Stretching the System - Research Results

General Discussion on Mundane Astrology matters for which a specific forum does not exist.
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:02 pm

UncleAries wrote:
Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:11 pm
Thank you for exploring these, i understand how tedious and laborious it is, maybe you can advise me how to check ingresses contacts in a more efficient and faster way, do you use excel, what kind of spreadsheet have you designed for this type of research, im not good at creating a template to insert data in...
I've just tabulated them in a Word file, then collated the scores at the end of each topic (which look like the numbers posted here). For checking them more efficiently, don't both with an analog chart, just open the chart in question, click Reports, and read the Altitude column.
May i see a small portion of MAC distribution rating scores?
OK, here are the volcano scores, where the same number of MAC contacts scored +1 or +2 as scored -1 or -2. We already know that volcano ingresses have a predominance of Mars and Saturn angularities, and an unusual shortage of Neptune and Moon contacts.

Here are the MAC results for the current small set of volcanos, and the scores I gave:

Mt. Vesuvius
CAPSOLAR: Neptune -1
CANSOLAR: Saturn +2, Mars +2 Moon -1
CAPLUNAR: Mercury 0

Huaynaputina
CAPLUNAR: Neptune +1, Jupiter -2
[Despite Neptune being a non-volcano planet, I gave it a positive score here for some reason I don't remember, probably related to the local mania; but it probably should have been a -1. In fact, this might have been a simple mistake.]

Laki
CANSOLAR: Venus -2
CANLUNAR: Uranus +1

Krakatoa
(none)

Mt. Pelee
ARILUNAR: Jupiter -2

Mount St. Helens
ARISOLAR: Pluto +2
ARILUNAR: Jupiter -2, Mars +2

Nevado del Ruiz
LIBSOLAR: Jupiter -2


Sorting by planets, and remembering that aside from routine astrological principles we know to expect unusually high Mars and Saturn and unusually low Neptune and Moon, we get mostly Jupiter, followed by a tie of Mars and Neptune in the middle.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

UncleAries
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:00 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by UncleAries » Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:54 pm

thanks, ill comment in the future regarding MAC's

im thinking of narrowing down a tighter definition of MAC...

the amount of hit contacts surprised me, too many, it's as if they're common or random as you call them....

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:02 pm

What's really frustrating is that some of them are great. The Vesuvius Cansolar is stunning! And then we turn and find tons of Jupiters where they don't belong, and a consistent stream of Venuses where they don't belong and so many Suns (which normally get a 0/Neutral score) to make me wonder if there is a mathematical reason the Sun should be there so often. (I haven't found one that would make more than a slight difference, the answer is probably that there is not.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

UncleAries
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:00 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by UncleAries » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:02 am

i wish we had in astro software your "meridian longitude" z-analogue

im curious how the mac planets would look in them?!

we have zero support from software developers, sad state of affairs,
there just isnt any interest on their part bacause of financial reasons, no money to be made in western Sidereal astrology is what they feel

i agree with you that the existing system is strong and we are secure in it

but something is bugging me, like the capricorn ingresses having 90 or 91 percent accuracy, i always feel we should be around 94 95 96 percentile

we have to be on the lookout for that last angular framework if it exists, maybe a different breed of angularity compared to the known angles

what could we see in meridian longitude if we had it?
conjunctions, midpoints, parrallels, angularity contacts?

UncleAries
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:00 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by UncleAries » Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:01 am

i hereby then propose a new tighter definition of Meridian Altitude Conjunctions (MAC) or we may even rename them later on

it goes like this

you need 2 factors to check in order to get angularity

1. you need at least 2 planets (never a single one) each on seperate side of meridian (1before 1after, or 1left 1 right side) in LONGITUDE!!! within 1 degree midpoint to the MC or IC

2. then you need those very same two or more planets to be conjunct the meridian in altitude z-analogue within 1 degree orb


this will probably remove at least 3/4 of all contacts if not more which makes sense, since MAC's are rare, we have standard angular frameworks which have higher frequency of angular hits, that's how it is suppose to be

this means in case of
Mt. Vesuvius
CAPSOLAR: Neptune -1
CANSOLAR: Saturn +2, Mars +2 Moon -1
CAPLUNAR: Mercury 0

we are left with only
CANSOLAR: Saturn +2, Mars +2 !!

and this
viewtopic.php?p=10269#p10269
Jim Eshelman wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:15 pm


That's too bad for this current example in particular, because there were (literally) killer MAC contacts with both the Caplunar and Arilunar. Both had a Saturn-Pluto "conjunction" right on MC for Washington. This fits more or less every detail of the last week's events. For example, the Caplunar has altitudes of 27°43' for MC, 27°55' for Pluto, and 27°58' for Saturn. That's impressive! Except... we can't rely on it, because actual observed results have only been right about half the time. We don't get an easy answer from this one.
we have the angularity in the CAPLUNAR and not in the arilunar by the new definition!!!

this means MAC's are angular altitude meridian parallels (AMP?)

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:47 am

UncleAries wrote:
Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:02 am
but something is bugging me, like the capricorn ingresses having 90 or 91 percent accuracy, i always feel we should be around 94 95 96 percentile
The standard of viability for the different techniques has pretty consistently always been "about 7 out of 8), meaning abut 88% or better - some of them inching a bit up from that. That's actually a very high performance level IMHO. I think the key to "Why aren't they even better?" is that it's not about a single chart - it's about a chorus of charts converging and aligning to isolate a peak point.

Where we do get the numbers you are suggesting - the high end of your range and even a little better - is in this kind of convergence. Consider that each event has one or two charts applicable to it in each of three categories (solar, lunar, daily): A Year and Quarter chart among the solar ingresses, a Month and Week chart among the lunar ingresses, and the Capsolar set (CapQ & transits) and Cansolar set (CanQ & transits) among the dailies. There is a very sweet result obtained when we ask the question: How many events have at least one solar, one lunar, and one daily supporting the event?

Of 301 events in the current catalogue, 97% have the solar ingresses meet this criterion (either the Year chart or the Quarter chart is descriptive), 96% have either the Month or Week chart hit it, and 99% (298 out of 301) have either the Capsolar dailies or Cansolar dailies hit it. The system is more complicated than a single chart or a strict hierarchy of "has to show top to bottom."

Only 92% have one from each column - one solar, one lunar, one daily - although the phrase "only 92%" is kinda silly IMHO, since that's a very high level of predictability. When we only require that two of the three categories show the event, this number naturally goes higher. You may remember that in the earliest editions of SMA I had an appendix showing just the results from two factors, the most recent non-dormant lunar ingress and the CapQ results, and these two things alone were showing nearly everything quite clearly - they are still the two highest scoring individual techniques. Well, when we ask, "How many of the events have a lunar and a daily showing?" - meaning, either the Month or Week chart AND either the Cap or Can dailies - we get 95%.

It's in the convergence, in the chorus of voices finding a matching theme. One chart alone won't do it.
we have to be on the lookout for that last angular framework if it exists, maybe a different breed of angularity compared to the known angles
Well, there are a few techniques that are proving worthy add-ons, especially the idea - not as angularity, but as aspects - that mundane aspects between the prime vertical and horizon or meridian are valid. These are performing very well. Even with that, I don't know that it will tip the percentages up much, but it might tip it a percent or two. I'm in the middle of a nearly one-year project to address this exact question (i.e., of these supplemental ways of looking).

We also need to be careful, though, not to bloat the system. The charts have to be capable of failing, for example, otherwise it all turns into a bad joke (as do we).
what could we see in meridian longitude if we had it?
Exact orbs of mundane squares between planets on the prime vertical and planets on the horizon. As it is, I can estimate these pretty close (maybe very close) by interfacing PV amplitude of one with altitude of the other, but that would really be all. We aren't going to get more angularity, because we already have easy ways to calculate planets on the meridian, planets on the horizon, and planets on the prime vertical.

[quote[conjunctions, midpoints, parrallels, angularity contacts?[/quote]
None of those. Only mundane squares between horizon and PV.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:53 am

UncleAries wrote:
Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:01 am
i hereby then propose a new tighter definition of Meridian Altitude Conjunctions (MAC) or we may even rename them later on
I'm dropping it. I'm done with it. Please take further discussion out of this thread (which is meant mostly as a catalogue and report of the findings in the current project) and back to the MAC thread.

I could search through my tabulations and find charts that meet your criteria, but it would take me an hour or two to tabulate them all from the lists, and I just don't feel like giving another hour of my life to this.
you need 2 factors to check in order to get angularity
I don't think that matches what has shown so far. There are almost no occasions of that, and, besides, these are such supplemental shadings that they don't really affect the overall rankings (which seem to concern you).

No fair using the Vesuvius chart against me BTW, since I'm the one who singled it out to you as a striking example :)

(I was going to do a spot test of the Fires on your new definition, until I read it further. I can't do it from the collated data, and would have to recalculate every damn chart all over again, and in a more complicated form than I did before. I'm not going to do that.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

War & Peace

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Aug 28, 2017 12:46 am

In contrast to the last group, the current published catalogue of War & Peace events were remarkably good!

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 11
+1: 7
0: 0
-1: 1
-2: 3

Over 80% in the positives.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 40
+1: 20
0: 9
-1: 1
-2: 4

Again, over 80% - but these numbers seem huge!

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 25
+1: 9
0: 3
-1: 1
-2: 3

And again, over 80%. These numbers are big!
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

UncleAries
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:00 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by UncleAries » Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:06 am

what kind of aspects and orbs are you using for
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects

0 90 180?
3 degrees?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:59 am

UncleAries wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:06 am
what kind of aspects and orbs are you using for
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects

0 90 180?
3 degrees?
Exactly the same as the standard for any aspects in ingresses: 4° for conjunctions and oppositions (weakening after 3°, but counting them for this purpose) and 3° for squares.

For example, I'm currently working through "Other Warlike Actions." Here are the additional test items extracted for the 9/11 attack for Washington:

Year: Capsolar
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects
Mars-Uranus square 0°10' +2
Jupiter-Saturn conjunction 3°40' +1

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects
Venus-Saturn square 1°59' in azimuth +2

Quarter: Cansolar
Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
Pluto opposes Venus 0°09' +2
Pluto conjoins Mars 2°16' +2
Pluto opposes Saturn 2°08' +2

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects
Uranus-Pluto square 1°27' +2

Month: Caplunar
Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
Mars squares Mercury 1°41' +2

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects
Mars-Uranus square 2°31' +2
Saturn-Neptune square 0°28' +2

Summary
Aspects by Non-Angular Planets: +2 +2 +2 +2
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects: +2 +2 +2 +2 +1
Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects: +2
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Warlike Events

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:16 am

These, though few, were quite good.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 8
+1: 3
0: 2
-1: 0
-2: 0

Over 80% in the positives, and no negatives.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 12
+1: 3
0: 3
-1: 3
-2: 2

Heavily weighted to very high scores, with about two-thirds positive.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 12
+1: 2
0: 2
-1: 1
-2: 0

Over 80% positive, with nearly all in +2. However, nearly all of those were from one single, extraordinary chart.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

UncleAries
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:00 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by UncleAries » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:40 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:59 am
Exactly the same as the standard for any aspects in ingresses: 4° for conjunctions and oppositions (weakening after 3°, but counting them for this purpose) and 3° for squares.
I know you are busy, but how certain are you that mundane aspects have the same orb as longitudinal when it comes to ingresses but then again maybe the orbs are around 3 degree for natal charts as well?

You now have 547 Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects analyzed.

Wouldn't it be a good idea, unless it would take you too much time, to ignore these 547 aspect withing 1 degree orb, only taking aspects from 1 degree onward to check if the score would be similar to the 1 degree maximum orb? or maybe 1.00-2.00deg, 2.00-3.00deg?

You are probably the only astrologer who has the data and the opportunity to determine the orbs for pv mundo aspects once and for good?

How would an astrologer attempt to determine the orbs for pv mundo aspects, im just thinking out loud?

In my opinion the cutoff degree must exist and that cutoff line must be sharp, severe and not gradual like the normal aspects?

What do you think?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:37 pm

Quite strange. I answered this at great length this morning, and now the answer isn't here. (Did I not hit Submit, or it didn't save to the db correctly?)

I'm not going to do it twice.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Populist uprisings, etc.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:43 pm

The current published catalogue of populist uprisisings, revolts, riots, and their suppression are in some respects excellent, in some respects sketchy.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 7
+1: 7
0: 3
-1: 2
-2: 2

Only two-thirds positive with no natural scaling between +2 and +1. Unusually poor for this category.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 22
+1: 7
0: 5
-1: 0
-2: 2

Heavily weighted to very high scores, with 80% positive (mostly +2).

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 26
+1: 2
0: 1
-1: 0
-2: 1

Over 90% positive, with nearly all in +2. One of the best showings in the whole study.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Cumulative results thus far

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:44 pm

Combining everything thus far gives this:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets (263):
+2: 127
+1: 72
0: 22
-1: 16
-2: 26

Quite strong, the top scores overweighting everything else combined. Over 75% positive. (Graph this, and it looks like almost everything is absorbed into the positive scores.)

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects (583):
+2: 277
+1: 159
0: 74
-1: 27
-2: 46

Quite strong, top scores overweighing everything else combined. Three-fourths score positive. (Subjectively, it seems there are just a few too many -2 scores for me to be fully comfortable, but they only amount to 8% of the whole.) The graph looks like nearly everything is absorbed in the positive scores.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects (303):
+2: 175
+1: 51
0: 35
-1: 10
-2: 32

Quite good so far, with over half at +2, and about 75% positive. That 12% score 0 takes a bite out of the other numbers.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Relative orb strength of mundane aspects

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:33 pm

I probably will regret derailing this thread further by posting this here, but I just took an hour and ranked the non-foreground mundane aspects in the catalogue Fires by orb, then (in full-degree increments) compared how they did.

If we didn't already have abundant evidence pinning the general range of orb drop-off for this type of chart, this would give us many of the same perspectives that we presently have.

The most important facts that emerge are that plus-scores overall stay at about the same frequency out to the orbs we're using (3° for squares, 4° for conjunctions and oppositions), but shift around to where more charts are +1 instead of +2 as the orb increases.

One shouldn't over-emphasize this in the last degree of the orb, because I intentionally score lower in that range. (A "seems descriptive, but doesn't knock'm dead" aspect at a wide orb is less persuasive, commanding, and relevant to practical work than the same aspect in a closer orb). Therefore, the tail end of this is caused by the evaluator intentionally.

Combining +2 and +1 scores together for this group ogf aspects, they account for 74% of non=foreground mundane aspects within 1°, 86% within 2°, 75% within 3°, and 71% within 4° (all of which are conjunctions or oppositions). Notice that they all remain high, and that, to the extent there is variation, the orbs peak somewhere past 2° ("two-something) and continue down a bit from there.

But there is distinction between the +2 and +1 scores.

+2 scored aspects made up 47% of the aspects within 1°, 43% within 2° (where they tied the +1 aspects), 33% within 3°, and 18% within 4° - a soft, smooth tapering from first to last (though with the last entry being somewhat intentionally induced).

In contrast, +1 aspects made up 26% of aspects within 1°, 43% within 2°, 42% within 3°, and 53% within 4°.

The neutral values (0) went 5%. 10%. 21%, 18% which might mean that the wider the orb, the less sharp and definitive its meaning, with, again, the "two-something" range starting to show some degradation.

The negative numbers were consistently small throughout,

NB - I'll keep this word file of the tallies around for a day or two before I delete it in case there is some reason to revisit it.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

UncleAries
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:00 pm

Re: Stretching the System - Research Results

Post by UncleAries » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:46 am

thanks for this, the score tapering frequency looks nice and stable

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest