| Foreword | Contents | Prologue | Reviews |
| Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 |
| Astronomy Quiz | Appendix 1 | Appendix 2 | Appendix 3 | Appendix 4 | Appendix 5 |

Appendix 5:
LUNAR NODES, MEAN OR TRUE?

There seems to be a dilemma about 'mean' versus 'true' nodes for the Moon. Astronomically, the former is the position of the lunar nodes - there is no other. The trouble is, this should never have been called the 'mean' node - it should just be, the lunar node. What astrologers call the 'true' node is just an American gimmick. These two versions of the lunar 'nodes' coincide twice a month when the Moon meets them, i.e. when it passes through zero latitude.

For the moon or for planets, their 'mean' position refers, astronomically, to an abstract concept of 'mean motion,' which is the uniform, circular motion that the astronomer starts off with, in constructing the orbit; and this contrasts with their 'true' positions, which are obtained by adding on various extra motions, to that 'mean' position, in order to get the correct longitude at any point in time. Thus the Moon slows down at its apogee and speeds up at perigee. The 'true' position is the one that is useful, because it's where the planet or, Moon really is. Astrologers got to hear about this 'mean' versus 'true' dichotomy of planetary motion and misapplied it to somehow give two different lunar node positions - and a dilemma that they shouldn't be bothering with.