NavList:

   

Reply

On Oct 20, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Henry C. Halboth wrote:

> You gentlemen are as far off in your astrological comments as you can
> possibly be. The calculation (casting) of the astrological chart is
> every
> bit as technical, correct, and accurate as any navigational problem you
> may discuss the mathematics of. True, there are a number of basic
> methods
> of astrological computation, but when scientifically done they are
> readily convertible one to the other.
>
> It is in the realm of interpretation that the matter of intuition
> enters
> into the equation, and the results disintegrate to matters of
> supposition, opinion, and in the view of some statistics. This is the
> area of astrology that becomes contraversial - not the mathematics.

Henry,

I for one did not mean to imply that the astrological calculations were
inaccurate.  I was merely pointing out that there are better tools than
the Nautical Almanac for astrological calculations, and that this was
evidence against Alexandre Eremenko's suggestion that some of the sales
of the Nautical Almanac were to astrologers.  I then suggested one
difficulty that I could see with use of the Nautical Almanac for
astrological calculations, namely, shifting sun signs forward by 1.5
zones (not that the Nautical Almanac is necessary for such
calculations, where a calendar is sufficient) to account for precession
of the earth's AXIS, as corrected by George.  You have pointed out
additional difficulties.

Unfortunately, I also suggested that astrological planetary ephemerides
were not accurate for the current epoch, which, from your tone, I take
to be incorrect.

I agree that it would be useful to know the zodiacal sign for the moon
& planets to facilitate locating them in the sky without intervening
calculation.

Fred

   

Reply