Is there a house system that adjusts for seasonal daylight variations?

[BikerMagi]

If you look at any given time to the degree on the eastern horizon
that is "rising" at that moment you get the "rising" sign or
ascendant. (Elaine says yata, yata, yata). Now, in the chart, say my
chart for example (16 Aug 1961 13:57 Eastern Standard Time (Phila
diocese had issues with summer time at that time), Camden, NJ). The
sun is in the chart at a little past the midheaven at about where it
would be in the sky, right? Righhht...

The Ascendant is there on the eastern horizon at 6 Sag.

But the ascendant is what is ON THE HORIZON, and does not represent
Sunrise! That was somewhere around 6:17, and sunset was more than
twelve hours away, around 7:32 (EDT). About one and about a quarter
hours more than the twelve hours that a flat horizon would indicate.

That 1.25 hours is about 19.2 percent of a twenty-four hour period,
or ... holy macarel Batman ... 69 degrees (roughly), if you multiply
360 degrees by 19.2 percent. This means there is so much daylight on
the day I was born to essentially mandate that the angles would need
to be adjusted OVER A WHOLE SIGN on BOTH sides to accurately depict
day and night.

Now I know questioning this is akin to questioning the religion of
some people, so I am trying to tread lightly ... but if astrology is
to represent the conditions accurately, then I cannot say the
ascendant separates day from night in the chart because day was longer
than 12 hours and thus the horizon is NOT a valid indicator!

Even if I were totally DAFT, at least I want to communicate what I am
talking about. I am looking to define the day/light interface in the
chart... and this is NOT accomplished by the flat horizon.

Is there a house system that adjusts for seasonal daylight
variations? It just seems necessary to determine where day begins and
ends in the chart.

Surely one such as myself could not have seen something that no one
has ever seen before?


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Recommended: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ast_com.html

[Todd Carnes]

Post by BikerMagi
But the ascendant is what is ON THE HORIZON, and does not represent
Sunrise! That was somewhere around 6:17, and sunset was more than
twelve hours away, around 7:32 (EDT). About one and about a quarter
hours more than the twelve hours that a flat horizon would indicate.

I think you misunderstand what the ascendant is supposed to be. It has
NOTHING to do with the Sun or sunrise.

It simply represents what's rising on the horizon at the time you were born.
If you were born at sunrise, the Sun & ASC will be conjunct, otherwise they
won't.

Todd

[~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~]

Post by BikerMagi
If you look at any given time to the degree on the eastern horizon
that is "rising" at that moment you get the "rising" sign or
ascendant. (Elaine says yata, yata, yata). Now, in the chart, say my
chart for example (16 Aug 1961 13:57 Eastern Standard Time (Phila
diocese had issues with summer time at that time), Camden, NJ). The
sun is in the chart at a little past the midheaven at about where it
would be in the sky, right? Righhht...
The Ascendant is there on the eastern horizon at 6 Sag.
But the ascendant is what is ON THE HORIZON, and does not represent
Sunrise! That was somewhere around 6:17, and sunset was more than
twelve hours away, around 7:32 (EDT). About one and about a quarter
hours more than the twelve hours that a flat horizon would indicate.
That 1.25 hours is about 19.2 percent of a twenty-four hour period,
or ... holy macarel Batman ... 69 degrees (roughly), if you multiply
360 degrees by 19.2 percent. This means there is so much daylight on
the day I was born to essentially mandate that the angles would need
to be adjusted OVER A WHOLE SIGN on BOTH sides to accurately depict
day and night.
Now I know questioning this is akin to questioning the religion of
some people, so I am trying to tread lightly ... but if astrology is
to represent the conditions accurately, then I cannot say the
ascendant separates day from night in the chart because day was longer
than 12 hours and thus the horizon is NOT a valid indicator!
Even if I were totally DAFT, at least I want to communicate what I am
talking about. I am looking to define the day/light interface in the
chart... and this is NOT accomplished by the flat horizon.
Is there a house system that adjusts for seasonal daylight
variations? It just seems necessary to determine where day begins and
ends in the chart.
Surely one such as myself could not have seen something that no one
has ever seen before?
Recommended: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ast_com.html

Hi, this is a wellknown problem, the ASC are acting strange on different
latitudes. I don't know a house system that fully ajusts to this, maybe the
ASC high on midheaven is symbolic as well as anything else. Because
of the high latitude I was born on (69 North), the ASC had just flipped
180 degrees from beginning of gemini to beginning of Sagittarius,
retrograding
back to 28 Taurus when I was born. My ASC is retrograde in Taurus (lol,
talking absurd stubbornness). My MC is on the western side, not too far
from my Descendant actually. Also symbolic for relationship occupying much
of my goal in life (true). Some astrologer suggested the houses go backwards
too in a retrograde ASC chart. It's up to you. The Magi Society doesn't put
that much emphasis on the rising sign, but mostly on the charts
configurations
and aspects of the day one is born. Hopefully you can find some way to
interpret your ASC somehow. ASC symbolises sunrise, your psyche/persona,
perhaps it doesn't have to sit on the spot of sunrise physically.

Veronica

[BikerMagi]

Post by ~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~

Recommended:http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ast_com.html

Hi, this is a wellknown problem, the ASC are acting strange on different
latitudes. I don't know a house system that fully ajusts to this, maybe the
Veronica

Larry, I know the Asc doesn't indicate sunrise but I am trying to say,
"why isn't the day better represented?" It kinda makes me feel like
Martin Luthur nailing his thoughts to door of the the Catholic
church ...

Veronica, I think you get what I was trying to say a little better. I
still wonder what would happen if I divirced the first house cusp from
the ascendant and the seventh from the desc. Maybe I'll have to draw
up some charts by hand. Yes, I know, it's heresy .... ::smile::

But thanks to all for the response one way or another!

...Art

[Kjell]

On Mar 13, 12:05 am, BikerMagi <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

You seem to not understand what the Ascendant axis indicates.

The Ascendant-/Descendant-axis represents east and west. By
definition, these are180 degrees apart, disregarding the North Pole,
where all directions collapse into "south", and vice versa for the
south pole.

This is so regardless of the length of the day.

The sunrise is irrelevant to this axis except as a convenient way of
explaining what the Ascendant is ("the point rising over the horizon
at sunrise"). Every day every degree of the zodiac becomes a "sunrise
point", and sunset point as well. East and west are in themselves in
no way related to the position of the Sun but to the position of the
subject for which you are erecting a chart.

/Kjell

[Todd Carnes]

Post by BikerMagi

Post by ~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~

Recommended:http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ast_com.html

Hi, this is a wellknown problem, the ASC are acting strange on different
latitudes. I don't know a house system that fully ajusts to this, maybe the
Veronica

Larry, I know the Asc doesn't indicate sunrise but I am trying to say,
"why isn't the day better represented?" It kinda makes me feel like
Martin Luthur nailing his thoughts to door of the the Catholic
church ...
Veronica, I think you get what I was trying to say a little better. I
still wonder what would happen if I divirced the first house cusp from
the ascendant and the seventh from the desc. Maybe I'll have to draw
But thanks to all for the response one way or another!
...Art

Not really heresy... I used to use an equal house system and the MC moved
around to different houses.

[Hermes]

Post by BikerMagi
If you look at any given time to the degree on the eastern horizon
that is "rising" at that moment you get the "rising" sign or
ascendant. (Elaine says yata, yata, yata). Now, in the chart, say my
chart for example (16 Aug 1961 13:57 Eastern Standard Time (Phila
diocese had issues with summer time at that time), Camden, NJ). The
sun is in the chart at a little past the midheaven at about where it
would be in the sky, right? Righhht...
The Ascendant is there on the eastern horizon at 6 Sag.
But the ascendant is what is ON THE HORIZON, and does not represent
Sunrise! That was somewhere around 6:17, and sunset was more than
twelve hours away, around 7:32 (EDT). About one and about a quarter
hours more than the twelve hours that a flat horizon would indicate.
That 1.25 hours is about 19.2 percent of a twenty-four hour period,
or ... holy macarel Batman ... 69 degrees (roughly), if you multiply
360 degrees by 19.2 percent. This means there is so much daylight on
the day I was born to essentially mandate that the angles would need
to be adjusted OVER A WHOLE SIGN on BOTH sides to accurately depict
day and night.
Now I know questioning this is akin to questioning the religion of
some people, so I am trying to tread lightly ... but if astrology is
to represent the conditions accurately, then I cannot say the
ascendant separates day from night in the chart because day was longer
than 12 hours and thus the horizon is NOT a valid indicator!
Even if I were totally DAFT, at least I want to communicate what I am
talking about. I am looking to define the day/light interface in the
chart... and this is NOT accomplished by the flat horizon.
Is there a house system that adjusts for seasonal daylight
variations? It just seems necessary to determine where day begins and
ends in the chart.
Surely one such as myself could not have seen something that no one
has ever seen before?

I think it's an interesting idea, would also usually take some out of
the tension out of the angles, by wedging at least the horizontal
line. Why not, it's not like all the other house systems that are used
are fully consistent/natural either (else there would arguably much
less of them). Reminds me also for some reason I cannot fully fathom
of full moon, when, say, in summer the sun rises high and long during
the day and at night the full moon stays low and during a short night.
Reminds me also of Austin, TX, I guess where as far as I remember
tourists assemble before a big bridge to see lots of bats come out at
sunset. Just a few weeks ago I have started an open-source software
project on the side that also sort of features "your friendly bat next
door" (see logo at the link below!), reminds me also a little bit of
the glyph for the star sign Pisces:

http://jexler.sourceforge.net/

Holy open-source software, Batman! ;)

)o+

Post by BikerMagi
Recommended:http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ast_com.html

[Hermes]

Post by BikerMagi
That 1.25 hours is about 19.2 percent of a twenty-four hour period,
or ... holy macarel Batman ... 69 degrees (roughly), if you multiply
360 degrees by 19.2 percent. This means there is so much daylight on
the day I was born to essentially mandate that the angles would need
to be adjusted OVER A WHOLE SIGN on BOTH sides to accurately depict
day and night.

Slight mistake in magnitude above: not 24/1.25 = 19.2 "%", but 1.25 /
24 x 100 = 5.2%, so 12 x 0.052 / 2 = 0.31 signs on each side. I
nonetheless still like the idea, even though it is arguably
unorthodox. Is also not so that in all house systems the angles fall
on house cusps, would not necessarily have to be so here either. In
places at high latitudes would at times give births with only houses
7-12 (no worries about money or work ;) or only houses 1-6 (no death,
no prisons etc ;), what is also in a way a fascinating consideration,
if only maybe for an occasional relocation...

)o+

[BikerMagi]

Post by BikerMagi
That 1.25 hours is about 19.2 percent of a twenty-four hour period,
or ... holy macarel Batman ... 69 degrees (roughly), if you multiply
360 degrees by 19.2 percent. This means there is so much daylight on
the day I was born to essentially mandate that the angles would need
to be adjusted OVER A WHOLE SIGN on BOTH sides to accurately depict
day and night.

Slight mistake in magnitude above: not 24/1.25  = 19.2 "%", but 1.25 /
24 x 100 = 5.2%, so 12 x 0.052 / 2 = 0.31 signs on each side. I
nonetheless still like the idea, even though it is arguably
unorthodox. Is also not so that in all house systems the angles fall
on house cusps, would not necessarily have to be so here either. In
places at high latitudes would at times give births with only houses
7-12 (no worries about money or work ;) or only houses 1-6 (no death,
no prisons etc ;), what is also in a way a fascinating consideration,
if only maybe for an occasional relocation...
)o+

Thanks for the info Hermes. I'm glad I communicated the idea
sufficient enough for correction!

If we stand blindly for what we believe and cannot accomodate advances
in truth, then we believe not in knowledge but in dogma.

[Kjell]

Post by BikerMagi
That 1.25 hours is about 19.2 percent of a twenty-four hour period,
or ... holy macarel Batman ... 69 degrees (roughly), if you multiply
360 degrees by 19.2 percent. This means there is so much daylight on
the day I was born to essentially mandate that the angles would need
to be adjusted OVER A WHOLE SIGN on BOTH sides to accurately depict
day and night.

Slight mistake in magnitude above: not 24/1.25  = 19.2 "%", but 1.25 /
24 x 100 = 5.2%, so 12 x 0.052 / 2 = 0.31 signs on each side. I
nonetheless still like the idea, even though it is arguably
unorthodox. Is also not so that in all house systems the angles fall
on house cusps, would not necessarily have to be so here either. In
places at high latitudes would at times give births with only houses
7-12 (no worries about money or work ;) or only houses 1-6 (no death,
no prisons etc ;), what is also in a way a fascinating consideration,
if only maybe for an occasional relocation...
)o+

Thanks for the info Hermes.  I'm glad I communicated the idea
sufficient enough for correction!
If we stand blindly for what we believe and cannot accomodate advances
in truth, then we believe not in knowledge but in dogma.

You seem to believe that your idea stands, in spite of the corrections
given from other posters. It does not. No one is defending dogma here,
but astronomical truth.

What you speak of would picture a planet (the horoscope is a depiction
of the planet and the skies with the perspective from the birth place)
where the sun is shining over more than fifty percent of the surface.

What is "over" the Ascendant-Descendant axis is the day side of the
planet AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH. You take the axis from one moment and
add cut half off, then the axis of another moment where you choose the
other half of the axis, to construct some mischmasch that stands for
nothing at all but you seem to think is the daylight of someone’s
birth. That is not a horoscope, and it has got nothing to do with
either astrology nor astronomy.

It never happens that the sun shines upon more than half the earth. It
would necessitate that light bended back to hit the earth after having
passed, to be able to shine upon the percentage exceeding fifty
percent. But the sun never shines on the side of the earth turned away
from it.

That is not "dogma". That is a fact.

/Kjell

[BikerMagi]

Post by Kjell
It never happens that the sun shines upon more than half the earth. It
would necessitate that light bended back to hit the earth after having
passed, to be able to shine upon the percentage exceeding fifty
percent. But the sun never shines on the side of the earth turned away
from it.
That is not "dogma". That is a fact.
/Kjell

Sigh.

Want pictures? See http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

The Earth is tilted on it's axis and the number of hours of sunlight
during the day vary with the season and latitude. That I think the
number of hours of daylight ought to be represented in the chart
BECAUSE of the daily travel of the sun from horizon to horizon during
the period known as "day" is the topic, not whether sunlight
illuminates half of the globe at one particular time.

It's not rocket science.

[Kjell]

Of the pictures you point to, have a look at this one:

Loading Image...

It shows a planet that is fifty percent illuminated, which is what I
say is the maximum. Look at the pictures you link to and try to
understand WHAT they are saying. They are NOT saying that the Sun
shines upon more than fifty percent of the Earth AT ANY POINT IN TIME.
If the Sun shines upon the North Pole all day, the South Pole is dark
all that time. It is the same for every other point on earth: if it is
sunlit, the opposite point is not. And THIS is precisely what a
horoscope shows.

That daytime in some places is longer than twelve hours has got
nothing to do with what a horoscope shows, or what you think it
"should" show.

The horoscope does not picture the day of birth for an infant, it
pictures the MOMENT of the birth. At that moment only fifty percent of
the planet is illuminated. That is true even if you are born on the
North Pole at summer solstice.

Your wish to have the length of the DAY OF BIRTH included in the
horoscope is irrelevant to what a horoscope is. The very word means
"hour-watcher", and "hour" is a reference to the time of birth, not
the DAY of birth. Or night, as the case may be.

Merriam-Webster:
Etymology: Middle English horoscopum, from Latin horoscopus, from
Greek hōroskopos, from hōra + skopos watcher; akin to Greek skopein to
look at.

You may think you are Luther nailing theses on a church door, but you
simply seem to not even know the basics. OTOH, Luther, whatever one
may think of him, knew that which he was criticizing.

/K

Post by Kjell
It never happens that the sun shines upon more than half the earth. It
would necessitate that light bended back to hit the earth after having
passed, to be able to shine upon the percentage exceeding fifty
percent. But the sun never shines on the side of the earth turned away
from it.
That is not "dogma". That is a fact.
/Kjell

Sigh.
Want pictures?  Seehttp://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm
The Earth is tilted on it's axis and the number of hours of sunlight
during the day vary with the season and latitude.  That I think the
number of hours of daylight ought to be represented in the chart
BECAUSE of the daily travel of the sun from horizon to horizon during
the period known as "day" is the topic, not whether sunlight
illuminates half of the globe at one particular time.
It's not rocket science.

[donh]

Post by BikerMagi

Post by Kjell
It never happens that the sun shines upon more than half the earth. It
would necessitate that light bended back to hit the earth after having
passed, to be able to shine upon the percentage exceeding fifty
percent. But the sun never shines on the side of the earth turned away
from it.
That is not "dogma". That is a fact.
/Kjell

Sigh.
Want pictures? See

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.htm

Post by BikerMagi
The Earth is tilted on it's axis and the number of hours of sunlight
during the day vary with the season and latitude. That I think the
number of hours of daylight ought to be represented in the chart
BECAUSE of the daily travel of the sun from horizon to horizon

during

Post by BikerMagi
the period known as "day" is the topic, not whether sunlight
illuminates half of the globe at one particular time.
It's not rocket science.

The ascendant is the point at the horizon at the time of birth, and
has nothing whatsoever to do with the time/point of sunrise during the
day of the birth in question.

Should you wish to add the sunrise point to a chart calculation and
begin interpretations, go for it! I'd be interested to see what you
come up with, tho I see little use in it at this time.

[BikerMagi]

Post by donh
Should you wish to add the sunrise point to a chart calculation and
begin interpretations, go for it!  I'd be interested to see what you
come up with, tho I see little use in it at this time.
--
       donh
donh at audiosys dot com

Well yeah that's what I was envisioning but I also see what you mean.
I guess it goes under "additional horoscope dimensions." Because
there are things that work better in the day (i.e. the Sun) and things
that work better at night, You could rationally look to see if the Sun
was above the, uh ... local horizon but if it's near the horizon it
could just as well have set. And this has been my point the whole
time. But thanks for your input.

[Kjell]

If you want to add "additional horoscope dimensions" by adding things
that are not part of a proper horoscope, I surely do not understand
what you meant by these questions:

"Is there a house system that adjusts for seasonal daylight
variations?"

""why isn't the day better represented?""

Could you perhaps be persuaded to elaborate on what you meant by these
questions? I would also be very much interested in learning about what
your idea of the what these dimensions would be about
(interpretationally) and why data on the length of day should be added
to a horoscope, which pictures data of a specific moment, be it day or
night. What would the justification be for mixing these two together?

If you are on to something, I am afraid it does not shine through
without further elaboration on your part.

/K

Post by BikerMagi

Post by donh
Should you wish to add the sunrise point to a chart calculation and
begin interpretations, go for it!  I'd be interested to see what you
come up with, tho I see little use in it at this time.
--
       donh
donh at audiosys dot com

Well yeah that's what I was envisioning but I also see what you mean.
I guess it goes under "additional horoscope dimensions."  Because
there are things that work better in the day (i.e. the Sun) and things
that work better at night, You could rationally look to see if the Sun
was above the, uh ... local horizon but if it's near the horizon it
could just as well have set.  And this has been my point the whole
time.  But thanks for your input.

[BikerMagi]

Post by Kjell
If you want to add "additional horoscope dimensions" by adding things
that are not part of a proper horoscope, I surely do not understand
Could you perhaps be persuaded to elaborate on what you meant by these
questions? I would also be very much interested in learning about what

Post by ~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
Because
there are things that work better in the day (i.e. the Sun) and things
that work better at night,

Since what I was trying to say was obscured, obfuscated or for some
other reason wasn't coming through (my Mercury is compbust, sorry),
I'll respond by reference:

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_of_sect

Wouldn't it be nice to include the sunrise/sunset boundaries so that
an astrologer could see at a glance where it was, visually, so that
the right brain could comprehend the symbols without the necessity of
interpretation on the part of the left brain analytical function?
Bam, there it is! I can see my moon is out of sect instantly when I
draw daylight boundaries.

The BikerMagi

one of my articles
http://astrologyexpressed.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/guest-post-the-biker-magi-on-venus/

[Hermes]

Post by BikerMagi

Post by Kjell
If you want to add "additional horoscope dimensions" by adding things
that are not part of a proper horoscope, I surely do not understand
Could you perhaps be persuaded to elaborate on what you meant by these
questions? I would also be very much interested in learning about what

Post by ~.^.Saba Gracile.^.~
Because
there are things that work better in the day (i.e. the Sun) and things
that work better at night,

Since what I was trying to say was obscured, obfuscated or for some
other reason wasn't coming through (my Mercury is compbust, sorry),
seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_of_sect
Wouldn't it be nice to include the sunrise/sunset boundaries so that
an astrologer could see at a glance where it was, visually, so that
the right brain could comprehend the symbols without the necessity of
interpretation on the part of the left brain analytical function?

But that boundary is simply the AC-DC line. How the longer days in
summer come into this, is so to speak not in "space" but in time: If
you imagine a sequence of charts for (say) each hour on a given day,
the rotation of the chart wheel will be slower in summer when the sun
is above the AC-DC line (houses 7-12 in most house systems) and
quicker during night, so that the sun will be above the line during
most hours. (I don't want to stress it, but I still liked the idea of
"wedged horizon line", that would in a way represent visually that in
summer the sun rises and sinks more to the south that in winter, i.e.
if you measure the angle between sunrise and sunset, you get 180* only
at the equinoxes.)

I hope I got all astronomical/-logical facts right (watch out, Mercury
will go retro soon... ;)

)o+

Post by BikerMagi
Bam, there it is! I can see my moon is out of sect instantly when I
draw daylight boundaries.
The BikerMagi
one of my articleshttp://astrologyexpressed.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/guest-post-the-bik...

[BikerMagi]

Post by Hermes
But that boundary is simply the AC-DC line. How the longer days in
summer come into this, is so to speak not in "space" but in time: If
you imagine a sequence of charts for (say) each hour on a given day,
the rotation of the chart wheel will be slower in summer when the sun
is above the AC-DC line (houses 7-12 in most house systems) and
quicker during night, so that the sun will be above the line during
most hours. (I don't want to stress it, but I still liked the idea of
"wedged horizon line", that would in a way represent visually that in
summer the sun rises and sinks more to the south that in winter, i.e.
if you measure the angle between sunrise and sunset, you get 180* only
at the equinoxes.)
I hope I got all astronomical/-logical facts right (watch out, Mercury
will go retro soon... ;)
)o+

But the variation between the chart horizon and day-night interface is
not accurate, says Mars in Virgo. "Wedged horizon line" ... hmmm.

The horizon, i.e., Asc, does not change. THAT is what was rising and
that is that. I am with you on that.

But yes, what I am talking about is a "Wedged horizon line" that
affects not the local horizon but the defining of house boundaries.
Gotta draw up some charts by hand....

[Kjell]

What do you mean by "day-night interface"?

/Kjell

Post by BikerMagi
But the variation between the chart horizon and day-night interface is
not accurate, says Mars in Virgo.  "Wedged horizon line" ... hmmm.
The horizon, i.e., Asc, does not change.  THAT is what was rising and
that is that.  I am with you on that.
But yes, what I am talking about is a "Wedged horizon line" that
affects not the local horizon but the defining of house boundaries.
Gotta draw up some charts by hand....

[BikerMagi]

Post by Kjell
What do you mean by "day-night interface"?
/Kjell

It is beyond the "signature of a single moment in time" concept of the
horoscope drawing, as it would provide a reference point of "where did
sunrise occur?" and "where WILL sunset occur?" in the chart. Purpose:
for determination of whether day/night planets are truly in their
domain at the time of birth.

OK I will admit I've been reading "ancient" books ... one of which
requires the charting of the Aries ingress for the year to determine
the year ruler before even casting the chart. I haven't even gone
there yet!

[Kjell]

Sunrise and sunset always occur within less than a degree of the Sun,
regardless of where on Earth you are born, regardless of which time of
day you are born -- and regardless of which day of the year you are
born.

To add these two points to a horoscope does not tell you much that I
can see. Everything that is not in a rather close conjunction with the
Sun will come outside of this "domain".

/K

Post by BikerMagi

Post by Kjell
What do you mean by "day-night interface"?
/Kjell

It is beyond the "signature of a single moment in time" concept of the
horoscope drawing, as it would provide a reference point of "where did
for determination of whether day/night planets are truly in their
domain at the time of birth.
OK I will admit I've been reading "ancient" books ... one of which
requires the charting of the Aries ingress for the year to determine
the year ruler before even casting the chart.  I haven't even gone
there yet!