every chart
as the
outer zodiac ring, on to which the planets are placed. This works well
as a
method of representing the position of planets within the two
dimensional
limitation of a horoscope, because the Sun is always exactly on the
ecliptic,
and the planets are always close to the ecliptic.
The stars, however, are not close to the ecliptic; they cover the
celestial
sphere from pole to pole. Nonetheless, the technique of star-
aspecting chooses
to sacrifice the stars' true position in the sky by projecting all
stars to the
ecliptic.
For example, Arcturus, which is located in the figure on the line of
the horizon
(near the number "60"), would be projected along the lines of Right
Ascension
(blue lines) until it cut the ecliptic. This projected position would
be close
to the Sun in early degrees of Scorpio. Thus an astrologer who worked
with star
aspects would say that Arcturus is at 3° or 4° Scorpio, and therefore
conjunct
the Sun.
This is done to enable the star to be represented in the two-
dimensional
framework of a horoscope, in a similar manner to the planets.
Unfortunately this
technique sacrifices information about the true position of stars on
the
celestial sphere, and has consequently resulted in some misconceptions
among
astrologers."
http://www.zyntara.com/starlight_tutorials_paransaspects.html
She is referring to the Right Ascension coordinates of Arcturus in
ecliptic
longitude equivalent. I have Sun in alignment with Arcturus in Right
Ascension. They conjunct between 3 to 4 degrees Scorpio when using
Zodiac
Longitude equivalent.
both local midnight - modern day setting and previous midnight -
Hebrew,Babylonian day shows Arcturus culminated as Sun culminated
so even though Sun and Arcturus are in alignment in Right Ascension,
they
actually have a visual connection if using the aforementioned day
settings.
another thing to is that my Moon is in alignment with Fomalhaut in
projected
ecliptic longitude with 17 minutes of arc.
according to local midnight - modern day,Fomalhaut culminated as Moon
culminated. Therefore,they could actually have a visual connection
This is what I read about the modern day that starts at midnight. It's
known as
the civil day.
"For civil purposes a common clock time has been defined for an entire
region
based on the mean local solar time at some central meridian. Such time
zones
began to be adopted about the middle of the 19th century when
railroads with
regular schedules came into use, with most major countries having
adopted them
by 1929. For the whole world, 40 such time zones are now in use. The
main one is
"world time" or Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).
The present common convention has the civil day starting at midnight,
which is
near the time of the lower culmination of the mean Sun on the central
meridian
of the time zone. A day is commonly divided into 24 hours of 60
minutes of 60
seconds each."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day
My Moon is in alignment with Sadalmelik with 13 minutes of arc in
projected
ecliptic longitude, and they are in paran in the Roman/Egyptian day
setting and
Babylonian/Hebrew setting but not in the modern day nor the
astronomical day
systems
stars being projected onto the ecliptic might be felt because there
are
corresponding parans with them...depending on which day system you
look at.
My Moon is in alignment with Ancha with 18 minutes of arc , but it's a
true
conjunction in the actual sky too. They conjunct with 49 minutes of
arc. So my
Moon is actually in the hip of Aquarius constellation with it being in
a true
conjunction to Ancha.
My Sun parallels Khambalia in declinations with 4 minutes of arc,and
their true
separation is 1'19. I would say that parallel is relevant with it with
the Sun
being near Khambalia even though it's 19 minutes over 1 degree orb
that's used
with stars.
Raymond