An Introduction to The American Heliocentric Ephemeris, 1901-2000 (compiled, programmed and copyright by Neil F. Michelsen, d. 1990)
(printed courtesy of ACS Publications)
by Robert Hand
Why this Ephemeris?
Heliocentric planetary positions are those determined using the heliocenter, or Sun’s center, as the point of observation. That is, a heliocentric chart reveals how the planets are arranged as viewed from the Sun. In contrast, the majority of astrology (and thus of astrological references) is geocentric, or viewed from the center of the Earth.
Yet, of all the astrological research conducted over the last 30 years, heliocentric astrology has been one of the most fruitful in demonstrating a correlation between celestial and terrestrial
phenomena. Evidence exists, with various degrees of reliability, showing the potentially great value of heliocentric astrology not only in natal (behavioral) analysis, but also in predictions of mass uprisings, or geophysical phenomena such as radio interference and weather conditions, of stock market and other economic fluctuations, etc.
This ephemeris was created in response to a major demand from the astrological community for a complete heliocentric ephemeris, to allow more detailed and extensive research into this promising area. Previously there have been few sources for this information. Computer firms such as Astro Computing Services have made heliocentric horoscopes available for some time now. Otherwise, one was generally limited to government ephemerides, such as The American Ephemeris & Nautical Almanac (renamed The Astronomical Ephemeris in 1981). This ephemeris, issued annually by the U.S. Naval Observatory, is relatively expensive, and extremely
hard to locate for back years, large university or urban libraries often being the only source. For a time in the 1 960s, Ebertin Verlag of West Germany issued annual heliocentric ephemerides which were inexpensive and relatively accessible; but there remained the problem of back and future years, and they are no longer in print.
More recently, Michael Erlewine, who has done considerable ground-breaking work in heliocentric astrology, has published a book titled The Sun is Shining, by means of which an astrologer can calculate heliocentric positions with the aid of a small calculator. Yet, while
useful, it is not as convenient to use as a true ephemeris.
A few years ago, various groups including Astro-Graphics Ser vices, Phenomena Publications and Matrix began to explore the possibilities of producing a full heliocentric ephemeris for the 20th century. After negotiations and fiscal adjustments, A.G.S. inherited the now scaled-down project and published a small edition of a ten- year hello ephemeris for the 1980s. This, unfortunately, was the limit of what the original planners could provide for the present.
With the increasing cry from astrologers for a more extensive helio ephemeris - a cry arising primarily from the publication of T. Patrick Davis’ work on helio astrology, described below - I told Neil Michelsen in the fall of 1981 that if Astro Computing Services had the resources, interest and energy to produce a full heliocentric ephemeris, they should do so. The result is this present volume.
Use of Heliocentric Astrology
It should be said at the outset that heliocentric astrology is neither more nor less scientific than geocentric astrology. We should not use heliocentric astrology simply because it is based on a “more scientific” view of the Solar System. The fact that “standard” astrology has always been done from the geocentric perspective has always been one of the criticisms leveled at astrology by its critics; however, this is a completely specious argument. What concerns astrology is the experience of effects upon the Earth. It is therefore logical to look at the heavens from an Earthcentered perspective.
Based upon this point of view, one would be justified in asking why we should look at heliocentric astrology at all. In fact many astrologers have dismissed heliocentric astrology’s effectiveness. But the answer to this challenge is simple: The Sun affects us more than any other celestial body, and we are, in fact, within the limits of the Sun’s atmosphere, or corona. It’s accurate, then, to say that while we are on the surface of the Earth, we are also within the direct
sphere of influence of the Sun. (Compare this to an airplane in the upper reaches of the Earth’s atmosphere. Wouldn’t traditional, geocentric astrology consider it within the Earth’s sphere of
influence?)
One of the most powerful of the Sun’s influences, outside of the daily radiation that heats the Earth, is the solar wind, a stream of par ticles coming from the surface of the Sun toward the Earth and other planets. These particles cause tremendous disturbances of the Earth’s ionosphere. There are indications that they in turn are connected with particularly disturbed periods in Earth’s history.
What should we use heliocentric astrology for? Many feel that it is most useful for mundane astrology and studying mass behavior, having little usefulness in individual natal astrology. But those of us who have studied the matter more extensively do not agree. Heliocentric positions are apparently useful for both mundane and personal astrology. A purely heliocentric astrology lacks some of the major factors that are found in geocentric astrology, such as the Moon, all of the houses, and the Lunar Nodes; and there are fewer differences among the heliocentric charts of individuals born on the same day than among the geocentric ones. But this does not alter the fact that heliocentric astrology is useful for the study of individuals. We aren’t suggesting that heliocentric charts be used instead of geocentric charts. The two systems of charting should be used together, at least for individual natal astrology. However, as
we shall see, even though there are some factors of geocentric astrology that are missing in heliocentric astrology, there are also some factors which are unique to heliocentric astrology.
For example, in heliocentric astrology the planets Mercury and Venus are no longer tied to the position of the Sun (or Earth as it actually would be in heliocentric astrology). That is, Mercury is no longer restricted to a zone 280 either side of the Sun, nor Venus to a 48° elongation. Also, Mercury in particular moves very rapidly, more than 6° per day at times. And, while there are no house cusps or lunar nodes, there are planetary nodes and the Perihelia of the planets (points where the planets come closest to the Sun). Planetary nodes have been used geocentrically as well, but there are problems with their use in geocentric astrology. These problems are discussed below.
Contrasts of Types
Michael Erlewine has suggested that a personality typology can be derived from the comparison of dominant aspect patterns in the heliocentric chart with those in the geocentric chart. To take a simple example, one can compare the dominance of hard and soft aspects in the two charts. One might have a predominantly hard aspect chart heliocentrically, and a soft aspect chart geocentrically. This would produce a personality type that would be quite different from an
individual that had a soft aspect chart heliocentrically and a hard aspect chart geocentrically. The first type (hello hard/geo soft) may have a great deal of inner turbulence and experience internal
psychological crises, but have a relatively easy time handling the outside world. This could result in a rather energetic individual, though one who might have difficulty attaining inner peace. The
second type (helio soft/geo hard) may be more tranquil internally, but might experience more difficulty dealing with the exterior world. This could be especially difficult because the lack of inner turbulence can also express itself as a lack of inner energy with which to face challenges from the outer world.
I do not mean to imply that geocentric astrology does not indicate psychological states; but these states are more often projected onto external circumstances than with heliocentric, or have a social dimension even when they are internal. In natal astrology, the heliocentric chart seems to describe the inward nature of the individual with little reference to the changes brought on by
encounters with the environment. Such encounters, after all, are symbolized by the houses. It might be regarded as what the individual might be like if his or her development were solely the
result of inner drives. This is not to say, though, that heliocentric astrology is more spiritual or esoteric than geocentric astrology. It is simply more internal. Nor does that mean less observable.
For example, health and other physical problems seem to be shown more clearly and simply in heliocentric charts than in geocentric ones.
Socio-Political Responses
While on an individual basis heliocentric astrology seems to have a tendency to affect inward states most significantly, it also has a very powerful effect on mass behavior and is, therefore, extremely useful in mundane astrology, especially for predicting the likelihood of
history-making events which are the result of spontaneous mass behavior rather than planned, intentional activity.
For example, a series of hard aspects between the planets, both inner and outer, seems to correlate with times when groups of individuals are likely to be disturbed. Riots tend to occur at
such times and people in groups seem to be more irritable than usual. On the other hand, periods in which soft aspects prevail are times of low energy. People are calm and placid, and may even
have difficulty staying awake long enough to get a job done.
Considerable work has been done relating heliocentric planetary aspects to disturbances on the surface of the Sun, most notably solar flares and sunspots. John Nelson, formerly of R.C.A., is particularly known for his work correlating disturbances in the Earth’s ionosphere with heliocentric planetary positions. Ionospheric disturbances also are related to both sunspots and geomagnetic storms. Recent work by both Thomas Shanks and Geoffrey Dean has begun to call
Nelson’s work into question; however, there still seems to be some kind of connection between heliocentric planetary positions and solar events. The correlations may not be exactly the way that Nelson views them, but they appear to be real correlations nevertheless. Dean himself has noted a possible relationship between planetary declination on the solar equator and the formation of sunspots.
In my own work I have noted that periods of revolutionary activity, such as the American and French Revolutions, seem to come at the peaks of solar activity. In accordance with the principle cited above, revolutions seem to be the result of outbreaks of popular out rage, rather than the result of consciously planned activity. In contrast, wars which are usually planned by the aggressor nations do not correlate with solar activity at all.
Mixing Media: The Use of Heliocentric with Geocentric Positions
Several advocates of heliocentric astrology recently have begun to recommend the use of heliocentric positions along with geocentric positions in the standard geocentric chart. Premier among these has been T. Patrick Davis in her 1980 book, Revolutionizing Astrology With Heliocentric. According to this practice, one should look at the aspects that heliocentric planets form with geocentric planets as well as those formed with other heliocentric positions. House and sign positions of heliocentric positions are treated just as if they were geocentric. No real interpretic distinction is made between the two frameworks, except that there is an Earth as well as a Sun. Transits and progressions are made with both heliocentric and geocentric positions to both heliocentric and geocentric natal positions. The two coordinate systems are mixed in every possible way.
On the face of it, this seems to be an extremely implausible procedure, like adding apples and oranges. Yet there is a possible rationale. Refer to Figure 1. In this figure we have a schematic representation of Venus heliocentrically at 00 Aries, with the geocentric Moon also at 00 Aries. That is, the “line of sight” from the Sun to ward Venus, and from the Earth toward the Moon, are both in the direction which we call 00 Aries. 0 P Connecting the Sun and Earth, we obtain a base fl line from which the Earth-Moon and Sun-Venus lines run. Note that the Earth-Moon line is parallel to the Sun-Venus line. Just possibly, it isn’t important in astrology that placements or aspects be drawn from a single center. It’s possible, perhaps, for there to be more than one center, such that aspects are formed by looking at the angular relationships between lines radiating from each center to the planets in question. This is possible, I say, but we need much more rigorous work than has been done so far in order to reach a sure decision.
However, while it may be plausible to mix two coordinate systems in this manner, I personally don’t recommend it. It strikes me as far better to keep the two systems separate, and to discriminate between the two types of charts by finding for each a role that it plays in interpretation better than the other. The problem is that one is nearly doubling the number of factors in a single chart. Thus, it’s not surprising that advocates of the mixed-coordinate school claim that their system explains phenomena that were not previously explainable. The more factors that we introduce into a single chart without differentiation, the greater the risk we run that the results are chance combinations without meaning. This same logic applies, incidentally to hypothetical planets, asteroids and other devices which increase the content of a chart.
Obviously any new factor or technique should be used if it consistently explains the previously unexplained with great accuracy. However, lam not convinced at this time that this is the case with the mixing of heliocentric and geocentric coordinates. Having stated my opinion on the matter, I recommend finally that one should explore this matter for oneself and come to one’s own conclusions. Davis’ book, mentioned above, is the primary source- book for this theory of heliocentric astrology.
Some Techniques Peculiar to Heliocentric Astrology
Despite the lack of houses and the Moon, there are some factors which are either peculiar to heliocentric astrology, or are much less ambiguous when used in heliocentric astrology. Among these are Perihelia and planetary nodes.
Perihelia. Perihelia (plural of Perihelion) are the points in the orbits of the planets at which they come closest to the Sun. When a planet passes through its Perihelion it also reaches its maximum orbital speed. In John Nelson’s work there is some evidence that planets have their maximum effects when they move the fastest. High speed enables the planet to make the maximum number of aspects in the minimum time. This idea is somewhat contradictory to conventional (geocentric) astrological methods in which a slow-moving planet is given more emphasis than a fast-moving one; yet, if a manifest phenomenon is the result of several critical energy points being reached in the shortest possible time (i.e., several hard aspects occurring in a short period), then the Nelson hypothesis makes sense. It’s interesting to note that mundane astrologers in the 19th Century (as well as in modern times) have regarded approaches of the outer planets to their Perihelia to be very important, usually signifying crises in the offing.
Planetary Nodes. Most astrologers do not think of planetary nodes as being solely of relevance to heliocentric astrology. They are being used geocentrically by several astrologers, at least experimentally (see The Node Book by Zipporah Dobyns). But there are ambiguities in the use of planetary nodes geocentrically that one does not encounter in heliocentric astrology. A geocentric node of a planet is normally defined as the geocentric position of the point in the planetary orbit where the planet crosses the plane of the Earth’s orbit. For purposes of the helio-geo conversion, the nodal point is implicitly defined, therefore, as having the same distance from the Sun that the planet would have were it occupying that position in its orbit. From a strictly astronomical point of view this idea makes sense; but from an astrological point of view it can at least be questioned, in two ways.
First of all, one can take the position of Charles A. Jayne and Carl Payne Tobey that the nodes are not to be treated as points in an orbit with a definite distance from the Sun, but as a linear axis formed by the intersection of the two orbital planes. It is a basic principle of geometry that two planes intersecting form an infinite line of inter section. If a node is in fact an axis, then it is an infinite line and, therefore, its geocentric and heliocentric longitudes are identical. Fixed star longitudes are an example of this phenomenon in that, except for a minute parallax correction, the geocentric and heliocentric longitudes are identical. This is because the distances
of the fixed stars from our Solar System are so great that they can be treated as if they were infinite.
I personally do not know whether this redefinition of the planetary nodes is correct or not. I do know that persons who have investigated the matter have claimed that the heliocentric longitudes of the nodes work as well in the geocentric chart as in the heliocentric chart. It is
obviously not a cut-and-dried issue.
A second problem in the use of geocentric planetary nodes I consider to be more serious.
Looking at the planetary nodes from the point of view of the original definitions outlined above (i.e., as the geocentric positions of the nodal point on the planet’s orbit), the node is apparently intended to be a place where there is an exchange of energy between the planet and the Earth.
After all, the node is defined as a place where the planet crosses the Earth’s orbit. If an interchange of energy is real, then this notion is not so much incorrect as incomplete. If a planetary orbit exchanges energy with the Earth by crossing the plane of the Earth’s orbit, then
there must also be an exchange of energy whenever the Earth crosses the plane of another planet’s orbit. Heliocentrically, the planet’s node upon the Earth’s orbit and the Earth’s node upon the planet’s orbit line up exactly, so that there is no discrepancy. However, geocentrically there can be a tremendous difference between the two nodes, depending upon how far the Earth
is in its orbit from its node upon the planet’s orbital plane. Of course, when the Earth is on this node, the two nodes line up exactly. In my own chart, for instance, the Sun-Earth is on the nodes of Uranus such that the Uranus-on-Earth nodes perfectly coincide with the Earth-on-Uranus nodes.
If we are going to continue to use geocentric nodes as originally defined above, we are then obliged, in my opinion, to double the number of nodes being considered so that we have not
only the planet-Earth geocentric nodes, but also the Earth-planet geocentric nodes.
My main point, however, is that all of these problems disappear when one uses heliocentric coordinates. The nodes as defined conventionally line up with the Jayne/Tobey-defined nodes so
that there is no discrepancy. The planet-Earth nodes and the Earth-planet nodes also line up so that there is only one set of planetary nodes for all occasions. Heliocentric astrology simplifies
these matters completely.
Conclusions
Obviously in a short introduction such as this, one can only touch on a few of the issues that pertain to heliocentric astrology. I would like to conclude by making a plea. Geocentric astrological techniques are not so reliable that they should be taken as the paradigm for the study of heliocentric astrology. We are dealing here with something that is new and different, and should not be afraid to develop new methods to view it or work with it. We can use the old ideas from geocentric astrology as a guide, but no more than that.
Given this orientation, the greater emergence of heliocentric astrology at the present time can be the occasion for a rebirth of astrology as a whole, because the new insights that we get from it
should feed back and affect the way in which we approach all of astrology.
