posted February 08, 2008 10:28 AM              

Hard Aspects

conjunction - 12
opposition - 6
square - 3
semisquare, sesquiquadrate - 1.5

Easy Aspects

Conunction - 12
Trine - 4
Quintile - 2.4
Sextile - 2

Minor Aspects

Septile - 1.7
Semisquare/Sesquiquadrate - 1.5
Novile - 1.3
Decile - 1.2
Undecile - 1.1
Semi-sextile - 1

After much thought and re-analysis of many charts, I think these orbs make sense. I never really felt the sextile more than 2 degrees and I think the quintile is the most underrated aspect and needs to be better understood. It makes sense to me that it is at least as strong as the sextile and probably stronger because it is a smaller division of the circle.

I am not sure where the quincunx fits on this list theoretically as it is kind of in its own family mathematically but an orb of 2 seems to work.

posted February 08, 2008 12:32 PM              

The question is how well this works for other planets and points. More research needs to be done but as a model this makes alot of sense and so far I find it to work. Orbs like 6 degrees for a sextile are fantasy IMO. As are 7 degrees for a square.

Harmonics are based on this basic idea, in order of strength:

Conjunction, representing unity, includes all aspects - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12.

Opposition includes - 2,4,6,8,12

Trine includes - 3,6,9,12

Square includes - 4,8,12

Quintile includes - 5,10

Sextile includes - 6,12

Aspects 7 - 12 only include one harmonic and are more abstract and spiritual. Which doesnt make them weak or less present - just harder to understand and speak tangibly about for many people.

posted February 08, 2008 01:58 PM            

I also prefer to give much tighter orbs in synastry for outerplanets because they are so generational, slow moving. I definitely would give tighter orbs for the nodes of jupiter and objects beyond Jupiter because they are about the collective.

another thing too.....some astrologers use orbs in relation to the harmonic......those are the harmonic astrologers. They use other harmonic charts any way.

I was reading HARMONIC ASTROLOGY By David Hamblin.

He uses half of the orb for natal aspects for synastry aspects.

I have a more geometric approach to Astrology,and so orbs matter a great deal to me......especially with midpoints.

posted February 08, 2008 04:13 PM            

A lot time ago,astrologers use aspects by sign........but the discovery of outerplanets complicated matters.

also wide orbs can be valid, but they still much weaker than orbs with close aspects

even major aspects with wide orbs can be weaker than minor aspects with very tight orbs. Robert Hand made that point in his book,HOROSCOPE SYMBOLS

another thing too is that some astrologers might find wide orbed aspects working because there is a declination that enhances them. Also a midpoint picture involving those planets could be involved

for example....maybe I can relate to a 10 degree Venus conjunct Neptune,but my Venus parallels Neptune less than 1 degree.

furher more, my Mars squares Venus/Neptune midpoint less than 1 degree.

maybe I can relate to Mercury conjunct Neptune with 13 degrees, but I have Mercury parallel Neptune less than 1 degree. I also have Mercury conjunct Sun/Neptune less than 1 degree. I also have Neptune in 3rd house.

also.....planetary nodes and perigree/apogee,perihelion/aphelion could be taken into consideration. After all,they are astronomical points.

another thing too is that some people get away with wide orbed aspects involving Pluto because they have strong aspects involving other kuiper belt objects....especially Eris which is larger than Pluto.......or the the plutinos which have 3:2 resonance with Neptune like Pluto,...plutinos like Ixion,Orcus

I have Sun conjunct Ixion with 4 minutes of arc, parallel Orcus with 1 minute of arc
maybe that's why I can relate to plutonian energy with my Sun in Scorpio. I do have Sun contraparallel Pluto though.

there are so many factors why some astrologers can get away with wide orbs.

of course,there are the harmonic charts that can be considered too.

things get more complicated when you get into Vedic Astrology which don't even use the outerplanets and don't use aspects in a way that we do.

for instance all planets aspect the opposite houses
additionally
Jupiter aspects 5th,9th houses from itself
Mars aspects 4th,8th houses from itself
Saturn aspects 3rd,10th houses from itself

also..outerplanet influences are attributed to Rahu(North Lunar Node) and Ketu(South Lunar Node)

The vedic astrologers also use harmonic charts..especially the navamsha,9th harmonic chart as a 2nd main chart,determine overall strength of planets,and used as a marriage chart.

Classical Astrologers don't use the outer planets either.

another thing too is 3D true body aspects
(that's measuring aspects along the great circle)
because of the far off latitude,kuiper objects like Eris,Pluto,Ixion,Varuna,and others don't appear as conjunctions and oppositions and can even form other aspects that you don't see with regular aspects.

Cosmobiologists use different orbs too. but they focus more on hard aspects and not the soft aspects.......especially with midpoints.

Astrology is so amazing....so many different ways to do Astrology. The diversity in Astrology is cool.

posted February 08, 2008 04:43 PM            

if we use the kuiper belt object,Pluto, then why not use the other kuiper belt objects like Eris,Varuna,Ixion,Quaoar

some astrologers use Chiron which is a centaur, but there are so many other centaurs too and a lot of them have names like Chariklo,Asbolus,Nessus,Hylonome,Cyllarus,Okyrhoe

the view of complete loss of a coherent system is very relative and subjective

some classical astrologers would argue against the use of the outerplanets because they are not visible. the same with the Vedic astrologers.

different strokes for different folks

to each,his or her own.

that's why there are so many astrological systems

even heliocentric astrology.

even galactic astrology like some astrologers use black holes,quasars,pulsars,xrays

Philip Sedgwick has solar fire add on called Galastro that calculates those points. I have that too.

some astrologers use fixed stars. Some project stars onto the ecliptic like Diana Rosenberg. Some astrologers use fixed star parans like Bernadette Brady. I leaning more towards fixed star parans myself. I have fixed star paran report program too.

some astrologers use hypothetical transneptunian planets like Cupido,Poseidon,Hades,Admetos,Apollon,Vulkanus,and Zeus. Those are the uranian astrologers.

some esoteric astrologers use Vulcan

posted February 08, 2008 04:52 PM            

There is discord not among astronomers but also astrologers.

Astrological skeptics or should I say cynics even use the argument that astrologers disagree about how astrology works,what in astrology works,and the many different astrological systems,what constellations are valid, even some of the sidereal astrologers disagree about the difference of degrees between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs, classical astrologers criticizing psychological astrology,many vedic astrologers saying that the western astrology is not accurate and wrong, astrologers disagree whether cause and effect or synchronicity are the operating mechanisms in Astrology. Astrologers disagree if composite or davison charts are better for looking at relationships.

posted February 08, 2008 08:28 PM              

I guess the bottom line is that, ultimately, astrology is not just a science but an intuitive "artform". So, if looking at just the planets out to pluto will get you a good interpretation, then that's what you do. Or if you can get a feel for a chart using midpoints, then THAT'S what you do. However, I do think that there should be some consensus on how to interpret a chart WITHIN each of these techniques, and these "rules" should have some logical/astrological/mathematical basis. Otherwise, we may as well break out the crystal ball.

BR - I think having a wider orb for the conjunction is pretty sound, especially based on the way you came to the conclusion of the 12 degree orb. I also think that Dj makes an excellent point about the possibility that certain planets can have a stronger orb of influence. (I think it's widely accepted that the sun and moon DO.) And, Glaucus...I didn't understand most of what you said (it's not you, it's me! lol) but, I can see how the parallels and contraparallels come into play.

The cool thing for me is that all of these techniques may, quite possibly, lead to the same or similar interpretations. Does it occur to anyone that this is because, regardless of HOW you look at them, from whatever angle or perspective, we are all standing under the same sky and looking at the same stars???

posted February 08, 2008 08:34 PM            

Of course! I believe that,and that's the points that I was trying to make.

Definitely Steven Forrest thinks so.

That's why I posted Future of Astrology by Steven Forrest.

I am leaning more towards evolutionary astrology as well as astronomically oriented astrology.

I am trying to move away from tropical zodiac signs

Cosmobiologists don't even use houses and put very little emphasis on signs.....Cosmobiology influenced me in that regards. They focus mainly on planetary geometry.

posted April 14, 2014 07:13 AM            

As it's the planets themselves that have these orbs, the aspects orbs are going to be reflections or parralell vibrations, so imo the aspect orbs are much smaller.

For a conjunction to be up to 12 degree's is very unrealistic for bodies like Pluto, that are smaller than our own Moon, they would need a humongously powerful atmosphere to give off an orbit that strong. If you think about how large the space of 10-12 degree's is in our actual solar system, then bring in two of the smaller planetary bodies the space seems unfathomable, but at the same time we don't know what it is that connects them, if it's magnetics etc it could be quite easiy possible.

The light and heat of the Sun is the possible connector, obviously as it's the central star it is possible of holding a giant orb due to the light, but with a body like Jupiter that doesn't have it's own source of outgoing light energy it's a different matter..

Imo i'd say 10 degree's for all bodies.

I guess you could work it out realisticly, by finding how large a degree is in terms of space then calculating how close in anothers proximity a planet to get another before having effects on the other, as its going to be similar to how the astrological influence works

posted August 16, 2014 06:35 PM            

My experience does not support the orbs you suggest here.

dj makes a good and very essential point, that orbs are as much functions of the planets involved as the aspects. My experience does support this. In fact, it is written into the very language of 'orb.' The original concept was 'moiety of orbs', that is "each of two parts into which a thing is or can be divided." That means take the width of one planet (in geocentric appearance) and how far it casts its light (aura) and come to a mean with the same of the other planet.

There was wide, loose agreement on this. Orbs were not applied strictly.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

The aspect factor has more to do with how close the aspect is to stepping on the next harmonic in series. So with the 60-degree sextile, you've got a lot more room than you do with say the 144-degree BQ that quickly becomes a 150-degree quincunx.

In addition - and this is just as important a factor to include - is that very often orbs are stretched for longitude aspects because an aspect is in effect, but in declination. Parallels happen simultaneously or nearly so with conjunctions. Contra-parallels the same with oppositions.

posted August 19, 2014 04:36 AM            

Every angle that is a multiple of 18 degrees is in the 1/20th family which is related to 1/10 Deciles and 1/5th quintiles. But much less powerful.

Every angle that is a multiple of 15 are more minor aspects than the twelve 30 degree major aspects. The quindecile (165 degrees) is an example. If we use the quindecile, then why not others?

Multiples of 1/18th are another very minor aspect. Along with 1/11 (a bit more major).

So really nearly every angle is associated with a certain aspect.

160 is quadnovile, 162 is related to 1/18th, 163 is quinundecile, 165 is quindecile. So as you can see there are a lot of minor aspects. That's why when dealing with minor aspects a tight orb is important.

posted July 24, 2015 11:28 PM            

Maybe a quincunx or other minor aspects can be interpreted with an orb. But conjunction, opposite, square, trine and sextile can, and still will be felt whether its an exact, or if its several degrees apart.