An Arisolar Study

Q&A and discussion on Sidereal Solar & Lunar Ingresses, and transits & quotidian progressions of solar ingress.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 6425
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

An Arisolar Study

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 6:15 pm

The attached report is a study of Arisolar ingresses for ten events in the United States that occurring between April 15 and April 20 of various years (i.e., in the immediate aftermath of the annual Arisolar ingress). All of the events selected occurred in this period involve conflict with the U.S. government, and most of them are situations of direct, violent, political conflict.

This is a more tightly defined study than the more casual preliminary studies that have been published on this forum in the past. It differs by the slight narrowing and focus of the type of events involved. It also differs because it applies more consistent ways of measuring planetary angularity. Specifically, it works from the premise that angularity within (internal to) a static chart (a specific chart for a particular moment, such as an ingress chart) operates mundanely, whereas angular contacts of transits to either ingress angles or their Quotidians is best measured in ecliptical longitude.

For static charts, ecliptical squares to the Midheaven and Ascendant are naturally measured ecliptically. However, conjunctions with the horizon (Asc/Dsc) and meridian (MC/IC) are measured in Prime Vertical longitude. Conjunctions with the Eastpoint and Westpoint (which, ultimately, are ecliptical fictions only intended to measure the Right Ascension square to the Midheaven) are measured in Right Ascension.

Also, in situations where angular contacts are being measured ecliptically, contacts to the EP/WP still must be measured in RA, because, as they appear in the chart, they are merely ecliptical fictions intended to make it easier to spot equatorial (RA) squares to the Midheaven.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 6425
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: An Arisolar Study

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 6:16 pm

Perhaps a variety of précis is warranted.

This study appears to warrant certain conclusions. These include the following:

0. The study encompasses six (6) specific phenomena: the static Arisolar and Capsolar ingresses, both for Washington, DC and for the event locale; and daily timing based on transits to the Capsolar angles for each location + contacts to the Capsolar Quotidian angles for each location. (Transits to the Capsolar and its Quotidian contacts were treated together, as a single phenomenon for each location, based on the basic rule set of Sidereal Mundane Astrology.)

1. So far as static charts are concerned, the Arisolar for the event's locale was better than the Capsolar (for either the locale or Washington) or the Arisolar for Washington.

2. The Arisolar for Washington, though sometimes showing an event well, was overall unreliable. Of all things tested, it was clearly the least helpful, and had an overall score of "inconclusive."

3. The Capsolars by themselves were of comparable importance, with the Washington Capsolar perhaps being slightly more useful than the locale Capsolar. These only showed an event about 2/3 of the time, but showed these events so powerfully that the overall score of the Capsolars was quite high.

4. Timing techniques (summarized above) were essentially perfect for Washington. Even though the majority of these events occurred away from Washington, the DC Quotidians and transit to Capsolar angles were the only 100% reliable technique to emerge from the study. (Event locale timing was the second-best, but fell from extremely satisfying to merely satisfying.)

5. The narrower the time focus, the more precise the showing. Thus, the daily timing techniques were clearly the most accurate and useful. In contrast, even though the daily timing studied is based entirely on the Capsolar, the Capsolar itself - read "on its face" as a descriptive chart of the year - is the least reliable, only showing events 60-70% of the time. This is surely due to the fact that the Capsolar (on its face) has to be descriptive of an entire year, and therefore is less concentrated on specific. - In between these daily and annual extremes, the Arisolar for event locale (but NOT that for Washington) was the single best tool in the study.

5B. To focus a point more precisely: More attention needs to be given to the fact that the Arisolar (and, presumably, the Libsolar) are shorter-term charts (three month duration), and the consequence that they are more concentrated descriptors at a specific location. They much more resemble the Caplunar than the Capsolar in "feel," as if they are "immediate event" charts.

6. No other techniques were studied, because the purposes of this study were to understand better the relationship of a three-month term solar ingress to the Capsolar, and to contrast Washington to the event locale. For example, the relationship of the Caplunar to these solar ingresses has not yet been quantified beyond Bradley's original 1957 work.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 6425
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: An Arisolar Study

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu May 11, 2017 6:16 pm

Jupiter Sets At Dawn wrote:This is relevant to my interests. :D

Thanks for putting this together. It really covers what I was hoping to look at with the Arisolars.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest