posted September 28, 2016 11:07 AM            

Thanks for clicking on this thread.

Will you please clarify whether or not it's accurate to say that planets at 0° declination have less of a chance of aspecting other planets in the natal and synastry?

I assume that's the case.

Because whereas a planet at 10° aspects others at 9°, 10°, and 11°...a planet at 0° can only aspect planets at 0° and 1°, or perhaps a little higher. But, because there is nothing lower than zero, there is less of a chance of a 0° planet forming an aspect.

That's my assumption. Is it correct?

posted September 28, 2016 11:31 AM            

00 degrees is not the beginning or end, but is actually the middle, where the planets switch from North into South and vice versa, it`s like this

23 N
20 N
15 N
10 N
5 N

0

5 S
10 S
15 S
20 S
23 S

(I left out some in between of course)

posted September 28, 2016 02:12 PM            

does that image help?
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=291&pictureid=3550

[/URL]

I once read in an astrology book (by Michael Roscher) a metaphor he used for this.
He said to imagine a street with two houses directly opposite the street.
Now declination would be the FLOOR of these houses.

If you had planets parallel you would be both on the same floor, either the second or first or 44th or whatever, and if contraparallel you would be on the same floor but each of the planets sitting in a house opposite each other, on either side of the street.

posted September 28, 2016 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:

If you had one at 0.4 North and one at 0.4 South then I would consider them parallel.
Sort of like if you're at a state line. One of you is in New Mexico and one of you in Arizona, each only 1 foot across state line. Technically you're in different states but you can easily have a comfortable conversation. Despite a line that by technical standards separates you, you're really together.

Or, if you're "North of 60 mph or south of 60 mph"
61 mph vs 59 mph.
"Close enough".

---

posted September 28, 2016 02:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ceridwen:

I once read in an astrology book (by Michael Roscher) a metaphor he used for this.
He said to imagine a street with two houses directly opposite the street.
Now declination would be the FLOOR of these houses.

If you had planets parallel you would be both on the same floor, either the second or first or 44th or whatever, and if contraparallel you would be on the same floor but each of the planets sitting in a house opposite each other, on either side of the street.

So declinations really tells us how high a planet is on the ecliptic.

---

posted September 28, 2016 02:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:

ETA: Actually, thinking about it. I don't think I've learned anything of significance about astrology in 1 - 1 1/2 years. Maybe I've reached a plateau. Something to think about.

---

posted September 28, 2016 04:07 PM            

I hope it's clear what I was asking about.

A planet at 0° can be parallel or contraparellel planets at:

1) 0°, N & S
2) 1°, N & S

That's only two degrees.

However, a planet at 10° can be parallel or contraparellel planets at:

1) 9°
2) 10°
3) 11°

That's three degrees, N & S.

So my conclusion is, planets at 0° form aspects less often than planets at higher degrees, at least until a planet goes out of bounds.

posted September 28, 2016 04:13 PM            

a planet at 9 degrees, giving a 1 degree orb (just for example, but i assume 2 degrees and 2.5 would be a decent connection as well)

would connect to 8 degrees (but not 7.9) and 10 degrees (not 10.1) so it is connecting to everything within those 2 degrees. 8 to 9. and 9 to 10. not anything less or over.

posted September 28, 2016 04:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
Hmm i dont think theres any rule that says a planet at 1 degree north wouldnt connect with a planet thats 1 degree south.

---

I know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
a planet at 9 degrees, giving a 1 degree orb.....
would connect to 8 degrees (but not 7.9) and 10 degrees (not 10.1) so it is connecting to everything within those 2 degrees. 8 to 9. and 9 to 10. not anything less or over.

same with a planet at 0 degrees. would connect to anything up to 1 degree. or -1 degree. thats 2 degrees.

---

There is no -1.

That's the whole point.

posted September 28, 2016 05:07 PM            

However you might be right nevertheless, because 00 degrees is the line where it shifts from N to S, if you consider parallel AND contraparallel there might be less possibilities, as whenever you have a variation of + or - 1 with the zero degrees, you are already in the other direction (N or S).

So a planet with 0°15 S compared to one at 00°30 N would be considered contraparallel (cause connection the different hemispheres) and not parallel, even though they are technically only 45 minutes apart.

BTW the declination line STARTS with 23° of Northern declination, then moves to the middle at 00° and after that approached 23° of Southern declination where it will start its way back to the 23 N again.

So it is not like the longitude, going round in a circle, but more or less like an elevator up and down.

posted September 28, 2016 05:18 PM            

For instance, my Mercury is at 19°56' S.

Assuming 1° orb:

If someone has their planet between 18°56' and 20°56' north or south, they aspect my Mercury. That's a full 2° range.***

My moon is at 0°31'S.

I can only consider planets from 0° to 1°31 north or south as aspecting it. Which is less than a 2° range, it's only a 1°31 range.

Someone with a planet at 0°00 would only have a 1° range.

-------------------------

*** Maybe I should call it a 4° range, since it doubles...2° range in the north, 2° in the south.

posted September 28, 2016 05:44 PM            

I imagine parallel planets as side by side.

Contraparallel up and down.

That's my Sesame Street world of declinations.

posted September 28, 2016 05:51 PM            

I get it.
In the world of astrology, it's contra.

posted September 28, 2016 05:58 PM            

But I'm missing something.

Do you not understand something....or are you trying to teach me something that I am failing to understand?

posted September 28, 2016 06:18 PM            

If all latitude lines are equidistant, and the equator is at 0°, and the orb is 1°, then I can imagine the aspect range like a 2° wide band whose center runs along the equator. It goes from -1° (or 1°S) to 1°N.

But if I am at 18°N using a 1° orb, I get a band of 2° spanning from 17-19°N, and another band of 2° spanning from 17-19°S.

Which is a width of 4° total when you add the two bands, instead of the 2° aspect range that you get when you are centered on the equator.

posted September 28, 2016 07:19 PM            

if something was at .15 degrees S

then it only has a range of 1.15 degrees, of things that can be parallel (similar above or below the equator)

yet if it were at 1 degree S, then it would have 2 full degrees of things it can be parralel to. (0-1, 1-2)

and then anything contra paralell, would also equal from 0 to 1.15 N. so all in all it contains

3.3 degrees of things that can be both either parallel or contraparallel.

contrasting with a regular angle that could be 4.

anyway. i dont know. if there truly was an orb of lets use 2 degrees.

if something was 1 degree North. then technically the parallel orb would extend to 1 degree south.

technically its not parallel. But technically its in the orb of being parallel.

But thanks above for clarifying what faith was expressing

posted September 28, 2016 07:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
hmm so it comes down to terms of parallel and contra parralel

if something was at .15 degrees S

then it only has a range of 1.15 degrees, of things that can be parallel (similar above or below the equator)

yet if it were at 1 degree S, then it would have 2 full degrees of things it can be parralel to. (0-1, 1-2)

and then anything contra paralell, would also equal from 0 to 1.15 N. so all in all it contains

3.3 degrees of things that can be both either parallel or contraparallel.

contrasting with a regular angle that could be 4.

---

Oh thank God someone got it!

I think I've noticed this more since it's personal to me.

posted September 28, 2016 07:30 PM            

anything that is 1.5 north will be aspecting it as parralel with an orb of 2. and also at the same time being contraparallel with an orb of 1

it will be getting 3 aspects (contraparellel and parallel together) instead of the regular 2. we are talking about orbs.