posted October 03, 2016 04:10 PM            

While most astrologers are under the understanding that where the sun rises, in the east, the point where the eclpitic (sun path) crosses the horizon- is the ascendent. And since they see the sun wrap allll the way around from where they observe, they assume that the sun sets at the exact opposite part that it rose. EG the point on the ecliptic that is rising is the exact opposite than the eclpitic path that is setting. Which as you can see from the youtube video; is false.

posted October 03, 2016 05:33 PM            

In all honesty. All that you're talking about sounds related to Declination. I know that you don't mean declination and that you're talking about the horizon.
The point is, it all is because of the wobble of the earth. That is, the wobble of the earth is what causes our seasons, therefore the path of the sun / horizon, AND declination. It's all due to the wobble of the earth.

So, let me ask this then.
Are you talking about if someone were born in the southern hemisphere during summer solstice?
If I have that right.
So like, if someone were born in Australia during the month of of January, that is below the ecliptic... ? So it makes the birth dsc off?

Or you're saying that the declination changes enough in a 12ish hour time period to be significant and therefore changes the dsc??

posted October 03, 2016 06:58 PM            

quote:

---

The ascendant (ASC) is a point on the ecliptic that rises on the eastern horizon at a particular moment and changes as the Earth rotates on its axis, and the descendant (DEC) is a point where the ecliptic meets the western horizon on the opposite point to the ascendant.
The signs of the zodiac containing these angular points at the time of birth are very important in astrological interpretation because the power of attraction is determined by the line of force between the ascendant, descendant axis.

---

Why is there any room for interpretation with this?

The idea is a line of force. Like the way a straight pole is stronger than a bent one, if you stand it upright and put weight in it.

posted October 03, 2016 07:59 PM            

When I saw the 24 hour sun of the arctic (sun never sets, litterally.. ) i was like.. this astrology thing might not work on our whole planet.. lol...

or there is some myteries to it that we dont know yet..

posted October 03, 2016 08:19 PM            

What does % of the ecliptic above the horizon have to do with the DSC being 180° from the ASC?

The sun may never set but the sky still changes....

Add:

posted October 03, 2016 08:24 PM            

I think for the latter part you're wondering if your natal dsc, somehow changes from when the time the sun is at the dsc.

First, as you could tell from the video, the eclpitic is not always centered around the horizon. Sometimes there's just a little bit of the eclitptic (like in antarctica in that video) that comes above the horizon. It is like this for months. 'Till it switches and receives months of long sun periods.

So you saw the ecliptic asc and dsc within 50 degrees of each other. That is not what 180 degrees looks like- in the video. So I just thought, that the dsc was supposed to always be 180 degrees from the ascendant. On the other side. And the dsc was where the sun/ecliptic path starts to touch the horizon and go below it. This is the definition on several sites.

As soon as I found out the whole ecliptic ring isn't centered equally to our horizon, I knew that the asc and dsc wouldn't be 180 degrees separated from one another. Not by the terms I believed what they actually were created by.

This is an old issue for astrologers apparently. Like in the video, how do you take into account the 6 houses above the horizon when the sun went above the horizon for a measly- 50 degrees and then disppeared back under? Are we supposed to make 6 houses out of that? There is different systems in place, and the website describes that placidus doesn't account for the sun's lack of an existence at the higher or lower altitudes. So I don't know their line or method of thinking, but they use the point exactly opposite to the ascendant, as a point to mark where the houses are created.

I don't really care what they do; all I seek is truth and accuracy.

Edit: Yes, if you refer to the "wobble" as the non-direct angle of the way the earth is spinning, then as it spins, that creates the path the sun goes on. The earth's orbit around the sun alone is much too slow to have a serious effect that we need to be noting for inaccuracies. It's not about earth being below the ecliptic. It's about the ecliptic being below your stationed viewpoint.

As there are many places during any time of year, where the ecliptic gets a full long stretch across the entire horizon. And there are many places where the sun rises for a mere 20 minutes, and then goes back below. This is what I'm noting.

So I calculated the point where the ecliptic pathway touches the horizon and goes beneath it. For some reason- even if the houses for some reason really do have nothing to do with this point (Maybe they really do and we don't know it?)- I still think it's a very important point on the chart- as it marks one of 2 places where the eclpitic touches the horizon. E.G. Any planet here is extremely significant!! Why would regular astorology not take it into account??? I thought they just didn't know! That the desc isn't always 180 degrees from the ascendant. I thought modern astrologers didn't realize that yet.

The reason why in the natal chart the desc is exactly opposite the asc, even at the time when the sun is just rising. And when the sun is setting- is the time it is conjunct the desc (This further proves the terms i used are what they likely are, to some definition of the term)

I only know that the original Asc is calculated to be exact in all charts. The systems own terms is that the "desc is the point that is opposite to the Asc" and therefore they automatically draw the Desc opposite to it.

posted October 03, 2016 08:51 PM            

This is showing that when the sun is coming above or going below the horizon- the point where the horizon touches the eclpitic are the asc/dsc.

Astotheme managed to line up when the sun was setting that it would be conjunct the DSC. I guess they managed to edit out that the desc is 180 degrees from the ascendant rule for that.. :S :S

Since there is very few places that would actually line up to them being 180 degrees.. which means they discarded their "Desc is drawn 180 degrees opposite to the Asc" rule. Explain to me that, freespirit? I thought it was always exacactly opposite the Asc.

But as we know the descending point rarely ever is, on this earth, occuring at exactly 180 degrees from the viewer in angle to the ascendant. So lets just say it's 170 degrees, in its real angle, from the Asc. As we draw the chart for this place- if the Desc is being calculated based from being directly opposite to the ASC, to create the "true(??)" houses, then since we know that the sun being conjunct the litteral descendant, it is 170 degrees from the litteral Asc.

posted October 03, 2016 09:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
If you check the local sunrise and sunset of any city, and input that time into astrotheme, (during the same time of year) the sunrise is going to occur when the sun is conjunct the Asc. And sunset the sun will be conjunct the Desc. It's true it is.

---

That may be true but astrologers don't give that as the definition for the ASC/DSC axis, maybe because they realize it's not always true, and it's not the reason the chart is constructed that way?

quote:

---

The crossing of your "horizon plane" (which is your personal equatorial plane) and the "ecliptic plane" creates your ASC / DSC axis.

---

Why would that not create a straight line?
http://lunarplanner.com/Astrology/HouseRotation/index.html

Another definition:

posted October 03, 2016 09:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:
Actually, yes, I see your point now.
I'm fully grasping what you're saying. That's an interesting point.
I'm not quite sure what to believe about it.

Getting on my computer to finish this response....

---

posted October 03, 2016 09:09 PM            

If you look at a typical natal chart.
It's a 24 hour day from say, 0 Aries all the way around back to 0 Aries.

All the hours of the day are "above" the Asc/Dsc axis, theoretically.
If you're born during the day, your sun will be in the southern hemisphere of the chart (upper half). If born at night, in the bottom half (northern hemisphere).

So I think what he's ("He" isn't it? ) saying is...
This assumes that the day is divided 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night. Obviously that's not true in reality. More extreme in say, Alaska or Northern Canada where at some times of year they could have a 6 hour day, technically. (Heck, even 2 or 3 hours)

So if you translated this to the chart, a 6 hour day at extreme locations in the winter. That would mean that 1/4 of the chart would be above this asc/dsc axis and 3/4 below it.

I hope that helps.... maybe...??

posted October 03, 2016 09:09 PM            

They stick with 180° ASC/DSC axis

posted October 03, 2016 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Why would that not create a straight line?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xAxXPWGMiE

watch that and compare to this:

posted October 03, 2016 09:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:
Let me see if I can put this a bit more simply for others.

If you look at a typical natal chart.
It's a 24 hour day from say, 0 Aries all the way around back to 0 Aries.

All the hours of the day are "above" the Asc/Dsc axis, theoretically.
If you're born during the day, your sun will be in the southern hemisphere of the chart (upper half). If born at night, in the bottom half (northern hemisphere).

So I think what he's ("He" isn't it? ) saying is...
This assumes that the day is divided 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night. Obviously that's not true in reality. More extreme in say, Alaska or Northern Canada where at some times of year they could have a 6 hour day, technically. (Heck, even 2 or 3 hours)

So if you translated this to the chart, a 6 hour day at extreme locations in the winter. That would mean that 1/4 of the chart would be above this asc/dsc axis and 3/4 below it.

I hope that helps.... maybe...??

I get it now though.

---

It would be an interesting way to re-invent a natal chart, to make it follow sunrise/sunset in the native's area.

posted October 03, 2016 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
Is ASC/ DSC defined by the points where the eclpitic crosses the horizon? If so- that is similar to the sun rise and sun set. Since the sun is the ecliptic path. If the eclpitic crosses the horizon at certain points- that means that the sun at some point in time crossed the horizon at those points.

Since the sun moves a little each day (rises at 6:04 one day, 6:09 the next) for example, to check when the sun rose and sun set will show the exact amount of time the sun ring, EG the eclpitic, was above the horizon

---

Similar to, but not the same.

posted October 03, 2016 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Similar to, but not the same.

My point is, astrologers choose to NOT define ASC/DSC by sunrise/sunset for a reason, even though they typically coincide.

---

It's an interesting point.
I'm not sure though.
Like you say, it's not been anything other than 180 degrees.

posted October 03, 2016 09:34 PM            

You'd think the signs' would be centered around us. Like wherever you go- the signs are centered around you.