ASC Sublord/MOON Starlord Connection - A Revised Study

ASC Sublord/MOON Starlord Connection – A Revised Study
Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy
[email protected]
[May 30, 2005]
This study is a variant of the earlier study conducted to see if there

existed an “anyway” connection between ASC sublord and MOON starlord in
correct births and “no” connection existed in incorrect births. The
results of the earlier experiment strongly indicated that the
connection existed in most cases, whether the birth was correct or not.
So it did not appear to be a reliable indicator of correct birth times.
I decided to revisit the experiment with some changes. The earlier

definition of “anyway connection” was as given by Kanak. Shri.Lajmi had
raised an objection at that time saying our interpretation of the rule
could be incorrect.
This time I defined “anyway” connection in six ways. The following are
the possible definitions (interpretations) of connection between ASC
sublord and MOON starlord. They are numbered C-1 to C-6. The first one
(C-1) is the same as the earlier definition.
The definition of “Agency” as used in some the definitions is given

first:
Agency Rule:
NODE is an agent for PLANET if and only if any of the following is
true:
a) NODE and PLANET are in the same sign
b) NODE is in the sign of PLANET
c) PLANET aspects NODE (by vedic aspect)
Connection Definition – 1 (C-1):

a) A and B are the same planet
b) A is the sign/star/sub/subsub lord of B
c) B is the sign/star/sub/subsub lord of A
d) A and B are in the same sign
e) B aspects A (by Vedic aspect)
f) A is in the star/sub/subsub of a NODE and the NODE is an agent
for B

b) A is the sign/star/sub lord of B
c) B is the sign/star/sub lord of A

b) A is the sign/star lord of B
c) B is the sign/star lord of A

f) A is in the star/sub/subsub of a NODE and the NODE is an agent
for B

e) A is in the star of a NODE and the NODE is an agent for B

f) A is in the star of a NODE and the NODE is an agent for B
You can see that definitions C-2 through C-6 are derived from C-1 such that they are all
STRONGER than C-1, but WEAKER/STRONGER among themselves. For example,
using the symbol “<” to denote the “weaker than” relationship between two connection
definitions, we can assert that C-2 < C-3, C-4 < C-3, C-6 < C-5, etc. (If it is not obvious
yet, “stronger” in this context means that the definition accepts less number of birth times
as correct.)
The purpose of arriving at several such definitions of “connection” is to see if one of

them can give us the “effectiveness” we are looking for. Other definitions of
“connection” can be given, and I encourage members to suggest these to me if they find it
worthwhile. If Shanmugham had defined connection formally (as I have attempted to),
then we would not have had to spend our energies trying to “guess” what he meant.
With these possible definitions of “connection”, I modified my program

a) To apply all definitions to various time points at 30 seconds interval on May 30,
2005 (midnight to midnight) at Chennai Egmore
b) To apply all definitions to the AA-rated charts as before
Table 1: Acceptance Ratios (in %) on A Specific Date
Description C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6

Acceptance Ratio 80.76 52.53 52.53 66.49 52.53 59.96
Clearly C-1 is the weakest definition.
In the second part, I ran each definition against the 300 and odd AA-rated charts. In each
case I computed the “Acceptance Ratio” (A.R) and the “Rejection Ratio” (R.R). The
latter is a measure of how many incorrect records (mutated by changing the birth time)
that particular definition rejects.
Table 2: Acceptance/Rejection Ratios (in %) Applied to 304 AA-Charts
Description C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6

Acceptance Ratio 81.90 65.13 55.92 70.39 57.57 63.49
Rejection Ratio 20.07 34.05 43.37 30.43 40.27 34.43
I had earlier recommended that the effectiveness of a BRT be represented as the pair
<Acceptance Ratio in %, Rejection Ratio in %>. Accordingly,
C-1: <81.9, 20.07>
C-2: <65.13, 34.05>
C-3: <55.92, 43.37>
C-4: <70.39, 30.43>
C-5: <57.57, 40.27>
C-6: <63.49, 34.43>
Conclusion:
This study reveals that tuning the definition (our “interpretation”) of “connection” can
yield different acceptance and rejection ratios. Which definition is “correct”? I do not
have an answer yet. It seems to me that we can get better insight if we apply the
definitions to birth charts that have “astrologically proven birth times”, irrespective of the
available “biological birth times”. I have my own doubts about the correctness of the AA-
rated charts. Hopefully the work that Kanak (and other volunteers) are engaged in, that is
using RPs to verify AA-charts, will form a better base to apply the various definitions.
**** END ****

ASC Sublord/MOON Starlord Connection - A Revised Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASC Sublord/MOON Starlord Connection - A Revised Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASC Sublord/MOON Starlord Connection - A Revised Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASC Sublord/MOON Starlord Connection – A Revised Study

This study is a variant of the earlier study conducted to see if there

I decided to revisit the experiment with some changes. The earlier

The definition of “Agency” as used in some the definitions is given

Connection Definition – 1 (C-1):

Connection Definition – 2 (C-2):

Connection Definition – 3 (C-3):

Connection Definition – 4 (C-4):

Connection Definition – 5 (C-5):

Connection Definition – 6 (C-6):

The purpose of arriving at several such definitions of “connection” is to see if one of

With these possible definitions of “connection”, I modified my program

Table 1: Acceptance Ratios (in %) on A Specific Date

Description C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6

Clearly C-1 is the weakest definition.

Description C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6

You might also like