Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Aligned with rather than conjunct

Expand Messages
  • Diana K. Rosenberg
    ... Thank you, Bernadette - glad you brought this up! I definitely agree that aligned with is the proper term to use for ecliptic degree projections - the
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:38:01 +0100
      > From: "Astro Logos" <office@...>
      >Subject: Re: Current fixed star conjunctions -- can we use the word alignment??

      Bernadette wrote:

      >Dear Group,

      >Since this is a fixed star group for astrologers would it not be good if we
      >all agreed that saying that a planet is "conjunct a star" could be
      >considered a confusion of terms.

      Thank you, Bernadette - glad you brought this up!

      I definitely agree that "aligned with" is the proper term to
      use for ecliptic degree projections - the term "conjunct"
      should refer only to genuine occultations or conjunctions
      (say 1 degree orb, perhaps a bit wider allowed for Sun,
      Moon, Nodes, Angles, but I would not like it to go past 1.5
      to 2 degrees) - do you agree?

      >Later this month the Moon occults Antares - it does this on a regular bases
      >of a 19 year cycle and I believe that it is important, (it is the subject of
      >the next VAN) but when we astrologers talk of planets conjunct stars it
      >tends to imply that we actually think that they are.

      >For example, from the list given below "Neptune conjunct Sualocin", well
      >Neptune is currently at a celestial latitude of 0 degree 07' south and
      >Sualocin when I last looked is located at about 33 degrees north. Now in the
      >night sky, if we could see Neptune, this is a considerable distance. If you
      >take your hand and make a fist, but extend your thumb as well as your
      >little finger then hold this up to the sky the arc your hand covers will be
      >about 20 to 25 degrees. So the distance between Neptune and Sualocin is
      >about one and a third of your hand spans. To call this a conjunction is I
      >feel an error and a misnomer.

      >Now I know that what is meant is that when you projected both Neptune's
      >position onto the ecliptic as well as the star Sualocin's position, via
      >longitude lines from the poles, then they will land on the same place on
      >the ecliptic - along with a few other stars stretching from the north pole
      >to the south pole. But I cannot tell you the number of astrologers, maybe
      >new to the field, who come up to me after lectures and actually do believe
      >that Algol is physically in the same place in the sky if it is so called
      >"conjunct" one of their planets.

      >Now the days of working purely with the ecliptic as our one an only
      >reference point are I feel really behind us and although every astrologers
      >has the right to chose the manner in which they conduct their personal
      >dialogue with the stars, for the sake of clarity maybe it is time that
      >astrologers thought of a better term for such alignments.

      >Indeed why don't we say Neptune is aligned with Sualocin?

      >Indeed why not grab the bull by the horns (all puns intended) and let this
      >very cyber-space fixed star community of astrologers start a new idea right
      >here and now and adopt the word "alignment" rather then "conjunction" for
      >stars linked to planets via the idea of a projection onto the ecliptic.

      >Then we would have clarity. We could have .....

      >Neptune aligned to a star OR .. Neptune in paran to a star.. OR Neptune
      >conjunct another planet or asteroid - this way there is clarity for all and
      >no confusion.

      >What say you Diana as you are the leader of the projected ecliptical degree
      >movement :))) Do you like this idea?

      As above!

      Sometimes when writing hastily I forget and use "conjunct"
      incorrectly, but I'm entirely in agreement with you on this.

      >I am happy to be shouted down .. but given the Moon is just about to occult
      >Antares and truly be conjunct the star, I figure that I am allowed to be a
      >little obsessive :)

      By the way, back in 1993 I wrote an article on Algol for the
      NCGR Journal which included this:

      * On 7/7/1937, the day of the atrocity-ridden Japanese
      invasion of China, Finsler's Comet was at the latitude,
      longitude and declination of Algol.

      I was glad to find a direct confirmation of the nasty side
      of the star - with no projection needed!

      Reference was Ramus' Ephemerides of Great Comets (AFA)

      Love, Diana
    • Astro Logos
      ... Wonderful... :) ... ...... more by Bernadette... ......Indeed why not grab the bull by the horns (all puns intended) and let this ... Yes. I think that
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        >Hi Diana,

        Wonderful... :)

        >>Since this is a fixed star group for astrologers would it not be good if
        >>we
        >>all agreed that saying that a planet is "conjunct a star" could be
        >>considered a confusion of terms.
        >
        > Thank you, Bernadette - glad you brought this up!

        ...... more by Bernadette...

        ......Indeed why not grab the bull by the horns (all puns intended) and let
        this
        >very cyber-space fixed star community of astrologers start a new idea right
        >here and now and adopt the word "alignment" rather then "conjunction" for
        >stars linked to planets via the idea of a projection onto the ecliptic.

        >
        > I definitely agree that "aligned with" is the proper term to
        > use for ecliptic degree projections - the term "conjunct"
        > should refer only to genuine occultations or conjunctions
        > (say 1 degree orb, perhaps a bit wider allowed for Sun,
        > Moon, Nodes, Angles, but I would not like it to go past 1.5
        > to 2 degrees) - do you agree?
        >

        Yes. I think that you should hold the opinion on the orbs to be used for
        alignments as you are the one that does the main work in this area and I
        will only have opinions on orbs for parans :) ..

        So, filled with Sagittarian enthusiasm I will tomorrow post this on the
        Starlight User Forum as well as Astro Logos Student Forum and include an
        special note in the next issue of the Visual Astrology Newsletter - which
        goes out to nearly 3,000 astrologers (planned to be sent out this weekend)
        which will basically suggest:

        a) that the term "alignment" be used for when a planet and a star share a
        projected degree on the ecliptic,
        b) that the term parans for used for parans,
        c) and the term conjunction used for between planets (and or asteroids or
        centaurs etc ). Your suggestion that the term "conjunct" be used only when a
        planet actually blots out a star from view is OK - but there is already a
        term for this type of event which is of course occultation as we are never
        going to get a star blotting out a planet then we do not have to deal with
        the astronomical use of the term transit verse its astrological use.

        And Diana if you have any groups etc etc, then maybe you could put the word
        out to them. Indeed anyone else who is part of this group should also
        spread the word. I think this collective decision between those astrologers
        that work with projected degrees on the ecliptic and those that work in
        parans and visual astrology is a wonderful step.

        I know that the rest of the group has not yet responded but I am sure that
        if anyone does not like the term "alignment" for a star planet combination
        on the ecliptic then they will soon say.

        Bye for now

        Bernadette Brady
      • Mark Andrew Holmes
        ... Conjunct by declination and right ascension could also be used to describe such events, I would think. Mark A. Holmes __________________________________
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- "Diana K. Rosenberg" <ye-stars@...>
          wrote:

          > > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:38:01 +0100
          > > From: "Astro Logos" <office@...>
          > >Subject: Re: Current fixed star conjunctions -- can
          > we use the word alignment??
          >
          > Bernadette wrote:
          >
          > >Dear Group,
          >
          > >Since this is a fixed star group for astrologers
          > would it not be good if we
          > >all agreed that saying that a planet is "conjunct a
          > star" could be
          > >considered a confusion of terms.
          >
          > Thank you, Bernadette - glad you brought this up!
          >
          > I definitely agree that "aligned with" is the proper
          > term to
          > use for ecliptic degree projections - the term
          > "conjunct"
          > should refer only to genuine occultations or
          > conjunctions

          "Conjunct by declination and right ascension" could
          also be used to describe such events, I would think.

          Mark A. Holmes






          __________________________________
          Yahoo! Messenger
          Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
          http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
        • Mark Andrew Holmes
          ... Just make sure people know what aligned with means. Mark A. Holmes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > --- "Diana K. Rosenberg" <ye-stars@...>
            > wrote:
            >
            > > > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 01:38:01 +0100
            > > > From: "Astro Logos" <office@...>
            > > >Subject: Re: Current fixed star conjunctions --
            > can
            > > we use the word alignment??
            > >
            > > Bernadette wrote:
            > >
            > > >Dear Group,
            > >
            > > >Since this is a fixed star group for astrologers
            > > would it not be good if we
            > > >all agreed that saying that a planet is "conjunct
            > a
            > > star" could be
            > > >considered a confusion of terms.
            > >
            > > Thank you, Bernadette - glad you brought this up!
            > >
            > > I definitely agree that "aligned with" is the
            > proper
            > > term to
            > > use for ecliptic degree projections - the term
            > > "conjunct"
            > > should refer only to genuine occultations or
            > > conjunctions


            Just make sure people know what "aligned with" means.

            Mark A. Holmes



            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
            http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
          • Astro Logos
            Hi Mark.. ... or celestrial latitude and ecliptical longitude or, if we are standing on the earth... azimuth and altitude, or depression. Or once we leave
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Mark..
              >
              > "Conjunct by declination and right ascension" could
              > also be used to describe such events, I would think.
              >
              > Mark A. Holmes

              or celestrial latitude and ecliptical longitude or, if we are standing on
              the earth... azimuth and altitude, or depression. Or once we leave the
              ecliptic and use the points where the earth touches the sky then we have the
              term paran to join a star and a planet - or any two bodies in the heavens.

              But none of these terms create the problem that the term "conjunction" does
              hence the discussion about using the word "alignment" for this unique
              joining of star and planet when they are both projected - via the poles -
              onto the same degree (s) of the ecliptic.

              As Diana well knows I have never been one to be glued to the ecliptic, maybe
              it is growing up under the southern skies full of stars. I have always been
              offended by the use of the word conjunction, and it would seem that Diana
              has also been uncomfortable with this term and for Diana and I to agree on a
              star geometry point is a champagne night :))) - I should add we agree on
              most other things....

              bye for now

              Bernadette Brady



              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > __________________________________
              > Yahoo! Messenger
              > Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
              > http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Mark Andrew Holmes
              ... All right. Mark A. Holmes __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Astro Logos <office@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Mark..
                > >
                > > "Conjunct by declination and right ascension"
                > could
                > > also be used to describe such events, I would
                > think.
                > >
                > > Mark A. Holmes
                >
                > or celestrial latitude and ecliptical longitude or,
                > if we are standing on
                > the earth... azimuth and altitude, or depression.
                > Or once we leave the
                > ecliptic and use the points where the earth touches
                > the sky then we have the
                > term paran to join a star and a planet - or any two
                > bodies in the heavens.
                >
                > But none of these terms create the problem that the
                > term "conjunction" does
                > hence the discussion about using the word
                > "alignment" for this unique
                > joining of star and planet when they are both
                > projected - via the poles -
                > onto the same degree (s) of the ecliptic.


                All right.

                Mark A. Holmes

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.