An astrological knowledge base
As indicated in this section the normal procedure when working with statistics is to set the P-value (P for probability) to 0.05. In other words, if an incident happens with the likelihood of 1 out 20 to happen by chance, then that observation is deemed statistically significant. However, we cannot use 0.05 as the P-value in the following section about the Sun's aspects to various celestial bodies, and in the following I shall explain why.
First some numbers: The present investigation into the Sun's aspects include 130 celestial bodies, and the accumulated number of investigated aspects is 1,543. If I use a P-value of 0.05, then I would expect 77 of the found "statistically significant" aspects to have happened by accident - namely 5% of 1,543.
I did find 128 aspects with a P-value equal to or below 0.05. This means that 51 of the aspects can be expected to be genuinely statistically significant. At least that is one way of solving the problem: To elevate the 51 found aspects with the lowest P-value to be genuinely statistically significant.
There is another solution to the problem: If I divide the 5,040 data into 2 sets with each set consisting of 2,520 data, then I can identify the aspects with a P-value equal to or below 0.05 and existing in both data sets - these are the aspects, which have been replicated. Finally I can use the P-values in these 6 aspects to estimate a general P-value, which I can use for the non-replicated aspects as well.
I found 6 such replicated aspects. I used these 6 replicated aspects to identify a P-value of 0.015. When I use this new P-value on the entire data set of 5,040 data, I end up with 46 genuinely statistically significant aspects among which 4 are replicated - i.e. existing in both the 2 sets of each 2,520 data. The 46 genuinely statistically significant aspects with a P-value equal to or below 0.015 are listed below in Table 1 and Table 2.
In the following I shall first explain all the abbreviations in Table 1 and Table 2. Finally I shall try to make some conclusions regarding the found observations.
When I work with aspects, I use the orbis recommended by John Addey, and which are displayed in Table 3.
The celestial bodies, I have researched, can be categorized in the following categories:
I didn't include other types of celestial bodies in our solar system such as trojans or comets.
I am not using the term "dwarf planet" for any category, because astrologically it does not make sense to put Ceres into the same category as trans-Neptunians such as Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea. Furthermore, a lot of the trans-Neptunians, which haven't been designated "dwarf planet" yet, may become dwarf planets in the future, which means that the label "dwarf planet" is very unstable. I assume that category labels, which I have selected, are more stable.
The column labels are:
The colour coding is as follows:
Table 4 is a list of the abbreviations used for the celestial bodies mentioned in Table 1 and Table 2. Not all these celestial bodies have received an official name yet, so I have taken the liberty to give them temporary names for the use in this project only. Any name marked with an "*" is such a temporary name. The "Number" column contains the numbers used for identification of the celestial body by astronomers.
Can we draw any conclusions from the research results? The most interesting questions are:
Below I have tried to answer each question.
In Figure 1 I have first summed up the statistically signficant category and then divided it by the number of elements within the category in order to be able to compare the 7 categories. For instance, summing up the statistically significant Chi Square output for the Cubewanos renders 141.8727, which is again divided by 34, because I have included 34 cubewanos in my research project. The result is 4.1727.
The 3 most prominent categories are the cubewanos, the asteroids from the Asteroid Belt and the NEOs. The least prominent category in this research project is the centaurs - they have no statistically significant aspects at all, and consequently the centaurs can be used as a control group.
As a result the ordinary planets, the resonant KBOs and the SDOs can be seen as the "medium important" categories. They are not without significance, since they do have statistically significant aspects, only as categories they seem to be less important than the 3 most prominent categories.
These observations are surprising for the following reasons:
In Figure 2 I have summed up the statistically signficant aspects for each aspect type in order to find out, which aspect type is the most prominent among the male murderers.
And now to the conclusions:
As for the 3 most prominent aspects found in this project, they are:
(C) Copyright Eskild Rasmussen. This page was last edited September 6th 2019.