posted October 04, 2016 09:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:

Watch the sun. Watch it rise at 5 am. Now watch it move aaalll the way across the sky. See the path it makes? The energy it engrains into the atmosphere/ethers tailing behind it? Thats the ecliptic. Notice how the sun leaves the horizon at 4 PM in this example. This means that the entire eclpitic is only above the horizon for the equivelant distance that the sun travels in 11 hours. (5am - 4PM)

this means that only that much eclpitic is above your local horizon.

---

Imagine the horizon as a disc within a clear sphere. At higher latitudes, the horizon will be a small disk at the top of the sphere. Now if you put a ring around it to represent the ecliptic, you'll see that any way you position the ring, it hits the horizon disk in two places; that's the eastern horizon and western horizon.

The horizon line doesn't move, it doesn't tilt and expand inside that clear sphere, so that the eastern horizon is higher or lower than the western. The horizon stays level. Therefore the DSC is exactly opposite the ASC, in latitude.

posted October 04, 2016 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Imagine the horizon as a disc within a clear sphere. At higher latitudes, the horizon will be a small disk at the top of the sphere. Now if you put a ring around it to represent the ecliptic, you'll see that any way you position the ring, it hits the horizon disk in two places; that's the eastern horizon and western horizon.

The horizon line doesn't move, it doesn't tilt and expand inside that clear sphere, so that the eastern horizon is higher or lower than the western. The horizon stays level. Therefore the DSC is exactly opposite the ASC, in latitude.

The birth chart isn't a clock, where ASC is sunrise and a time-distance equation marks the spot, moving counterclockwise, where the sun actually sets. Even if you portray it that way, sunrise-sunset is still the main line, and the top and bottom portions of the chart have equal significance. There's nothing to say that daylight hours are more important than nighttime hours, so by changing the shape and size of the houses, you are really no further ahead, interpretation-wise.

---

Agree.

posted October 04, 2016 09:26 AM            

Add:
http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_polar_asc_e.htm

Astrodienst gets into it with such complexity and unexpected information and approaches.

posted October 04, 2016 01:30 PM            

its just the points in the distance- at the local horizon, where the eclpitic intersects the horizon, that wont be opposite to each other. for that to be true- you could see the rising of the sun/eclpitic path at one point, and then do an exact 180 degree turn, and look at the descendent.

this isn't the case. at least not with the sun by itself.

i think i got the missing piece of the puzzle. the sun itself wont rise and set at the horizon at opposite places- but the ecliptic itself is still in opposite points, where all the planets fall.

but i wonder if the sun path is needed to create the zodiac.

posted October 04, 2016 01:42 PM            

quote:

---

its just the points in the distance- at the local horizon, where the eclpitic intersects the horizon, that wont be opposite to each other. for that to be true- you could see the rising of the sun/eclpitic path at one point, and then do an exact 180 degree turn, and look at the descendent.

---

The descendant is happening on the other side of the earth. You can't just turn around and see it.

Unless we're all at the north pole again.

posted October 04, 2016 01:48 PM            

i got confused about individual objects, such as the sun,

if you look at one point of the earth, where the eclpitic is, the other part of the ecliptic will be 180 degrees from there.

my bad about all this. i think dop said it in the beginning. it doesnt matter when the sun rises and sets. since if the earth was rotating with the reference point facing the sun, the sun would stay in the sky forever, yet the eclpitic ring, the planetary disk where the planets orbit- would still stretch all teh way aroudn teh planet.

anyway i still think the points where the sun crosses the horizon- would be powerful energy points. since these 2 points aren't always opposite each other. as long as those 2 points fall on the ecliptic.

anyway my bad for all this.

well it goes to say that the path of the sun and the planetary disk of our solar system aren't the same thing.. yet that is the definition of eclpitic- the apparent path of the sun or the bodies in the heavens and the sun's path

posted October 04, 2016 02:17 PM            

It'll take some thought for sure.
Also, I feel like if there's things to truly be discovered about it that it might appear in declination rather than the flat wheel chart.

posted October 04, 2016 02:25 PM            

but hm. i just wanted to make sure, that the points where the planetary disk crosses the horizon was accurate. i got confused by thinking the suns apparent path in the sky was the whole eclpitic. chart calculations may still be off because if you took the chart for the 24 hour sun (6 months of sun) in antarctica, they would probably show the sun crossing the asc/dsc axis, when it never would.

posted October 04, 2016 02:52 PM            

i was worried the site sunrise/set calculators didnt have my year. then i realized that it rises/sets at the same time every year for my day

rise 6:54
set 6:15
so i think what we already figured out is these points arent the markings of the planetary disk(all the planets orbiting), and that they arent opposite to one another.

posted October 04, 2016 03:13 PM            

Which of course is calculated for us already.

posted October 04, 2016 03:14 PM            

i was trying to imagine the planetary disk (where the planets orbit) for the antarctica video. i was thinking- as soon as the sun was dipping beneath the horizon- that the enormous amount of the planetary disk was coming up above the horizon on the other side. i might be wrong.

doesnt seem to make sense if a part of the planetary disk could be above the horizon on one side and then go beneath the earth, and be above the horizon on the other side as well.

so now i do believe, that the entire planetary disk, is a perfect circle, perfectly balanced, 180 degrees to 180 degrees around our planet.

wherever the horizon coincides with that disk are the asc/dsc.
whether there is a zodiac created from this disk, without the sun, im not sure.

if its relevent to know for horizon synastry, it is. once again, horizon synastry is relevent, as there are always equal amounts of the planetary disk on both sides of the horizon.

any single plantary point, or sun/moon however, will never make perfect circles around us. (well it happens rarely)

the single points, do not. however the disk as a whole, of the planetary orbit, always do.

just as the moon crossing the sun's path create the nodes, assuming from metaphysical energy, then the sun crossing the horizon too would create a much more powerful node. however- since it might not occur on the eclpitic ring, its not as interesting to discover. since it won't be making conjunctions. it would still be fun to see where it coincides. especially if it was only like 10 degrees above the ecliptic or something. it would still be like a longitude conjunction, similar to how planets are conjunct pluto it longitude, but not lattitude. it would be like that, and still slightly cool to find out about that. since the sun and horizon are both incredibly felt- this point may be as significant as the ascendant- just not always occuring on the ecliptic. well im not sure how it works exactly. it's always on the horizon though. thats where the sun rises, an invisible metaphysical node.

Furthermore, we are a country that strives to be our best, and we will always be striving to fight for what we believe is right.