A fractal model of progressions

General Discussion on Transit & Progression matters for which a specific forum does not exist
User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 6:58 pm

Jun 08, 2014
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:INTRODUCTION

I propose to set out a model of progressions that unifies most of the accepted progression systems, namely Primaries, Secondary Q1 and Q2, Tertiary and Minor (or Quarternary), under one conceptual model.

Once this model is laid out in its basics, it becomes infinitely extendable in a fractal manner. It is likely that most of the results have minimal utility, however, to be determined by examination. It is likely that a “sweet spot” of some small but well-selected set of progressions provides the greatest utility without overtaxing the astrologer’s time and attention (and may already have been found).

(To Be Continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 6:59 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:1. THE BASIC MODEL

The basic units of the model consist of the day, the month and the year. Progressions are formed by mapping one unit of time to another unit of time of lesser duration, each in turn. This definition, we shall see, is not the whole story, but it will do for now.

The three equivalencies taken as basic and their names are as follows:

Secondary Progressions: 1 Year = 1 Day
Tertiary Progressions: 1 Month = 1 Day
Minor Progressions: 1 Year = 1 Month

In the next section, I will specify which year, month and day are meant. For starters, it is enough to grasp these concepts.

(To be continued)
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 6:59 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:2. THE BASES OF CYCLES

At the outset, it's important to discuss the reasons why certain definitions of year, month and day will be considered and not others.

All cycles are based on recurring conjunctions of one point with another point. The conjunction of the local longitude with the Sun, the Sun with the Vernal Equinox, the Moon with its North Node, Mars with Jupiter, and so on into infinity, can be taken as cycles to be considered in astrology.

In this presentation, I take progressions to start with the most basic motions of the Earth system in relation to sidereal space. Thus a day is successive conjunctions of the meridian with a point in sidereal space, not with the Sun (or Moon!). A year is successive conjunctions of the Sun with a point in sidereal space, not the moving Vernal Equinox which has a different, strictly Earth-based set of rules for its existence. A month is successive conjunctions of the Moon with a point in sidereal space, not some other moving point, such as its perihelion, or its node, or Venus, or Ceres. This is not to say that such cycles can't be valuable somehow, but they cannot be considered fundamental.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:00 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:3. THE THREE DAYS

There are three kinds of days open to consideration:

1) The Civil Day (CD), which is the ordinary clock time we all use in the normal course of living. It is the average of the conjunction of the Sun with a fixed meridian.

2) The Sidereal Day (SD). This is defined by the Vernal Equinoctial Point crossing the Midheaven. Strictly speaking, this is a misnomer, since the equinox precesses and is not truly “sidereal.” Early Siderealist works by Cyril Fagan and Carl W. Stahl called Sidereal Time “Equinoctial Time.” While technically correct, it created peculiar terminology at odds with accepted and standard usage. One SD = 23h 56m 4.0905s CD.

3) The true “sidereal day” - that is, Sidereal Time expunged of precession – is called the Inertial Day (ID). It is 23h 56m 4.0989s CD.
(ref. http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_p ... 2_7_2.html)

I will use 3) Inertial Day. Using the Sidereal Day instead, however, will cause negligible differences in some usages.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:00 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:4. THE THREE YEARS

Three sorts of years are available to consider:

1) The Tropical Year (TY) of 365d 5h 48m 45.5s. This is the average value, and it gradually changes by a small amount over time. It is based on the Sun's conjunction with the Vernal Equinox.

2) The Anomalistic Year of 365d 6h 13m 52.6s (on average, subject to change over time). The Sun's conjunction with the Earth's perihelion is its basis.

3) The Sidereal Year (SY) of 365d 6h 9m 9.5s. This, too, is an average and subject to long-term change.

I will adopt 3) Sidereal Year as the value to use.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:01 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:5. THE MANY MONTHS

The Moon's motion is very complex. Astronomers have defined many “months” depending on what they intend to measure, and all values necessarily have “mean” or averaged lengths. There is the Synodic Month, the Moon in relation to the Sun; the Anomalistic Month, in relation to its perigee; and the Draconic Month, in relation to its nodes. I will not use them here.

This leaves:

1) The Tropical Month (TM) of 27d 7h 43m 4.7s (average).
2) The Sidereal Month (SM) of 27d 7h 43m 11.5s (average).

I adopt 2) Sidereal Month as the preferred choice in this model of progressions.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:02 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:6. MEAN OR TRUE MOTION?

While the Earth's rotation about its axis is very steady, the orbits of the Earth around the Sun, and the Moon around the Earth, are elliptical. Their rate of motion can change measurably. Whether one should use the mean or true motions of the Sun or Moon when calculating progressions still seems unresolved to everyone's satisfaction.

For the purposes of this presentation, I will use mean motions. This is to make the calculations simpler without getting bogged down in adjustments. It is not an endorsement of mean motion over true. Anyone interested enough to pursue this model further is encouraged to take the extra steps of making comparisons of one versus the other.

To state this another way: Does the Earth's rotation drive the progression, or does the Earth's revolution drive progressed rotation? In the case of Minor Progressions, what would determine the actual rate, the Sun or the Moon? I have no answers, but I hope this model will provide a better tool as the point of departure.

(To be continued)
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:03 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:I find this interesting. I worry that you are adopting definitions that will lead to theoretical conclusions that run contrary to what can be observed actually working, but I also realize we aren't yet at the end.

I do find it hard to follow, coming in a day later and reading something that depends on remembering all the definitions before it. Fortunately I know the material, so I can fill in the blanks. My saying this isn't exactly a complaint, because there is also value in this patient pace. I'm probably just yammering, in fact <g>. I do find your process interesting.
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:03 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Jim Eshelman wrote:I worry that you are adopting definitions that will lead to theoretical conclusions that run contrary to what can be observed actually working, but I also realize we aren't yet at the end.
Thanks for for the kind words, Mr. E., even your reservations. Yes, there is more to come!

I want to emphasize that this is a model, not a claim of accuracy or a discovery that I have actually found "The Truth." At best, I hope to provide something that will introduce better computational rigor for astrologers; at worst, a foil for something better.
Jim Eshelman wrote:I do find it hard to follow, coming in a day later and reading something that depends on remembering all the definitions before it. ... there is also value in this patient pace.
I decided on this format because I figure it's better than dumping a long treatise all at once. Also, :) , I'm still writing it! I've been hinting at this over the years in various places on the Forum, and I decided it's past time for me to put it all out. By writing it in discrete pieces like this, it's psychologically easier for me to elaborate on each one coherently. And, for those who don't already know the material, I figured this piecemeal approach would be better for absorbing the material.

Your patience is appreciated.

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:04 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:Yep! Got it. :D
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:04 pm

Venus_Daily wrote:I hope no one minds me asking this question, and I am asking with the least ill-mannered intentions possible, but what does this have to do with Fractals. I've always been curious about the subject as well...
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:05 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Venus_Daily wrote:I hope no one minds me asking this question
No offense taken. I'm getting there!

I'm posting one section a day, laying the groundwork. It's a bit slow at first, then it will take off. I estimate the answer to your question will become really clear about June 18.

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:06 pm

Jun 15, 2014
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:7. REFINED TERMINOLOGY

We can now refine the series of equations in 1. THE BASIC MODEL to read this way:

Secondary Progressions: 1 Sidereal Year = 1 Inertial Day
Tertiary Progressions: 1 Sidereal Month = 1 Inertial Day
Minor Progressions: 1 Sidereal Year = 1 Sidereal Month

We can substitute values (changing their forms to decimals of the Civil Day):

Secondary Progressions: 365.256360 CD = 0.9972697 CD
Tertiary Progressions: 27.321661 CD = 0.9972697 CD
Minor Progressions: 365.256360 CD = 27.3216609 CD

If you want to use an astrological program to define custom progressions, the ratios to use are:

Secondary Progressions: 0.00273032809
Tertiary Progressions: 0.03650106428
Minor Progressions: 0.07480132826

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:06 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:Secondary Progressions: 1 Sidereal Year = 1 Inertial Day
Yes, this was my biggest concern (hinted at above). This is the Q1 rate. Every study I've done and every study Bradley did indicates that the Q1 rate either doesn't work or, at best, is far inferior to the Q2 rate of 1 sidereal year = 1 civil day. Elegant theory doesn't match fact in this case. (I'd love it if the universe worked that prettily.)

However, I will be patient and see where you're going. :D
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:06 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Jim Eshelman wrote:However, I will be patient and see where you're going. :D
As mentioned in the Introduction, I'm getting to the Q2, probably on 6/19-20.

I, too, have concerns about the utility of what I'm getting. I'm getting values that are are not immediately apparent, and so no one would think to use them without this model. And then there's the issue of too much to use with too little return. On the other hand, we all get disappointing results sometimes, so I wonder whether there's something here that can fill in those gaps. (It will eventually become clear what I'm referring to.)

In the hard sciences, theoretical models are then tested against experiment, even Einstein's Theory of Relativity still. That's the mind-set I'm taking here, so this sort of criticism is certainly welcome, even encouraged. But some years ago, weren't you doing tests that showed good results with the Q1? (Set aside for the moment the relative significance of Q1 vs Q2.)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:07 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:But some years ago, weren't you doing tests that showed good results with the Q1? (Set aside for the moment the relative significance of Q1 vs Q2.)
I think the inspecific word here is "good." :D

Yes, watching four quotidian systems on a day-by-day basis, the SNQ2 and PSSR were averaging reliability of 95-99%, SQ in the high 80s, and SNQ1 in the low 80s. That's not a waste of time, but it's pretty poor by comparison.

Bradley wrote me that whenever he would take a stack of events and run the Q2 and Q1 side by side, the toss the better of the two charts onto a stack, the Q2 stack would always be two or three times higher than the Q1 stack. My tests produced roughly the same.

I suppose it isn't too far afield to say that it's like the CapQ and CanQ. When each is given an independent score, the CanQ tends to be right about 70% as often as the CapQ. Then, when I take my (currently) 156 events already ranked on a 5-point scale, and rule out the 69 where the CapQ and CanQ have the same score [I'd have to redraw the charts to vote on which one was better], I get 59 times that the CapQ was better and 28 times that the CanQ was better. That's slightly better than the 2-to-1 Bradley kept finding. If we relied first on the CanQ, we'd be wrong about a third of the time.

Nonetheless, I agree with you that the Q1 seems to be a viable system, even if limited, and therefore it necessarily fits somewhere in a comprehensive general model.
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:07 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Jim Eshelman wrote:I think the inspecific word here is "good." :D
:lol:
Jim Eshelman wrote:Nonetheless, I agree with you that the Q1 seems to be a viable system, even if limited, and therefore it necessarily fits somewhere in a comprehensive general model.
I wonder whether a comprehensive general model once found - if it exists - would lead some imaginative astrologer to understand why progressions even work at all. Could it be in the mind-field? I have an idea about why some progressions would be more powerful and reliable than others, but it wouldn't make sense to anyone if I said it right now. Maybe later this week.

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:09 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Jim Eshelman wrote:
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:But some years ago, weren't you doing tests that showed good results with the Q1? (Set aside for the moment the relative significance of Q1 vs Q2.)
I think the inspecific word here is "good." :D
Can we agree on "non-random" instead of "good"?

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:10 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:...would lead some imaginative astrologer to understand why progressions even work at all. Could it be in the mind-field?
My theory starts with the idea that there are only progressions in astrology - that transits, for example, are progressions in the form of "1 day = 1 day." That gives us fewer variations to think about, and gets us away from the idea that transits are "more real" because something is "actually out there." (I don't think something "actually out there" is doing anything to us.)

So, the question then becomes more or less: Given that each individual moment interacts with us differently, when does the flow of moments (the progress of time) seem to flow simultaneously at variable rates.

The various flows are probably then related to some variety of "equivalency," in the nonphysical world where astrology operates, between different time periods, e.g., a sidereal year and a civil day being analogous or variations on a single time-cycle theme.

Or something like that.

(Stating the next part slightly obscurely. You'll get it, but it won't necessarily give away anyplace you were intending to go, even if it's in the same ballpark.) My theory of priority of type of time cycle is based on a layering, remembering that (1) the year is based on Earth's motion, not that of the Sun, and (2) our Moon isn't entirely a satellite, but much more of a twin-planet with satellite-like characteristics - both Earth and Moon rotate around a barycenter about a thousand miles below Earth's surface. A year is then Earth's revolution, sighting Sun against the next framework which is celestial; a month is primarily sidereal also because Moon's orbit is primarily the same as Earth's orbit but, secondarily, to the extent Moon is a satellite, it's "next up" layer is the Sun, giving the synodic a secondary ranking; and the day, being rotational, is measured against the "next up" reference layer, which is solar position. This gives weight to the sidereal year, the sidereal month (and secondarily the synodic month), and the civil day (mean solar day).
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:10 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Jim Eshelman wrote:My theory starts with the idea that there are only progressions in astrology - that transits, for example, are progressions in the form of "1 day = 1 day." ... The various flows are probably then related to some variety of "equivalency," in the nonphysical world where astrology operates, between different time periods, e.g., a sidereal year and a civil day being analogous or variations on a single time-cycle theme.
I'll have to review, but either by now or later, I use "equivalency" also. Just to jump the gun a little, an upcoming post will use "equivalency" rather than "equals" in the same sense that (for example) two equilateral triangles of different sizes are equivalent, but not equal. This borrowing from spacial relationships to time relationships is deliberate. Our thinking seems very close on this.

Your "1 day = 1 day" equation is very compatible with the system I'm presenting.

For every astrologer reading this, please note this important fact: Mr. E is stating, essentially, that not all time is the same. There are many physical equations that ignore time. They are just as valid forward as backward. The general scientific thinking is that essentially all time is the same. Astrology challenges this idea. Astrology could not work if that were true. Time is meaningful, or maybe, has meaning in it.

I think this sort of dialogue is very constructive. Thank you, Mr. E.

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:11 pm

Jun 16, 2014
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:8. OUTSTANDING ISSUES

We must note certain features of the results so far.

1) The version of Secondaries here is the Q1.

2) This version of Tertiaries has the angles making one full circuit in ≈27.3 days. In contrast, Donald Bradley's article about Tertiaries (American Astrology Magazine, Feb. 1970, “Give Tertiaries a Try!”) follows the original path laid down by E.H. Troinski, originator of Tertiaries, and Edward Lyndoe (Astrology for Everyone), where the Sidereal Time progresses about 13° per year and 360° in approximately 27 years.

In the next series of posts, I will derive 1) Primary Progressions, 2) the Q2 quotidian, and 3) the 13°+ motion of the “Tertiary” Midheaven.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:12 pm

Jun 17, 2014
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:9. THE EQUIVALENCIES REVISITED

It is now necessary to become even more precise how we say things in the equations set forth in section 7. REFINED TERMINOLOGY.

Since we have mapped real time units onto progressed time units, it is correct to state the equivalencies this way:

1 Sidereal Year ~ 1 Progressed Inertial Day
1 Sidereal Month ~ 1 Progressed Inertial Day
1 Sidereal Year ~ 1 Progressed Sidereal Month

(I am using the “~” sign instead of “=” to signify “similarity” as is done in geometry.
Ref. http://www.rapidtables.com/math/symbols ... ymbols.htm
This is because, strictly speaking, the values are not “equal” but are considered similar in a proportionate manner.)

This change is necessary because it is, after all, correct terminology; also, I now introduce a new idea: A progression can itself be mapped onto yet another progression. So far, we have been dealing with First Order progressions (real time onto progressed time), and now we will venture into the area of Second Order progressions. In other words, I posit that there are progressions of progressions. Hence the use of fractal as a series of self-similar values at different scales.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:12 pm

DDonovanKinsolving wrote:
Venus_Daily wrote:what does this have to do with Fractals.
With today's post (6/17/2014), I am proposing that progressions represent time as fractals. Mr. E., in our exchange earlier, did us all a favor by explicitly stating what I was content to leave assumed:

1 Real Day ~ 1 Real Day
1 Real Month ~ 1 Real Month
1 Real Year ~ 1 Real Year

While these time measures are all equal to each other as they stand, (let's call them "Zeroth-Order Progressions") it's when we start using the First-Order Progressions that things get interesting. Thus, the Q1, Tertiary, and the Minor Progressions are already fractalated (is that a word?) time. We might not think of it that way, until we reach Second-Order progressions where it becomes obvious.

I'm hoping this model can provoke insights into and development of progressions and astrology. Their utility remains to be seen.

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:13 pm

Jun 18, 2014
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:10. PRIMARY PROGRESSIONS

THESIS

Primaries: 1 Secondary Sidereal Year ~ 1 Primary Inertial Day


ARGUMENT

It may be easier to understand the derivation of Primary Progressions by using a historical chart.

The Campion database in Solar Fire gives the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire as Dec. 25, 800 CE (Julian), 05:10:04 GMT, (06:00:07 LMT), Rome Italy. (I am not endorsing the date and time; it is simply useful.) The Sun's Sidereal longitude was Capricorn 0°10'19”. The Midheaven is Libra 0°18', ST 12:30:45.

The subsequent SSR took place Dec. 25, 801 CE Julian, 12:13:12 LMT. The difference between the two is 365.2591 Civil Days.

Let's pause here and think things through. Since:

1 Sidereal Year ~ 1 Progressed Inertial Day

we may say:

1 Secondary Progressed Sidereal Year ~ 1 Inertial Day in some new Progression.

Take, then, the natus of the Holy Roman Empire, and move forward in historical time. Each Real Sidereal Year is matched to one Secondary Progressed Inertial Day, so that we can expect that about 365 years and three months later (we'll use March 29, 1166 CE), the Empire would have its first Solar Return by Secondary Progression.

At this point, it's important to understand what we expect to see. As of March 29, 1166, the Empire’s progressed MC (by the presumed new progression) returned to Libra 0°18' in the Sidereal Zodiac; in the meantime precession altered its Right Ascension since 800 CE. In 1166 this was 12:49:20, an increase of 00:18:35, or about 4°39'. We must take this into account.

While in 365.2591 years the MC returned to its original sidereal longitude, the increase in Right Ascension is really 360° + 4.6458°.

Dividing 364.6458° by 365.2591 years we get a yearly rate of 0°59'54” RAMC or 3m 59.6s. This is very close to the Ptolemaic progression rate of exactly 1° per year. The practice in Sidereal astrology is to expunge accrued precession. Having calculated the new MC, correct as usual with the SVP of date.

From case to case, this value will vary only slightly depending on the declination of the MC. A test using MC of Capricorn 0°18' for the same dates shows a total rotation in RAMC of 365.4542°, and a yearly progression rate of 1°0'2” or 4m 0.1s. Therefore, using exactly 4m/SY of ST (= 1°/SY of RA) is a quick and sufficiently accurate measurement in a normal human lifespan. The difference between actual and mean sidereal years is negligible in this circumstance.


CONCLUSIONS

1) It is demonstrated that Primary Progression is a Second Order system derived from, and intimately related to, Secondary Progressions, through the logic of the system of equivalencies set forth at the beginning of this essay.

2) This relationship may validate the practice of relating Primary Progressed angles to Secondary Progressed planets, as is commonly done through the mistaken method often used to calculate Secondaries. (The quotidian method is the only method that is consistent both conceptually and mathematically.)

3) It yields a result very close to the original Ptolemaic value (Tetrabiblos, III, 10), but it must be precessed. It is more than the Naibod value of 0°59'08” per year, and it is easy to see that this is because Naibod retains precessing values.

4) I conjecture that dissatisfaction with Primaries could be relieved using the method presented here, apart from any other difficulties or special procedures inherent to it.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I must thank Donald Bradley who first noted certain mathematical correspondences between Secondaries and Tertiaries. In “Give Tertiaries a Try!” he wrote, “There is also a beautiful synchronous meshing of the tertiaries with the secondaries. One could even propose, from this circumstance, that any system that that is not mathematically compatible in some basic way with known systems is probably too much of a maverick to have validity of its own; but this is just thinking out loud on the writer's part.” This gave me the germ of the idea that there could be an undiscovered interlocking system of progressions, and the impetus to find such.

Second, I am greatly indebted to astrologer Clay Reed who wrote lucidly on progressions in American Astrology Magazine, Sept., Oct., Nov., and Dec. 1991, in his series “Astrology for the '90s.” Most valuable was his explicit declaration “What we call 'primary progression' ... is based on 'one primary rotation equals one secondary revolution.'” (AAM, Oct. 1991) This simple statement cleared up years of confusion that often literally made my mind spin. To him belongs the concept of progressing progressions, and that the Secondary-Primary relationship is one of them. My treatment here is slightly different from Clay Reed's, but I suspect he would approve of the use of long-term precession effects.


HISTORICAL NOTE

The name “Primary Progression” comes from Latin “Primum Mobile.” There is often the mistaken notion that it means something like “First [Dominant] (progression).” Hence we get “Secondary Progression,” i.e., “the one that comes second [subordinate].” The original idea was evidently “The Highest Celestial Sphere Turns” or similar.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

User avatar
Danica
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2354
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A fractal model of progressions

Post by Danica » Sun May 14, 2017 7:14 pm

Jun 19, 2014
DDonovanKinsolving wrote:11. THE QUOTIDIAN-2 (Part 1)

THESIS

Quotidian-2: 1 Tertiary Sidereal Year ~ 1 Progressed Sidereal Month


ARGUMENT

We begin by posing the question: When, in real life, does the progressed SSR occur by Tertiaries?

We have seen:

1 Sidereal Month ~ 1 Progressed Inertial Day

and with their values:

Tertiary Progressions: 27.321661 CD ~ 0.9972697 Tertiary CD


We set up a simple equation, do some substitutions and solve:

27.321661 CD * 365.256360 ~ 0.9972697 Tertiary CD * 365.256360

9,979.41040 CD ~ 364.25910 Tertiary Progressed CD

The left-hand value is about 27.322 Real Sidereal Years.


Since we have the equivalence:

Minor Progressions: 1 Sidereal Year ~ 1 Progressed Sidereal Month

we can state:

1 Tert. Prog. Yr. ~ 1 Sideral Month of some new progression

or, substituting values:

9,979.41040 Real CD ~ 364.25910 Tert. Prog. CD ~ 27.321661 CD new progression

Notice that Inertial Days are no longer involved here. We can also drop the Tertiary values as they are of no interest to us. We only want to find the rate of Real time to new Progressed time.

Divide all values by 27.321661 in order to find how many Real Days equate to one day of this new progression. The result is:

365.256360 Civil Days ~ 1 Civil Day new progression

As it turns out, this is not so new after all! It is, in fact, the familiar ratio of the Quotidian-2.


CONCLUSIONS

1) The Quotidian-2 is a valid progression by this model.

2) It is a Second Order progression, whose true origin lies in the equivalence of the Tertiary year to the Sidereal month.

3) By assuming the fundamental units as being sidereal, it's natural to derive the Q2, which is the equivalence of the Year to the Civil Day on the surface only. However, by taking 1 Year ~ 1 Civil Day as fundamental, it is probably not possible to derive the Q1.

The next post will continue by comparing this derivation with the example used in Primer of Sidereal Astrology.

(To be continued)

-Derek
QUID VOLIS ILUD FAC

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests