Ergänzungscombin - Supplementary Combin ?

[Jean]

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.

[ayastro]

"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.

[volker]

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 back-calculates.


How did it go with the picture insert ?

[Jean]

@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?

[volker]

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.

[Jean]

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.

[ayastro]

. . . 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.

[Jean]

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.

[Jean]

@MrLang, thanks for the help text, not.

I have removed this from planetdance, i don't like the method anymore.

[volker]

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/t-g7jBBMl8x5

Am exhausted, need a rest.

[Jean]

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.

[volker]

Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, I do not understand this.
I need a few days of rest.

https://we.tl/t-JZtQWqrPbS

[Jean]

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

[Jean]

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.

[ayastro]

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.