posted October 03, 2016 10:55 AM            

I finally figured it out. All descendent calculations are false! They simply draw the descendent as the point directly opposite the ascendent in the zodiac.

They don't calculate where the sun falls below the horizon. That is what the descendent is. That is what will have a powerful importance and add to your chart configuration.

I have the math which I'm pretty sure is accurate.

Want to find out your *true* descendent? Here we go:

I already found that towns at a northern lattitude- or anywhere around the world- has a 24 hour sun cycle. This is useful to know.

Say the sun was above the horizon for only 3 hours. We derive where the descendent is because 24 hours = the sun spins 360 degrees around us. 3 as a ratio to 24 is the ratio of the ecliptic that is above the horizon. Let's use 3 hours and 14 minutes.

3 x 60 = 180. This way we can incorporate the minutes portion. 180 + 14 = 194. Now divide it by 60 to turn it back into hours. =3.23. Then you divide that by 24 hours. = 0.1347. This is the ratio of hours above. Which I believe should be the same as the ratio of the ecliptic that is above the horizon at a birth spot. 0.1347x360 degrees = 48.5 degrees.

So from your ascendent, moving clockwise, count 48.5 degrees. This is your true DESCENDANT!!

posted October 03, 2016 11:17 AM            

This makes no sense. It is one thing to recalculate the Ascendant, possibly based on a birth time that feels incorrect or estimated. Why on earth would you recalculate the Descendant??? If the Ascendant is correct, the rest of the chart is correct. Yes, it will always be the opposite sign of the Ascendant. That is the way it works in every dingle house system you use and it makes complete sense, if you think about the opposing energies that the 1st and the 7th stand for. Synastry charts prove this in a very powerful way. Why do Aquarius Rising people find themselves so drawn to Leo types? How many Aries Rising folks marry someone with Libra planets? Because of the Descendant.

You cannot just plop any old sign in the 7th House. That would ruin the symbolism of the whole chart. The opposing houses balance each other's energies out. That why the signs oppose each other. Also, wouldn't recalculating the Descendant require a recalculation of every house that follows?

You are thinking too much in mathematics and astronomy, which is not what astrology is about, in the end. I hate to burst your bubble but your theory holds no weight. Astrology must be looked at, first and foremost, as a spiritual system with an inherent structure to it. Looking at it from an overly scientific point of view defeats the purpose.

And by the way, I have Cancer on my 7th House cusp and a Leo Sun in the 7th. I was born at 6:24 pm, not too far from sunset in the summer. If I was born an hour later, my Leo Sun would be conjunct the 7th House cusp probably. So I would have the Sun descending because I would be born when the Sun was setting. Therefore, the system does make sense.

posted October 03, 2016 11:29 AM            

I thought it was very straightforward.

At time of birth:

Sign rising in the east = asc
Sign setting in the West = dsc.

posted October 03, 2016 11:35 AM            

Also, as I stated, redoing the Descendant like that robs the 7th House of its symbolism. The Descendant is supposed to be opposing the Ascendant sign because of the axis. These signs give each other balance. One house needs the other.

And no offense but it is foolish to try and be highly scientific about this. If you take that route, you just don't get how astrology works. Not everything can be proven with pure logic. But there IS an innate logic to astrology. There are plenty of ways to hypothesize things about chart placements and prove them in reality. That is why we are all here because this system clearly works.

So trying to dismiss it as pure "imagination" is missing the point entirely. A lot if this involves faith and intuition. If you want something that is that scientific, look elsewhere.

posted October 03, 2016 12:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
Do we all agree that the descendent is where the sun first goes below the horizon?

If so. That's not the one that comes up in your chart. Take a look at my thread "confused about asc/dsc"

---

No. I don't think it's related to the sun.

If your child were being born and you could see the signs out in the sky. As if they were different colors or something. The moment of your child's birth, you could look to the east, see the asc. Look to the West, see the dsc.

Where the sun is at is another matter entirely.
It's about position of earth and it's rotation. As we know, in truth, the sun does not orbit us. It's an illusion.

Ok, so. When you make a heliocentric chart. (This is to demonstrate a point)
You see earth on the chart. From the perspective of the sun, earth is rotating, as it does in space. The symbol is a circle with a cross protruding from it.
Now just imagine that on a heliocentric chart that we could see it spinning. That little cross going round and round.
That rotation is what determines asc/dsc.

The orbit around the sun is another matter entirely, which determines our sun sign.

Another example is if you look at a heliocentric chart, that is, the sun is the center of the chart. You'll notice that the earth and moon are always opposite of your natal sun. That's because from the perspective of earth, looking at the sun, in the center of the chart, it appears as if the opposite sign.

posted October 03, 2016 12:07 PM            

I cannot tell people what to believe. If you want to stick to rigorous science, be my guest. But it falls short of the inherent logic and structure that defines astrology. We might as well be on an astronomy board at this point. The two things are NOT the same. I feel like certain people take the link between them too seriously.

When you think in purely astrological terms, it stops being astronomy. When you think in purely astronomical terms, it stops being astrology. The link between the two is very loose. Its the same reason why that 13th sign bs is false.

The way the Descendant is already calculated makes perfect sense to me. I don't think it can ever be disproven, not within the realm of ASTROLOGY. I can appreciate someone trying to think outside the box. Trust me, I think it is vital. But, as I keep saying, you are speaking a very different language.

posted October 03, 2016 12:18 PM            

But isn't it strange how it's never been heard of that the place where the sun sets is not taken account for?

posted October 03, 2016 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
I can see that the signs would still likely exist opposite to the point where the sun rises.

But isn't it strange how it's never been heard of that the place where the sun sets is not taken account for?

I think it would be a vital point.

---

posted October 03, 2016 12:27 PM            

"Astrology. the point of the ecliptic or the sign and degree of the zodiac rising above the eastern horizon at the time of a birth or event: the cusp of the first house."

"The Ascendant is defined as the intersection of the Eastern side of the Horizon with the Ecliptic plane, which represents the power of sunrise. "

For anyone stressing over the strange geometry of the northern and southern lattitudes for astrology, this site is tackling it so far from what I've read: http://www.astrowisdom.net/articles/astrological-dilemma-polar-latitudes.php

posted October 03, 2016 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soren:
I finally figured it out. All descendent calculations are false! They simply draw the descendent as the point directly opposite the ascendent in the zodiac.

They don't calculate where the sun falls below the horizon. That is what the descendent is. That is what will have a powerful importance and add to your chart configuration.

I have the math which I'm pretty sure is accurate.

Want to find out your *true* descendent? Here we go:

I already found that towns at a northern lattitude- or anywhere around the world- has a 24 hour sun cycle. This is useful to know.

Say the sun was above the horizon for only 3 hours. We derive where the descendent is because 24 hours = the sun spins 360 degrees around us. 3 as a ratio to 24 is the ratio of the ecliptic that is above the horizon. Let's use 3 hours and 14 minutes.

3 x 60 = 180. This way we can incorporate the minutes portion. 180 + 14 = 194. Now divide it by 60 to turn it back into hours. =3.23. Then you divide that by 24 hours. = 0.1347. This is the ratio of hours above. Which I believe should be the same as the ratio of the ecliptic that is above the horizon at a birth spot. 0.1347x360 degrees = 48.5 degrees.

So from your ascendent, moving clockwise, count 48.5 degrees. This is your true DESCENDANT!!

Use astrotheme and move the time forward until the sun is conjunct the ascendent (sun rise) and count exactly how many minutes+ hours is between that time and the time the sun is conjunct the descendent (if you look up any website- the chart is correct that when it is conjunct the descendent, is when the sun goes below the horizon E.G. your local sunset)

---