posted October 03, 2016 09:01 AM            

I'm talking about the litteral scientific definition. There's one of two:

The point where the sun sets

or

The point directly opposite to the Ascendent.

These two are actually rarely ever the same thing.

posted October 04, 2016 05:24 PM            

if it has to do with the planetary disk crossing the horizon. then if the sun crossed the horizon, that would mean thats where the planetary disk was? since the sun is in line with the planetary disk.

posted October 04, 2016 05:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
but what is the AC? in places like the arctic where the sun never touches the horizon.

---

THAT is the question. Ask the one that matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascendant

posted October 04, 2016 06:40 PM            

Well half of the eclpitic above the horizon would occur from those 10 degrees above the ASC as it appears on the chart. and the other half of the eclpitic above the horizon would occur from the MH, to the DESC, so in 170 degrees in the chart wheel. So we can use that as a guide to find out where the planets are in respect to the horizon. If Uranus was 30 degrees above the Desc, but the MH was 170 degrees from there, well if we had a MH of 90 degrees from the asc, uranus's position in the horizon would be 1/3rd of that. But now it is 30/170 = 0.176.

That's about 1/6th. So it is 1/6th of the way to the MH. So it actually is much closer to the horizon than 30 degrees.

posted October 11, 2016 09:24 PM            

The Ascendant and Birth Charts near the Arctic Circle

posted October 11, 2016 10:05 PM            

I read very similar things on astrodienst's page of polar latitudes.

My main question was more along the lines of how the planets above the horizon in the chart will look like in real life. But I think I got it answered by finding the nonagesimal. It means there is always 180 degrees of true ecliptic above the horizon. So everyone's chart, from asc to dsc should be 180 degrees of ecliptic E.G. it will look just like in the chart as it does in real life. Though the MH's (time where the sun is highest?) will be in different areas due to the Earth curving towards the sun in particular and not having much leviage up.

Though each chart will have the ecliptic on a different angle to the horizon, but it is still sensed how far a planet exists into the horizon on the ecliptic at any individual time

Add: I'm still discovering what the MH is. Maybe it's not just for the sun, maybe it is. I'll find out. It's easy to study if you use the north pole as the horizon. This way the horizon will have the sun at a steady 23.3 altitude all day long. Because the horizon is in exact alignment with the equator. But if you went 10 miles north, all of a sudden the earth is rotating and you are deeving lower from the sun and then higher towards it, making the sun have an altitude of 22 degrees-24.

posted October 12, 2016 12:26 AM            

The nonagesimal, the point where the ecliptic ring is furthest from our horizon, is always the highest place of the zodiac. But you know how nodes are "engrained" into an area. Like the moon crossing the ecliptic. Its permamanently engrained there until it crosses the next time. (well the first node would still be there)

so, at any point of time, there is 180 degrees of ecliptic above our horizon. since the horizon and ecliptic axis aren't reliant on the equator for anything, the point where they lie highest won't be in relation to the equator.

because of how the earth rotates, is in reliance to the equator. the point where the sun comes into the sky will be to the left of our equator. the sun is in a fixed position on the equator (lets use 4 degrees above it towards your location)

but as you are on a point that is moving side by side parralel with the equator, the equator's rotation will mark when a new planet comes above the horizon. and thus it will rise somewhere along to the east. (east means towards the equator) and because of how the planet rotates, they will set in the west.

the point square the ascendant will always be the highest place in the zodiac. but if you add up the cumulative motions of the ecliptic, well, when a planet first rises above the horizon it will be very low. and we have a perfect 180 half ring going above us. and as time passes by from when the planets rose, they get higher.

it is a cumulative account for the ecliptic- the midheaven. it is a fixed point, not on the ecliptic- but in real life (i already knew this). based on our horizon, and how it rotates in accordance to the equator, there will always be a "halfway" point in real life, and it will be fixed. so because its fixed, well hold your fist out in front of you, as the earth spins, your fist is staying in the same spot. but it is spinning through the signs. because the ecliptic is always spinning around us.

so the midheaven is the cumulative engraination of the ecliptic stuck in our physical local environment which is always changing angles to the ecliptic. this always confused me.

posted October 12, 2016 12:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by girlwiththerainysoul:
Descendant has nothing to do with the sun (well except for people born right at the sunset). Descendant is the point you lack in character, because it is opposite the degree that is right at the east at the moment of taking your first breath. Because the person highly associate themselves with characteristics of that point (the ascendant), the point opposite it is what we lack and project in our relationships with others.

---

I've always wondered how this is possible if someone has Sun opposite Ascendant Natally as I do. I have a Taurus Ascendant with Sun, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto in Scorpio.

posted October 12, 2016 01:32 AM            

Now because the ecliptic is moving in accordance to our horizon always, shifting upwards, downwards, if you were born at the equator for a time it could be directly over head (the ecliptic, not the sun) but several hours later it could be 23 degrees from that.

Because of this, the place where the sun has been highest for a month will rarely ever actually lie on the ecliptic besides the time the sun reaches that point due to the earth curving to have that part of the eclpitic at that altitude at mid day.

posted October 12, 2016 02:31 AM            

What is making less sense to me is how a planet can be squared the ascendant (highest point of the currect ecliptic) and then 2 hours later travel over to a MH, and it somehow just got even higher than it was when it was at the nonagesimal.

I could understand how that would work if the whole ecliptic ring was rising in altitude above the horizon, and thus as neptune rotated it continued getting higher, and the points on the ecliptic behind it (nonagesimal) got even more higher.

But that wouldn't make sense for times when the whole ecliptic was getting lower. E.G. something was at the nonagesimal, the eclpitic ring is descending, 2 hours later neptune is at the MH which would mark it's highest altitude.

So how was it at the highest point of the zodiac at one time, and then 2 hours later it was even higher

Add: this might not be the right correct answer but perhaps the times a planet is on the nonagesimal after it reached the MH is because the ecliptic plane lowered, so it would still be the current highest spot, and when the times where a planet reaches the nonagesimal, and then goes even higher to the MH, that those are the times the ecliptic ring was rising above the horizon, and thus after the planet moved, it kept getting higher. might be wrong. but if the ecliptic does lower and heighten slightly and i think it does, then that might be the reason why the MH is sometimes on the left or the right of the nonagesimal. just one theory

Re-explanation for above^
Since the whole ecliptic ring I do believe rises and lowers in altitude (although 180 degrees still above the horizon, just on a different angle) at the times where neptune is at the nonagesimal (square ascendant), and then continues on to locate at the MH (where it reaches it's highest altitude), but then the new nonagesimal would still be higher. But that is because as neptune was leaving the nonagesimal the whole ecliptic ring was rising a bit, and thus neptune continued on getting higher until it reached the MH, but the nonagesimal was reaching even higher heights since the whole ecliptic ring rose.

And those times in the chart where the MH is located before the nonagesimal, is because lets say neptune is on the MH, it progresses forward through the day to the nonagesimal, now the reason why neptune is at a lower altitude but is still at the highest place of the ecliptic path is because the whole ecliptic ring lowered in angle.

posted October 12, 2016 02:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yanmorg:
I've always wondered how this is possible if someone has Sun opposite Ascendant Natally as I do. I have a Taurus Ascendant with Sun, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto in Scorpio.

I've heard this interpretation too, but how am I lacking my own placements?

---

there are many people who have planets in their 7th house or on the DC. any planet in any house is displayed through the filter of that house. especially the 7th, is how we function in one-on-one relationships. you for instance express your scorpio characteristics in your relationships with others and not in your job for instance.

posted October 12, 2016 02:57 AM            

Cause you could equally say as the 7th house is lacking in thinking about themselves, because they are thinking about others, then the first house is equally lacking in something because its thinking about itself too much. therefore it lacks a perspective of understanding of other people.

the 7th is still a part of who you are. Maybe you see more in other people, so if you were to get really metaphorical with it, you could say you're sun is lost on others because your sun is focusing on them, and so you don't have it all to yourself.

If you were to get that deep, and if that's even all that true of an interpretation (because libra/7th goes to cardinal air, which is just a different direction than cardinal water) then yeah it just depends on if you are going to use "lack" in a really deep metaphorical way.

posted October 12, 2016 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yanmorg:
I've always wondered how this is possible if someone has Sun opposite Ascendant Natally as I do. I have a Taurus Ascendant with Sun, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto in Scorpio.

I've heard this interpretation too, but how am I lacking my own placements?

---

posted October 12, 2016 07:25 PM            

It's actually the planet at the nonagesimal (point square asc). Although if a planet is at the nonagesimal, it is not the highest point that planet will have been in a day (which I explain ^^ 2 notes up)

Which is quite relevent to know, because the MH is an account for a 24 hour time stamp. The natal chart is from an instant in time (or several seconds?) and is for our entire life. Therefore it's vital to know what was going on in that instant.