Planetdance forum
Board index => Planetdance for windows => Topic started by: volker on September 01, 2021, 02:07:27 PM

A few years ago I came across the following article: https://www.combinhoroskop.de/ergCombin.htm
and tried the method on some relationship charts. I found the results so enlightening that I started looking for a software that calculates this, but found none. I then gave up the whole thing, because the calculation was too annoying for me, especially with different birthplaces. A few days ago I discovered the article by coincidence again. Maybe there are now more people who are interested in it ? I can only recommend to try it out.

File Composite has two versions of combine, are you referring to them?

I have seen it. Being able to calculate multicombine is a fine thing, but this is something else.
It's a little more complicated. I have a Combin of A and B. It describes the relationship of the two.
Now I want to calculate a fictitious horoscope which, as a combin with horoscope A, gives a horoscope which is like horoscope B. :o
And this fictitious horoscope gives me information about how A can ideally behave in order to remain completely himself in the relationship with B.
The method was invented many years ago by Mr. Lang and as far as I know there is no longer a programme that can calculate this.

Hi  is this idea the same as the Davison chart:
The Davison chart calculates the midpoint in time between the two birth dates and times and the midpoint in space between the latitudes and longitudes of the two birthplaces.
https://www.astro.com/astrology/tma_article150106_e.htm (https://www.astro.com/astrology/tma_article150106_e.htm)
Ed

No, davison is same as combine. This does a trick with adjusting the midpoints in time / space halfway to one of the partners, saying it's how that person has to behave to be herself in the relation.
I may implement this at one time. Not sure yet.

Thanks for the clarification Jean. Ed

I think I made a mistake in the description. I have read Mr Lang's article again. (Sorry, it's been a long time since I used this.)
.. a fictitious horoscope which, as a combin with horoscope B, gives a horoscope which is like horoscope A. And this fictitious horoscope gives me information about how A can ideally behave in order to remain completely himself in the relationship with B.
Astroplus had the calculation years ago, but Mr. Peterat does not want to reintroduce it.
Would be great if Planetdance could do that and maybe more people would use it then.

Been several hours at this, got to the point where my temper got bad, then i saw this:
Anton genau um 10:00 und Berta genau um 14:00.
...
Diesen Abstand subtrahiert man von der Geburtszeit des jüngeren Partners, hier von Anton.
Does not compute, Anton is the older one. No wonder i got half crazy trying to get it right :(
Look here https://jcremers.com/code/Complementary%20Combine.ab Do right click, save as c:\planetdance\ab\horoscope\Complementary Combine.ab, restart pd and test.

Yes, that's right. I can remember now that this also confused me at the time (34 years ago) and I followed the calculation example.
I just tested it briefly on the example of Helmut Kohl.
When calculating back as a Combin, the Asz. was shifted by 1 hour.
I need some time to test it in peace, but basically I am impressed.
I hope others use it too and send feedback.
Many thanks for this.

It assumes DST setting is the same everywhere on the two found times, that maybe the cause for the 1 hour difference.

Ok Jean, I just got so confused that I tried the Anton/Berta example first.
Anton Radix 10:00 , Köln 01.09.21 and Berta Radix 14:00 Köln 01.09.21. Same day, same place, same time zone.
Ergänzungscombin Anton must be 6:00.
Ergänzungscombin Berta must be 18:00.
For verification: Ergänzungscombin of Anton (6:00) + Berta radix (14:00) = Anton radix (10:00).
"Das Ergänzungscombin (von z.B. Anton) ist immer dann richtig berechnet, wenn es im Combin mit dem anderen Partner (Berta) die Geburtsdaten des ersten Partners (Anton) ergibt."
But Planetdance calculates: comb.anton = 18:00 and comp.berta = 6:00.

should be fixed, it was reversed.
Edit: timezone was no problem but dst was. Latest version should fix that.
Can you make me a nice english help text? Please include the link to that site and maybe you can mail them that pd now has it as a module? It's tested and i published it.
This is the help so far, maybe you have some more?

These fictitious horoscopes give information about how A can ideally behave in order to remain completely himself in the relationship with B.
The method was invented many years ago by Mr. Lang. https://www.combinhoroskop.de/ergCombin.htm


Now I have correct results for the same place of birth. :D
With different places, e.g. with the example Helmut Kohl and the German unit I have different Asz. grade with the back checking.
Combin  German Unit + comp.Helmut Kohl = Radix Helmut Kohl (differenz 12°)
Please check that too.

I'm gonna let this rest, it's a lot of work to test and the examples on that page are not very clear. Maybe you can work out a decent example for me? I've had it a bit, it's a lot of tedious testing and i see no errors in my code. There's confusion about which times to use though, it's not clear how they do the calculations, is that local time or UT?
A better example would help.
I calculate everything in UT, and when a local time is needed i look at the timezone for that moment, dst or not. That is one hour difference and probably the cause of the asc difference. If two horoscopes fall in different timezones regarding dst, i think this probably can't be helped. At least i'm giving up, my brain is cooking. ::)

I also have enough for today.
I contacted the author Mr. Lang, gave him the link to the forum and asked him to help. I hope he will do it.

When calculating a combine, only UT is used, local time is ignored.
But when calculating a complementary, i have to correct for local time, else it does not match the example for Anton and Berta.
for completeness, my explantion to Ed:
The theory is that you have 2 persons A and B, and you make a combine by middling the UT and place coordinates resulting in the combine.
Let's say A is the older, it looks like this
A combine B
The combine is in the middle
Now the complementaries the same distance as A from B but before or after A and B like this, C = complementary
CA A combine B CB
the distance between CA and A is the same as between A and B, and also same distance B  CB.
Now theoretically if you combine CA and the combine, you should get A again, because the distances are the same.
But in practice there is a difference because the combine is pure UT, and the complementaries are converted to local time.
If i neglect conversion to local time with that complementary like i do with the combine i don't get the same results as on that page, those seem to be local time.

"The theory is that you have 2 persons A and B, and you make a combine by middling the UT and place coordinates resulting in the combine.
Let's say A is the older, it looks like this
A combine B
The combine is in the middle
Now the complementaries the same distance as A from B but before or after A and B like this, C = complementary
CA A combine B CB
the distance between CA and A is the same as between A and B, and also same distance B  CB.
Now theoretically if you combine CA and the combine, you should get A again, because the distances are the same."
In this last sentence, there seems to be an error. Correct is " . . . if you combine CA and B (B!, not the combine), you should get A again.
The distance from A to to the combine is only half the distance from CA to A.

A thought suddenly came to me and I did a few tests.
When calculating back from Radix B + comp.A = Radix A lies the error. The place coordinates are halved although it is the same place of residence. Therefore the Asz. do not correspond any more. With different places the error becomes larger.
I think the supplementary horoscopes themselves are correct. The error comes only, if one backcalculates.
How did it go with the picture insert ?

@ayastro, are you Mr.Lang? Yes the example was incorrect. My code is correct though.
@volker, if you make a combine, place coordinates are not halved but middled.
Dear folks, i'm giving up on this, my code is correct, i don't see what i can improve. The issue is that a combine is made for UT only, you can't middle a timezone, you have to use UT to get the difference in age. Whereas a complementary, at least in that example, is done for local time. So you can't use one method to test the other.
What about picture?

I also think that it works properly. I will use it like this.
Thank you very much for the time you have invested and
I would hope that Mr. Lang writes a short help text.

so glad to hear this, if i can't get something to work it can make me feel really bad, but i really would not know how to do this correctly.

. . . some thoughts, maybe it helps a little, or maybe it is obvious, I don´t know.
Let´s say we have persons A and B, in between the combine.
A Combine B.
Now let´s say, the Combine is a person. Or, in other words, the persons A and B meet a third person (called C), who has exactly the same birthdates as the Combine between A and B.
So we have
A C B.
Now, what is the Supplementary Combine for C related to A?
=> The birthdates of B
(The Supplementary Combine for A related to C is then outside of the trio figure
A C B, on the left side of A)
Same way, what is the Supplementary Combine for C related to B?
=> The birthdates of A

Testing of the correctness of an Supplementary Combine works easy (and again, probably obvious) by making an normal combine between the Supplementary Combine and the not related Person (f.e. between the Supplementary Combine of B and person A), which must give exactly person B.
Making a normal combine between the two Supplementary Combine must result in the normal combine between A and B.

That C person has no timezone, only a UT birth time, it also has no defined place, only coordinates, so it has no timezone.
The other two persons do have this.
You can calculate one way, make a combine, and you can calculate two complementaries but checking it means there's a conflict in timezones, or same timezone but different dst.
Sorry.

@MrLang, thanks for the help text, not.
I have removed this from planetdance, i don't like the method anymore.

I tested everything again this morning, step by step. It has left me no peace.
Same place, different place, time zone, UT ...
The location coordinates of the supplementary horoscopes are wrong.The distances of A and B must be added or subtracted like the time differences. Now it is simply the location of the partner.
No matter if everything is calculated in Timezone or UT.
I have clarified the error in a graphic. As a visual person, this is all easier for me. I hope that helps.
https://we.tl/tg7jBBMl8x5 (https://we.tl/tg7jBBMl8x5)
Am exhausted, need a rest.

volker, i won't spend time on this script anymore, sorry. The coordinates are ok, add or substract the difference from each partner is what i do.
I disabled uploading to the forum because of safety, if you use something like imgur you can insert that image here using the button below the B (bold) when writing a message.

Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, I do not understand this.
I need a few days of rest.
https://we.tl/tJZtQWqrPbS (https://we.tl/tJZtQWqrPbS)

So do I!
Maybe i will look at it someday again, for now i need a break.

been playing with this some more, if you ask me there's something wrong in the definition.
CA A C B CB
let's say A = 10 and B = 20
now we get
CA A C B CB
0 10 15 20 30
but if we take the combine between CA and C we get 7.5, not the 10 from A.
if you want the combine between CA and C to give A again it should be like this.
CA A C B CB
5 10 15 20 25
now CA = A  (B  A) / 2
which means, substract from A *half* the distance between A and B
subsequently add to B that same distance.
With this method i get acceptable results, asc difference about 1 degree.
I also now calculate the resulting CA and CB in UT, as it makes no sense to translate such a horoscope to local time, just like with a combine.
You can update or use the link in this thread.

let's say A = 10 and B = 20
now we get
CA A C B CB
0 10 15 20 30
but if we take the combine between CA and C we get 7.5, not the 10 from A.
if you want the combine between CA and C to give A again it should be like this.
CA A C B CB
5 10 15 20 25
now CA = A  (B  A) / 2
which means, substract from A *half* the distance between A and B
subsequently add to B that same distance.
You can do lots of things.
The combin is the prinzip of the middle or midpoint and shows the common or shared experience (the relationship itself, if you want) of princibly independant humans or beings or entities or konstellations or whatever. F.e. you can do a combin between your radix and an ingress of the sun in Aries, and you get a chart for the year, the same with the moon and you get a horoscope for a month. And this charts are much clearer than the usual ways I know like solars etc etc.
Another example, lets say you have A and B with the combin in the middle.
A combin B
Now you can do a new combin between A and the first combin, placed on 25% of the distance between A and B, therefor I called them Quarter Combins.
The first combin shows the shared or common experience of A and B. The second shows the common experience of A and the relationship, means it shows f.e. the "role" inside the relationship etc. (Quarter Combins can be done with multible combins, take 3 times Person A and one time Person B).
Combins are somewhat like a commode with a mirror with movable wings (hard in english, hope its understandable). You can place the wings so, that you can see the back of your head, or you can see the other mirrors mirroring mirrors. (And of course thees viewpoints are overlapping, because the always shows the same thing, a head :) or a relation.)
Infinite possibilities of viewpoints, but the more reflections are involved the less sharp/precise the results are. In the end you get "white noise".
My experience is, the more simply the proportion is, the more "substance" is contained: The basic combin has a relation of 1 to 2, and its more "substantiell" than Quarter Combins, which have a relation of 1 to 4. So I concentrate normally on simple relations.
So it is not a question of right or wrong. The option you describe gives results, but it is not the Supplement Combin. It is a different way.

Results are what matter for me though. It is now working as your theory says it should, i'm surprised you disagree, i think your formula is flawed. If you are not satisfied i'm happy to remove the function.

OK, I have read your posts. Both make sense. I can only say, with this exception that I posted, the supplemental horoscopes are correct after all. What Jean says, of course, I have also thought about, but it would not be the original method.
My suggestion: install both calculation methods, so everyone can choose and test as it pleases him.
I continue to work with what I have now.
If I enter the supplementary horoscopes in Astroplus and calculate back, I get identical original horoscopes.
https://we.tl/tiPPpNPco2Z (https://we.tl/tiPPpNPco2Z)
So please do not remove anything. Please.

You ask me to implement a method that does something. You give me a formula that does not work, i explained why it is wrong, it's simple math. I make the correct formula that does what its supposed to do and then you tell me it's not right. I don't like to be accused of making things up, i'm just trying to do it correctly. Obviously the other method doesn't do it correctly.
Make up your mind. If you are not satisfied 'm not gonna publish it anymore, i don't want methods that work only half in my software.

Sorry, I just wanted to help!
"CA A C B CB
let's say A = 10 and B = 20
now we get
CA A C B CB
0 10 15 20 30
but if we take the combine between CA and C we get 7.5, not the 10 from A."
To check we take CA in the combin with B = A !!!
That is the Primordial Method.
Mr. Lang, please correct me if I'm wrong !!!!

One last word.
The method of Lang( with the full distance AB) refers to the partners.
Your method with the half distance (which I had also considered as a supplement) refers to the combin A+B.
Both complement each other. I would be happy to have both methods.
I have always seen it that way.
Maybe I am wrong.
I do not want to say more about it to prevent quarrel.

if this method is not the desired method i'm gonna remove it and be done with it, spent way too much time trying to implement something that's badly documented.
If you copy that script to c:\planetdance\ab you can still use it after the next update.
You can change the formula used in the script yourself, see below. There are jd.. lo.. and la.. variables, for julian day, place longitude and place latitude.
for instance, if you remove all the ' / 2' parts, you have the former method where distance between A and B is not cut in half.
CA A [C] B CB
jdCA = jdA  (jdB  jdA) / 2;
loCA = loA  (loB  loA) / 2;
laCA = laA  (laB  laA) / 2;
jdCB = jdB + (jdB  jdA) / 2;
loCB = loB + (loB  loA) / 2;
laCB = laB + (laB  laA) / 2;
I uploaded a version which has a choice between not dividing by two (one) and dividing by two so you can experiment, same link as before. Put it in c:\planetdance\ab and open by Application run.
See if you can do something with it.
And excuse me for being so grumpy, i think i was rather unpatient with this, i've done better :(

Dear Jean,
thank you for Your efforts, and the things you installed. I didn´t yet had time to make a deep test with the first Version (3 of september?), but a superficial test worked well, and Volker said also, that his deep test give correct details. So i think there is a working solution for the Ergänzungscombin  Supplementary Combin. Great!
Whats more about the different approaches of supplementing (locking from two different viewpoints into the mirror ;D), I agree with Volker:
The method of Lang( with the full distance AB) refers to the partners.
Your method with the half distance (which I had also considered as a supplement) refers to the combin A+B.
Both complement each other. I would be happy to have both methods.
(To be honest, I would have still a lot more applicatians of combins ;) )
So have a good time, and thank You again for giving away new astrological possibilities!
best wishes

Hello Jean, I have downloaded the module and had a quick look.
I would like to thank you for making this available to us.
Thank you very much.

I though it didn't work?
If it does work, what i would like is implement the original one only, i don't want to make it too overwhelming, i think you call this supplementary? Is this the one or the two variant? And i'd appreciate a bit of a help text for it.

I have tested it a bit and I am quite confident.
I can not say if it works 100%.
At the moment I am in poor health and have to take it easy.
I have asked Mr. Lang to test it with a safe example and to write the help text, because he invented the method.
Variant one is the original method.
Thank you.

Hope it's not too bad, hope you get better.
Will await your input.

So I'm happy with the results of the new module.
I will continue to use it exactly as it is.
Thanks.

September 8
 Revised File  Composite  Complementary Combine, renamed it to Supplementary Combine and added help from the author.