posted October 03, 2016 12:53 AM            

here is a video you can see for yourself a short day: (set speed to x2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-JmBY4OJ50

so i was wondering if the zodiac takes into account the ENTIRE ecliptic circle, and in EVERY chart the asc/dsc are at the exact opposite locations in the zodiac, how is that possible when the points where the sun rises and sets would just be at a small portion of the circle?

This is my viewing of what it likely entails:

Also: At some places where there is next to no sunlight in a day for example just 10 minutes (it happens in some spots) the asc/dsc would be within several degrees of each other. There's no way that they would occur in the opposite ends of the zodiac.

The point being: If there are chart inaccuracies with this, then there is chart inaccuracies in every chart, no?

Also also: I just found out about the 6 months of sunlight/ 6 months of darkness that are always happening at the poles.

At these locations- the sun never even touches the horizon. Therefore any chart's calculated in that area are wrong. Therefore: All chart calculations don't take into consideration the actual ecliptic coordinates that the sun crossing the horizon occurs in?

So if you enter a northern city, one that works such as "Dikson" into astrotheme, it gets interesting after the sun passes the MH. It eventually starts going backwards back towards the ASC. I don't care about that part. I care about how the chart is saying there are other planets north of the horizon on the DESC's side when there really aren't any there. Not to mention there aren't any DSC conjunctions like it is reading. How many more of us have innacurate descs? Thinking we don't have a planet lying there- when we do? Or thinking we do have a conjunction with the DSC, but we dont. Or having a planet below the horizon, when our chart says it's above the horizon?

If there are chart inaccuries that are plainly obvious at the poles, lets use a chart 15 degrees south of the poles, its the same thing, but just more of the eclpitic ring goes above the ground. There's going to be inaccuracies everywhere.

If we are using a complete ecliptic coordinate system; the ASC and DSC points will rarely ever lie directly opposing each other. Only if the sun was in the sky for exactly 12 hours.

posted October 03, 2016 05:26 AM            

But there are inaccuries of the DSC in every chart. I say DSC because it appears on astrotheme that they calculate the proper whereabouts of the ASC.

This is half-assed: but from using this picture above as a guide, to find your TRUE position of your DSC, (ignore the sun in the photo) you take your MH from your time of birth, count how many degrees it occurs from your ASC, and double that to reach your DSC. (THEY LIKELY WONT BE OPPOSITE PARTS OF THE WHEEL, DURR). Try it out! Wait: Look below!

Ok. The above method doesn't work. I believe I know the true one. Go on astrotheme and find out when the sun rose, (conjunct asc) and when it set (conj desc). calculate the time between these two times.

If it was for example, 10 hours between the rise and set. well- if it was 12 hours- that would mean that the ecliptic circle was exactly centered around earth. the descendent is where it appears. but if it was 10, you go 10 divided by 24. think of the amount of hours its above the horizon as comparable to the amount of ecliptic of the 360 degrees that are above the horizon. i believe it should be the same with hours. if its above for 3 hours then that is 3/24th of the full eclpitic circle, since 360 degrees is circled from us to the sun in 24 hours.

Because all the descendent calcluations on websites arent real.