mysteries of egyptian zodiacs - HiddenMysteries Information Central

6.11 Best Points for the Planets and
the Planetary Order
For each planet, besides the range of admissible positions,
we will also specify its exemplary position on the sky,
which in some sense would correspond the best location of
its planetary figure on the Egyptian zodiac. This point on
the ecliptic J2000 will be called the “best point” or the
“exemplary position point” of this planet.
Actually, the choice of such a point can be strongly subjective.
Therefore, the positions of the best points have no
impact on the rejection of incompatible solutions. However,
the order of the “best points” plays and important role in
the rejection process. This order should be exactly the same as
the order of planets on the Egyptian zodiac, according to the
considered decoding variant of the main horoscope. For each
computed solution, the program Horos compares the order of
planets on the ecliptic with the order of the “best points.”
Those solutions with the order of planets different than the
order indicated by the “best points” are rejected.
If the arrangement of two or more planetary figures is such
that it is impossible to determine their definite order, in the
computations we have assigned to all those planets the same
value of the best point. As a consequence, the program Horos
will assess any arrangement of those planets as correct with
respect to their order. On the other hand, the order of all the
other planets will be verified according to the order of their
“best points.” Let us point out, that situations with undetermined
order of some planetary symbols indeed occurred on
the Egyptian zodiacs. In particular, this was the case with the
zodiacs of round type, where the figures are not arranged in
a sequential order, but are rather scattered around the whole
picture.
It may happen that, for a certain planet, we are not able
at all to identify its location on the ecliptic. For example,
it could happen that we were unable to recognize the figure
representing a particular planet on the zodiac. In this case
the range of admissible positions for this planet should be
from 0 to 12, and as its best point a number greater than
100 should assigned. For the program Horos this will be an
indication that this planet should be considered as undefined
or free, i.e. there are no constrains imposed on its location.
If a best point is not indicated in the input data, then the
program Horos will respond with an error message.
6.12 Mean Discrepancy from the
Best Points as an Indicator of
the Accuracy of the Solution
The “best points” were also used for each solution to calculate
the numerical indicator called “mean discrepancy from
the best points.” Because the choice of the “best points” was
not independent of subjective factors, this number can only
be used as an advisory indicator for the correspondence
6.13 Example of the Input Data for the Program Horos 145
between the configuration of the planets in the solution, and
the arrangement shown on the Egyptian zodiac. In spite of its
dependencies, such an indicator turns out to be very useful.
The mean discrepancy from the best points is evaluated in
degrees. It is obtained by taking the average value for all the
distances from the corresponding best points for all the seven
planets. Recall that the “best points” represent the “ideal”
locations of the planets, as it is suggested by the picture on
the zodiac. When it is possible to identify all the planets on
the zodiac, then the corresponding best points could be determined
with the precision up to 15 o , which corresponds to
an average length of a zodiacal constellation. The precision of
15 o degree is the best precision that can be expected for an
Egyptian zodiac. Therefore, the values of the mean discrepancy
from the best points in the range from 0 o to 15 o should
be considered as very good, and in the range from 15 o to 20 o ,
as satisfactory. However, even higher values of this indicator
can occur in the case of a correct astronomical solution.
But, it can happen only in a situation where it was not possible
to determine in advance a definite position(s) of certain
planet(s). Such situation can arise in a case, for example, of
a damaged zodiac, where some of its parts were destroyed.
If the “best point” for a certain planet is undefined, i.e.
its value is assumed to be larger than 100, then in such a
situation it was possible to evaluate the mean discrepancy
indicator by assuming (for this purpose only) that its best
point was exactly the calculated position of the planet. However,
this wouldn’t be right, because such an assumption could
lead to a significantly lower value of the mean discrepancy
indicator for that solution. In particular, in the case where
there were more than one undefined (free) planet in the input
data, another problem appeared. How the solutions with
different number of undefined (free) planets should be compared?
To solve these complications, in our computations we
applied the following algorithm, which helped to eliminate
these undesired effects:
(1) Computations of the mean discrepancy indicator were
carried out successively with respect to the sequential order
of the planets.
(2) In the case an undefined (free) planet was encountered, a
temporary best point (which was only used in this computations)
was assigned to it. This best point was evaluated
based on the average distances from the best points for
the other planets, for which the best points were defined
or already computed in the previous steps of this process.
6.13 Example of the Input Data for
the Program Horos
Let us present as an example a sample input data file
INPUT.TXT for the program Horos. This data was obtained for
one variant of decoding of the main horoscope on the Long
Denderah zodiac. The ranges of the admissible planetary positions
and the best points are expressed in coordinates of the
constellation-sized scale on the ecliptic J2000.