Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Q&A and discussion on Tertiary Progressions
Post Reply
SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by SteveS » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:16 pm

Jim, I have a-lot to discuss for possible better understanding/learning pertaining to Clay Reed’s AA articles—“Astrology for the 90s.”
Oct 1991, Clay Reed writes in an article titled “More Math for Progressive Thinkers.”:
Tertiaries:
To my knowledge, every available tertiary formula—in print or in software –is incorrect. The error is in equating “day” with “rotation”: the chart is progressed one civil day per lunar orbit, whereas it ought to be progressed one rotation per orbit. It’s astounding and unfortunate that this error has been perpetuated for so long. I encourage astrologers to lobby software companies to replace the faulty formula with the correct one.
May 1994, Clay Reed writes from an article titled “New Thoughts…Old Techniques.”
…like every other primary method, takes forever and is based on faulty principles. Thus, I closed the book on primary directions; and, four years later, opened a new book on primary progressions. While working on my one-time American Astrology column “Astrology for the 90s,” it occurred to me that progressions formulas for primary may be valid only if they are based on strict, discrete, natural astronomical units. From this simple premise, I devised formulas for primary, secondary, and tertiary progressions. By an intellectual coincidence, my secondary formula (a single calculation) produced precisely the same result as Cyril Fagan’s (a tedious, page-long algorithm). Meanwhile, my primary and tertiary formulas were brand new—or, at least, never before recorded in the English annals of Astrology.
Aug 1991 issue titled “Tuning the Well-Timed Chart.”
I’ve found that partile transits from outer planets to tertiary outer planets are powerful “triggers” for the exact timing of events.
Jim, I will try to find chart examples from Clay’s writings to offer, but can you tell by what Clay has written above, according to Clay, is SF using a terts formula different from Clay's? I have asked Derek, given enough time, to offer his thoughts since he has most of the 90s AA issues.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:28 pm

Are these separate subjects, or one? (They're all about progressions, so I'll move it to that forum anyway.) I'll make a start at some remarks here, but maybe these should be three separate threads?
SteveS wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:16 pm
Oct 1991, Clay Reed writes in an article titled “More Math for Progressive Thinkers.”:
Tertiaries:
To my knowledge, every available tertiary formula—in print or in software –is incorrect. The error is in equating “day” with “rotation”: the chart is progressed one civil day per lunar orbit, whereas it ought to be progressed one rotation per orbit. It’s astounding and unfortunate that this error has been perpetuated for so long. I encourage astrologers to lobby software companies to replace the faulty formula with the correct one.
I'm guessing this is out of context and the rest of the article says more, right? From this flat statement, I'd have to ask, "Why?" It isn't evident that it is so. It would be a matter of definition, like the Q1 vs, Q2 argument: Which type of day do we mean when we say one day for each Sidereal month?

The above is a flat statement that, based on what you have said of the author, I suspect was backed up by something. Was he speaking theoretically? Had he compared cases with the two systems? Etc.
May 1994, Clay Reed writes from an article titled “New Thoughts…Old Techniques.”
…like every other primary method, takes forever and is based on faulty principles. Thus, I closed the book on primary directions; and, four years later, opened a new book on primary progressions. While working on my one-time American Astrology column “Astrology for the 90s,” it occurred to me that progressions formulas for primary may be valid only if they are based on strict, discrete, natural astronomical units. From this simple premise, I devised formulas for primary, secondary, and tertiary progressions. By an intellectual coincidence, my secondary formula (a single calculation) produced precisely the same result as Cyril Fagan’s (a tedious, page-long algorithm). Meanwhile, my primary and tertiary formulas were brand new—or, at least, never before recorded in the English annals of Astrology.
Intriguing lead-in, but doesn't give me anything to run with :)

[TO BE CONTINUED]
Aug 1991 issue titled “Tuning the Well-Timed Chart.”
I’ve found that partile transits from outer planets to tertiary outer planets are powerful “triggers” for the exact timing of events.
Intriguing. I haven't looked closely enough say, but it's quite a concrete statement that could be tested.
Jim, I will try to find chart examples from Clay’s writings to offer, but can you tell by what Clay has written above, according to Clay, is SF using a terts formula different from Clay's? I have asked Derek, given enough time, to offer his thoughts since he has most of the 90s AA issues.
I doubt SF is using a formula Clay would find acceptable, based on the above. OTOH I have, as yet, no reason to think he's right, since Terts have a solid performance history. Changing the definition of Terts would require some proof, I would say.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:41 pm

Hey, Steve, I just tested something on a lark, and got a fascinating result.

Calculate two Tert charts, but set the progression to defaults to Q2 for one and Q1 for the other. This, of course, affects Secondary Progressions, but I also learned that it produces two different Tert charts. Since the real difference of Q2 vs Q1 Secondaries is whether one is using a civil or sidereal day, and that's the difference Clay seems to be using for terts, I suspect that the Q1 variant of terts from SF is the alternative form he was mentioning.

I have no way to confirm that.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by SteveS » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:19 am

Jim wrote:
I doubt SF is using a formula Clay would find acceptable, based on the above. OTOH I have, as yet, no reason to think he's right, since Terts have a solid performance history. Changing the definition of Terts would require some proof, I would say.
I understand and agree. Clay’s monthly articles skip from one subject to another completely different subject, and then, months later he will revisit the same issue with another article. Very difficult for me to organize with over 50 articles. I think he has an article where he offers his formulas, I will try to find and post. But even then, if you can’t figure out a simple way for us to plug in his formula to SF---no way we can do rapid testing.
Clay writes:
Hard aspects involving the Sun and any of the outer four planets are often present at death; and partile Sun-Saturn contacts, in which one or the other is tertiary, are especially prevalent (e.g., John Dillinger, John Kennedy, and John Lennon—all shot to death during such a Sun-Saturn complex, in each case with minuscule orbs.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:28 am

In terms of calculation, Steve, did you see my last post above? Doing Terts with SF set on Q1 might do it. Have to have an example or two to run to confirm, or maybe I can calculate a ratio...

Oh, wait, here's a simple thing. If I run Terts for myself both ways for one Sidereal month days after I was born and (though this isn't the way you'd normally do Tert angles) I turn on Quotidians, the MC should be 0°56 different. My first SLR occurred November 6, 1954, 2:37:14 PM CST. Calculating Terts for this moment - with Quotidians selected (but only for the sake of this calculation experiment), one as Q1 and the other as Q2 - I get...

Q2 MC 2°40' Gemini
Q1 MC 1°46' Gemini

Exactly right! So, to test Clay's theory on the correct Tertiary rate, the historically accepted one is what you get if progressions are set to Q2, and Clay's variant is what you get if progressions are set at Q1. (In either case, angles should be Solar Arc in Longitude.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by SteveS » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:39 am

Jim, I don't have enough mathematical understanding to fully understand your approach. However, I do know Matthew said Clay offered substantial evidence the Q1 rate offered excellent results, but I have very little experience with terts, and I don't really understand if Matthew was referring to Clay's article about terts with the Q1, or just the Quotidian charts. I will get several terts positions Clay mentions in his articles. You then will probably be able to figure out what Clay is doing for his terts rates.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:43 am

SteveS wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:39 am
Jim, I don't have enough mathematical understanding to fully understand your approach. However, I do know Matthew said Clay offered substantial evidence the Q1 rate offered excellent results, but I have very little experience with terts...
To simplify:

First, let's don't drag Q1 vs. Q2 Secondary Progressions into the mix, because that's not exactly connected. I'm using the distinction here only as a calculation convenience.

The bottom line is this: If you want Tertiaries from Solar Fire as Terts have always been intended to be calculated, make sure the Progressions setting is at Q2. If you want to calculate them by Clay's formula, make sure this is set on Q1. You can compare that way.

We can argue Q1 vs. Q2 Secondaries elsewhere and not confuse this thread :)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by SteveS » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:01 am

We can argue Q1 vs. Q2 Secondaries elsewhere and not confuse this thread
Believe me, this type debate is the furthest from my objective. I am just trying to discern a possible truth about terts with Clay's mind, and then determine if we can rapid test.

Here is one of Clay's terts positions for Jan 22 1973 when LBJ died:
Tertiary Mars (10,24 Sag).
Note: Clay uses the the Tropical Z with precession corrected hits.
In this article Clay did not offer LBJ's birth data, but I figure you have this data.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:17 am

SteveS wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:01 am
Here is one of Clay's terts positions for Jan 22 1973 when LBJ died:
Tertiary Mars (10,24 Sag).
Note: Clay uses the the Tropical Z with precession corrected hits.
In this article Clay did not offer LBJ's birth data, but I figure you have this data.
Let's test as best we can, then...

LBJ was born August 27, 2908, at "daybreak," which, after some minor rectification, Fagan took to be 5:44 AM. (Caveat: I think the 5:44 AM time I have in SF is Fagan's rectification, but my notes are ambiguous.)

Calculating his Terts by the usual formulae for noon on January 22, 1973 gives Mars 17°43' Scorpio (SZ). Calculating by what I think was Clay's intent, tert Mars was 16°04' Scorpio. If he was giving "precession corrected Tropical" placements, we use the SVP for the death date, which was 5°38' Pisces. That changes the first Mars to 12°05' Sagittarius and the second Mars to 10°26' Sagittarius - 2' from the figure you gave.

There's a good chance that these are rounding errors, but, for now, I'll just say that we seem to be on the right track.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by SteveS » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:36 am

Jim wrote:
… and the second Mars to 10°26' Sagittarius - 2' from the figure you gave.
OK, do you see/understand how Clay is calculating his terts rate, and can we do some testing with SF with Clay's terts rate?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:05 am

SteveS wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:36 am
Jim wrote:
… and the second Mars to 10°26' Sagittarius - 2' from the figure you gave.
OK, do you see/understand how Clay is calculating his terts rate, and can we do some testing with SF with Clay's terts rate?
I understood (or, at least, thought I did) from the first post. He's substituting one Earth rotation instead of one civil day. And yes, it looks like the method I've outlined for SF will allow comparison.

I haven't had time this morning to do anything exhaustive, but I ran two of my own test events. One favored the traditional method, one was inconclusive (because Asc of one and Sun of the other triggered the key planets). The one that favored the traditional method showed, with Clay's method, a devastating chart for what was a miraculous, marvelous event, so that wasn't a good first impression; but it's only one event.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by SteveS » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:52 am

Thanks Jim. So, to test Clay's terts rate I default to Q1?

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:25 am

SteveS wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:52 am
Thanks Jim. So, to test Clay's terts rate I default to Q1?
Or pick it each time. For comparing, you probably want to calculate both a Q1 and Q2 variation and look at them side by side. (It's no good just to say "I found stuff that impressed me" - the challenge is, "Which is better, Version 1 or Version 2?")
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

DDonovanKinsolving
Constellation Member
Constellation Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:04 am

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by DDonovanKinsolving » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:36 am

I've scanned through this thread. At SteveS' request, I'm still digging out the AA Magazines in question. The issues for 1990, 1992, 1993 and 1994 have been uncovered; still hunting for 1991 and 1995+.

I can say, after a brief review of the material, that Clay Reed's practice was to use sidereal cycles. So yes, his variant of Terts used 1 Sidereal Month = 1 Sidereal Day. The result of this is to produce Terts that are earlier than what had been promoted.

One example I was never able reconcile with any variant, was JFK. Garth Allen stated that transiting Saturn was within 1° of Kennedy's Tert Sun. I could never get that result, even with Bradley's own shortcut tables, nor using precessed positions. Use purely sidereal cycles and you'll get at least a *closer* conjunction than by putting a Civil Day into the equation.

Example :

tSat Cap 23°04'

p3 Sun Cap 25°07' (SM=SD)
(Equivalent date Feb 8,1919 07:06:25 EST)

p3 Sun Cap 26°47' (SM=CD)
(Equivalent date Feb. 9, 1919 23:49:34)
Last edited by DDonovanKinsolving on Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:53 am

Yes, I just thought that Bradley had made a mistake about that :) I couldn't get it to match either - and hand calculations were always more vulnerable to error.

As an aside, Don was always quick to expect that I'd made calculations errors and point them out. Gary Duncan later told me that Don got really attentive to that for (what I now consider) the obvious reason: He had a lifetime of making math mistakes like everybody else! :)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:54 am

One aside: I was careful above to say "1 Earth rotation" instead of "1 sidereal day," because the name "sidereal day" implies that it's a sidereal cycle. It isn't. As defined, it's specifically a tropical cycle (though so close that there isn't really any difference). On the issue of "Tropical vs. Sidereal," a "sidereal day" is certainly no more sidereal than a civil day.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

DDonovanKinsolving
Constellation Member
Constellation Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:04 am

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by DDonovanKinsolving » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:23 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:54 am
One aside: I was careful above to say "1 Earth rotation" instead of "1 sidereal day," because the name "sidereal day" implies that it's a sidereal cycle. It isn't. As defined, it's specifically a tropical cycle (though so close that there isn't really any difference). On the issue of "Tropical vs. Sidereal," a "sidereal day" is certainly no more sidereal than a civil day.
You are correct, of course. While I dealt with this issue in the "Fractal Model of Progressions" thread, it's good to point that out again and remain consistent. There, I used "Inertial Day." I did meet Clay Reed once or twice, and iirc he did prefer that idea too; whether that's in print, though, IDK.

Gary903
Satellite Member
Satellite Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Gary903 » Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:39 pm

For clarification, here are some selections taken from Clay Reed's Astrology for the '90s column in the Sept. 1991 issue of American Astrology magazine in which he relates his theories on progressions.

"The idea behind progressions is that different units of time may be paralleled. Given this, to maximize the informational we need to use natural time-units; and to avoid overkill, we need to keep the units discrete (that is, not combine them) and we need standards for deciding which units to use. (Why? In order to be selective. If we parallel ten time-units, the permutations among them would be too numerous; the amount of information would greatly exceed the point of diminishing returns.)

The standards are: 1) the time-units must be very consistent in both their rate of passage and their total duration; and 2) the time-units must be one-directional, so that the correlative paralleling between them can be consistent. Only three geocentric time units meet these demands: 1) The earth's daily rotation; 2) The Moon's almost monthly orbit; 3) The apparent Sun's yearly revolution.

The anthropomorphic mistake is to equate "day" with rotation. In every popular astrology textbook, the authors maintain the illusion that "days" are 24 hours long. This error is the primary source for the incorrect progression methods astrologers use. A rotation is not 24 hours long (and the passage of a degree of Right Ascencion across the Midheaven is not of four minutes' duration.) The 24-hour unit--i.e., the "civil day"--is actually the combined function of two basic units: it takes 24 hours for the earth's rotation to catch up with the Sun's mean daily increment of revolution.

If we are to use the civil day (which, in working with the ephemeris, astrologers almost universally employ in calculating secondary progressions), why not also define "day" by how long it takes the earth's rotation to catch up with the Moon's mean daily increment? A "day" would thus be 25 hours long. Or why not define "year" by how long it takes the Sun's revolution to catch up with the Moon's position of a year before? A "year" would thus be 383 days long. Soon, we would have the earth/Moon day, the earth/Sun day, the Moon/earth month, the Moon/Sun month, the Sun/earth year, and the Sun/Moon year. Having started with three time units, we'd soon have nine!

For this reason, neither the civil day nor the lunation (Moon/Sun) month is an appropriate axiomatic unit; each is natural and consistent, but neither is discrete--thus creating overkill. (The more that we combine natural units, the more eclectically oracular our basis becomes. Under this heading, see "house rulerships.")"
.................................................................................................

"Secondaries are based on the formula "one secondary rotation equals one real revolution." Tertiaries are based on: "one tertiary rotation equals one real lunar orbit." By the way, absolutely everybody gives the wrong tertiary formula, again because of the "day=rotation=24 hours" error; the standard formula produces the unforgivable error of three progressed days per 82 real years.

But what are primaries based on? For the first time anywhere, we present the answer to this age-old question: "one primary rotation equals one secondary revolution!" This is the true basis of all variations on the "degree for a year" formula (e.g., solar-arc progression, "Naibod" or mean-solar progression, etc.), which of itself is unacceptable because "degree" is an artificial unit (again, I don't buy the rationalizations of Rudhyar, Tyl, Carter, et. al.). As it happens, "one primary rotation equals one secondary revolution" produces a formula very close to a degree for a year."
Gŵyl loyw fu eu goleuaint.
"Their lights were a shining festival." ~ from the Welsh poem The Stars, "Y Sêr", by Dafydd ap Gwilym

DDonovanKinsolving
Constellation Member
Constellation Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:04 am

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by DDonovanKinsolving » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:20 pm

Thank you, Gary903. My 1991 AAs are buried deeper than I thought; still haven't uncovered them.

This particular article of Clay Reed's was helpful to me in two ways.

1) He drew a distinction between essential and derived time units.

2) He introduced the idea that progressed units could be related to another progressed unit.

Taking these and elaborating on them, is what led to the essay and progression-system model (emphasis on *model*) found here:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=270

At one of the visits I had with Clay, I told him that it seemed that the Q2 naturally developed from one of these higher-order progressions (when starting with purely sidereal cycles), but it was a recent observation and wasn't sure. I think this was a surprise to him. Subsequent work confirmed that I was not making a dumb math mistake.

Again, thanks Gary903.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:29 pm

I'll have to review your logic on that, Derek. If I were working entirely theoretically, I'd find two or three flaws in the Q2 and think the Q1 must be the right rate; but in comparison after comparison, the Q2 comes out smashingly better. (The one puzzling exception is that damnable USA chart that seems to perform so well historically with the Q1, which bothers me more than a little.)

I'll always take demonstrable behavior over any of my theories, so I persist with the Q2 despite appreciating the theoretical elegance of the Q1. (I'm in the middle of another comparison right now, with data I haven't used for this before; if I persist to the end, I will, of course, let you know the outcome.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

DDonovanKinsolving
Constellation Member
Constellation Member
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:04 am

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by DDonovanKinsolving » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:53 pm

Test away, Mr. E. I'm not emotionally invested in this model. I already stated my general attitudes toward it, which might be stated as:

1) Models are important as something to test against and compare results. (That's the important thing.)

2) It's the only model that elaborates self-consistently from a few premises and incorporates several known progressions. (Just look at the inconsistent messes found in some books, especially if they're Tropical.)

3) If the model is wrong, WHY it's so should tell us something too, and lead to something better. (Hence my lack of concern.)

Also, let me note that the STRUCTURE of the system would be the same even if one does assume the Civil Day as basic; but the Q2 would show up twice as a duplicate. The reverse is not true, as there would be no way (that I know of) to asume the Civil Day and then derive the Q1. (And if one completely dismisses the Q1, that's not a problem.😊)

Could it be that the Q2 would be more effective BECAUSE it's a progression of a progression? If so, that would have to be true of the other progressions in that family; or else that argument is just special pleading. (Hopefully people will recognize that when I say things like that, I'm laughing at myself.)

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 7218
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Revisiting Clay Reed 90s articles in AA

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:05 am

Yes, I get your understanding of what the word "model" means :)

A simple elegant model, of course would be to take a sidereal day, a sidereal month, and a sidereal year, then:

1 sidereal day = 1 sidereal month is Tertiary Progressions (but in a "Q1" variant, so to speak)
1 sidereal day = 1 sidereal year is Secondary Progressions (specifically Q1)
1 sidereal month = 1 sidereal year is "Minor Progressions" (which I have termed Quaternaries for 40+ years)

But if the Q2 keeps proving itself significantly the better, then that would force the day to be defined as a civil day (mean solar day); however, there should then be consistencies between Secondaries and Tertiaries on that account (if indeed there is consistency of this sort, which reason would like to see but nature might not accommodate), and, at the moment, there is just enough "sidereal day for a sidereal month" success in test Clay's theory on it that I'm willing to entertain it t'ain't so.

You'd think we'd know these things for sure by now. I do keep entertaining the possibility that one or more of the systems not what it seems, e.g., so far in my retesting Q1 vs Q2, those examples where Q1 looks better have never included Moon aspects, just angularities. (I've done too few examples in the present test to count on this behavior persisting, but it's there at the moment.) This reminds me of my observation to Steve recently that, if the Q1 indeed has any value, just maybe it really is the old "diurnal chart" and isn't secondary progressions at all - just angles, no planets. I'd like to think this isn't so, but what I'd like to think might not match what's so.

And so and so and so it goes.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests