Download a

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Study Resource
Extraterrestrial Astrology
Was this document useful for you?
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which
forms the content of this project
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the
best experience on our website. Learn more
32 of 32
Allow cookies
Automatic Zoom
Document related concepts
Related documents
Axial precession wikipedia , lookup
Chinese zodiac wikipedia , lookup
History of astrology wikipedia , lookup
History of astronomy wikipedia , lookup
Tropical year wikipedia , lookup
Astrological age wikipedia , lookup
Dasha (astrology) wikipedia , lookup
Hindu astrology wikipedia , lookup
Zodiac wikipedia , lookup
House (astrology) wikipedia , lookup
Planets in astrology wikipedia , lookup
Luciano Drusetta, Italy
This article is the translation of a revised
edition of “Ipotesi di AE” published on Ricerca
'90, issues 44 to 47.
SA Reviewer: Andree Leclerc
Born in 1962 and I have been an
astrological counsellor to individuals,
couples and businesses for almost thirty
years. After experimenting different schools
of Astrology, ten years ago I resolved to join
Ciro Discepolo's astrological method and
school, named Active Astrology -- based on
the active relocation of the Solar Returns
(Mr. Discepolo calls them: Aimed Solar
Returns or Aimed Birthdays) and the
exorcism of the symbols, as originally
conceived by Swiss psychiatrist Carl
Gustav Jung. I am the founder and current
moderator of the newsgroup of astrological
discussion and information in Italian
language it.discussioni.astrologia.
(hereinafter: EA) is an attempt to
extrapolate the rules of traditional
astrology in order to answer to the
following question: how would an Astral
Map look like – any astral map, I mean: a
natal chart, a transit chart or a return chart
– if drawn for an event that took place
outside the planet Earth – that’s to say,
anywhere in orbit around the Earth, on the
Moon, or on another planet, or on the
satellite moon of another planet, or even
more: in another solar system?
Science fiction, extrapolating the scientific
and technological knowledge of a period,
helps us understand the limits and
possibilities of the scientific and
technological progress of that time. Today,
watching again the naive science-fiction
films of the 50’s, we realize how much
progress has been made, but also how
many results are still to be achieved.
Similarly, the EA extrapolates but doesn’t
twist the traditional rules of our discipline,
making us think over the limits and
potentials of modern Astrology.
In his lecture on the "New Problems and
Evolution of the Astrology" ["Nuovi
problemi ed evoluzione dell'astrologia"]
held at the astrological congress of Milan
in 1975, Massimo Frisari dedicated some
paragraphs to what he called exoterrestrial
astrology. With my series of articles "Hypotheses
of Extraterrestrial Astrology" ["Ipotesi di
Astrologia Extraterrestre"] published on Ciro
Discepolo’s quarterly bulletin Ricerca '90, I
have developed Mr. Frisari’s original idea, put
the basements for further developments on
this subject; given preliminary indications on how
to face and solve some of the problems
left undeveloped by Mr. Frisari; even pointed out
a possible oversight of his. These pages
summarize that series of articles.
How could we define the potentials and the aims of
this newborn discipline, bound to
become a hinge of the daily astrological practice
of the Third Millennium? Because of the
prevailing hypothetical nature of its statements
and the virtual impossibility to verify (at
least, up to this day) certain hypotheses, we
could call it science-fictional astrology or
astrological science-fiction. Just like science
fiction, in facts, also EA outlines scenarios
upon "scientific" suppositions and it values the
feasibility of applying to such scenarios the
consolidated astrological rules - the rules that
we usually employ (often automatically and
unwarily) when we cast, draw and interpret a
normal, "banal", let me say: "terrestrial"
Yet, EA does not hypothesize scenarios that aren’t
justified on the basis of current scientific
and astrological knowledge. As a matter of fact,
it doesn’t divide the Zodiac into 15 or 37
signs on the pretext of a hypothetical alien
mathematics. It doesn’t figure fabulous
mythologies or symbolisms coming from an
extraterrestrial civilization that may have
developed according to criteria foreign to our
mentality. In other words, EA is neither a
fantastic astrology nor a fanta-astrology.
It is indeed a kind of extreme astrology. But even
the most bored countryside astrologer
finds himself, sometimes, before extreme
astrological situations. For example, let us
Placidus domification on a chart cast close to the
Polar circle and for a date close to the
equinox: we’ll see two Houses extending over
almost 180° embracing six signs each; while
the other ten Houses reduce to a section
concentrated into little more than 5°. Such a
leads us to a choice: to abandon Placidus
domification or to stick to our interpretative
techniques – the ones we have employed
successfully so far - to their extreme
I choose the latter way, because before large
distortions of the Houses even at home
latitudes, Placidus domification and the
traditional interpretative standards have always
me to satisfactory results.
Exobiology searches for and studies possible alien
forms of life, i.e. born and developed
outside our planet. Exoastrology should therefore
deal with aliens only – while the EA
addresses for us, human beings that already carry
out complex activities in outer space. If it’s
true that feline and canine astrology, and even
impersonal astrology prove to be working,
there is no reason for not fancying to cast the
horoscope even to an alien being from another
world (provided that he/she/it gives us all the
required data…). It would certainly be the
first, sensational example of an alien astrology.
Ours is certainly a terrestrial astrology, or
better said: a geocentric one – but only because
man is born and acts on Earth. In the Natal chart,
the Earth is the dot at the very centre of
the drawing. Somebody disagrees, but also Mr.
Frisari says so in his afore mentioned lecture:
"The first baby born on the Moon [...] The chart
should be cast drawing – obviously – the
Moon at its centre. In the map we’ll also draw our
Earth, which, to all intents and purposes –
becomes a planet like just all the others".
Consequently, the Lunar astrology would be a
selenocentric or a lunocentric one, as one
prefers; the Martian one would be a marsocentric
astrology, the Venusian one would be venerocentric
and so on. What a job for linguistics!
The term universocentric astrology is therefore
appropriated if we use it in accordance to the
First Principle of Extraterrestrial Astrology: the
horoscope must be cast – always, in any case
– with the birth place (be a planet or a satellite
moon) at the centre of the chart.
Nevertheless I would oppose an extension of such a
concept to its extreme limits by
considering a... "shuttleocentric" astrology if
the event takes place inside or by a star ship or
a scientific base orbiting around the Earth.
CELESTIAL VAULT or SPHERE: it’s a sphere with an
indefinite diameter, at whose
centre there is the observer, and on whose
internal surface, at the same apparent distance
from its centre, we project all we can see in the
sky. Please note that the Earth is at the
centre of this sphere only because it’s the place
where the observer is located. If the observer
moves, the centre of the sphere also moves with
him: it’s the same concept of shifting the
system of reference that we’ve been taught at
school such as with the Cartesian axes.
ECLIPTIC: it’s the orbit described by the Earth in
its revolutionary motion around the Sun;
it is called so because eclipses take place only
on this line. Also: the geometrical plane on
which the Earth revolves around the Sun. Or: the
orbit in which the Sun seems to move on
the Celestial Vault. When we mention a Lunar,
Martian, Venusian ecliptic, we’ll mean
either the orbital plane of each of those
celestial bodies, or the route of the Sun on the
Celestial Sphere, as seen from each of those
ZODIAC: it’s the belt on the Celestial Sphere in
which we observe the motions of the Sun,
Moon and planets. Such a belt extends some degrees
(4 to 17 according to different authors)
above and under the Ecliptic, and it is ideally
divided into twelve 30-degree sectors (the
twelve signs) starting from the equinoctial point
called vernal point or gamma.
A short flash-back to our studies of plane
geometry: two oblique planes meet along a straight
line. The two planes we are talking about are the
Ecliptic and the Celestial Equator (the
latter being perpendicular to the rotation axis of
the Earth); they meet along a line that
meets the Celestial Sphere in two points, called
equinoctial points.
VERNAL POINT or spring equinox or spring
equinoctial point: one of the two points in
which the circle of the Ecliptic meets the
Celestial Equator. On the day of the equinox, the
daylight lasts exactly as much as the night
anywhere on Earth. During the spring equinox
the Sun is located at the point called vernal
point or gamma, while six months later it is
located at the opposite one called autumnal point
or omega. Each year, the Sun passes
through the equinoctial points at a different time
and sometimes even on a different day.
The planets and their moons are like spinning tops
that turn around their own axes and, at
the same time, they orbit around the Sun or around
their father-planet. Among the
numerous movements they perform, in astrology we
consider two in particular:
ROTATION: the movement performed by a body that
spins around its own axis.
REVOLUTION: the motion of a planet, of a comet or
of an asteroid around the Sun, or the
motion of a moon around its planet.
Until the spinning top keeps velocity, its
rotation axis remains stable; then it starts
oscillating, it loses speed and eventually – it
falls down. Similarly, the axes of the rotation of
celestial bodies keep their obliquity constant,
except for light movements such as the
nutation and the precession. We don’t wish to
define here the nutation because it is not
normally considered in astrology (anybody knows
PRECESSION OF THE EQUINOXES or of the equinoctial
points: it’s a slow conical
motion of the axis of a spinning body. The cone is
drawn in the opposite direction as the
rotation of the body. The axis of Earth draws a
double cone (whose vertex is located at the
centre of the terrestrial sphere) in approximately
26,000 years; as a consequence of this
movement, the Equator plane shifts on the Ecliptic
plane, and the equinoctial points slowly
shift backwards through the Zodiac so that the
days of equinox occur earlier in each
successive year. This very slow retrograde motion
along the Ecliptic involves not only the
vernal point, but also the whole zodiacal belt.
The EA starts from the assumption (that somebody
may oppose) that the chart must always
be drawn – in any case – for the place where the
subject is located on a given moment. A top
manager was born in Rome; he spends his birthday
in New York, then travel to Lima, where
he remains for the following three months;
eventually he flies to France to inaugurate a new
boutique in Paris. Well, we’ll cast his Natal
chart for Rome, his Solar Return for New York,
the following transits and at least two Lunar
Return charts for Lima, while the Natal chart
of his boutique should be certainly be drawn for
Paris. If we accept this kind of astrology,
EA can already be applied in different fields. At
least 44 astronauts have certainly
experienced a Solar Return while in orbit, and
heaven knows how many Lunar Returns! Neil
Armstrong must have had a transit of the Earth on
his Natal chart, while he was frolicking
on the Moon... Space probes are "born" when they
leave the Earth at the take-off, but they
have their own Lunar and Solar Returns in outer
space and/or on the surface of some other
celestial body.
Often the astrologers are criticized because they
"believe that the Earth is at the centre of the
universe, while everybody knows that it is the Sun
that is placed at the centre of the solar
system, and the Earth revolves around it". But our
astrology is based upon a system of
projections with reference patterns (the Zodiac,
the horizon) that, just like the Cartesian
axes, can be shifted with appropriate mathematical
formulae. The Natal chart has its origin
on the Earth, and everything else is referred to
Earth - but only because we were born here
on the Earth, and not on the Sun, on the Moon or
on Mars.
An empirical way to shift from the heliocentric
view (the one preferred by the astronomers)
to the geocentric view (the one of the Astral
charts) is to trace with a ruler a series of rays
starting from the centre of the Earth to each of
the other celestial bodies; these rays should
be prolonged to touch the zodiacal circle, that we
are now supposing to be external to our
solar system. This way we project the celestial
bodies onto what, for the time being, we
consider being an external, unchangeable Zodiac,
valid for the whole solar system.
From the comparison between the heliocentric chart
and the geocentric one, we note that the
positions and movements of the planets in the
birth sky are simply due to a projective effect.
Conjunctions, oppositions, squares and even
retrograde motions are all apparent: caused by
the mere fact that from the Earth we deem them to
be projected onto the Celestial Sphere.
From the heliocentric point of view, in fact, the
retrograde motion does not exist. At least, in
our solar system it doesn’t: for we cannot exclude
the existence of such a planetary system in
which some of the planets revolve around the
central star clockwise and some others
counter-clockwise: the former would move through
the Zodiac with perennial, or prevailing
retrograde motion.
Some astrological software offers us the chance to
put at the centre of the chart any of the
celestial bodies of our solar system. Unluckily
such a "shift" option is not enough to cast a
real extraterrestrial chart, because these
programs maintain the original domification of the
geocentric map, while an extraterrestrial map
should obviously be domificated according to
the geographic coordinates of the place (the
Martian one, or the Lunar one...) in which the
birth or any other event considered takes place.
Geographic maps of the most important
planets of our solar system have already been
drawn; for any event, I am working on an
article to demonstrate how it’s possible to create
empirically a valid system of coordinates on
any planet or moon we are on, by simply using
rough science. Beside that, these programs
use for the shifted chart all the planets that we
use here on the Earth, including our Moon;
and they use only those planets that we use here
on the Earth. But having assumed that
astrology is essentially a system of projections,
depending upon our point of view we should
choose which planets or Luminaries (meaning for
Luminary either the Sun or the Moon)
should play a role in the chart - and which ones
should be simply ignored.
On the Moon the choice is simple: the First
Principle of Lunar Astrology affirms that the
Moon becomes the dot at the centre of the Natal
chart, and at its place we have the Earth, in
the diametrically opposite zodiacal position than
the Moon, linked to the other elements of
the drawing by the supplementary angles of the
angles that involved the Moon in the
corresponding geocentric map. In other words, if
in a terrestrial Natal chart the Moon is on
the first degrees of Gemini at an angular distance
of 150° from the conjunction of Sun and
Saturn in Libra, then at the same time on the
Moon, the Earth is on the first degrees of
Sagittarius at an angular distance of 30° from the
same conjunction. The Sun remains where
it is, in Libra. The handbook of Lunar
Extraterrestrial Astrology would describe this
situation like this: "Earth in Sagittarius,
semisextile to the Sun".
I propose to draw the Earth on the lunar charts
using the same crossed circle that we are
presently using as the glyph of the Part of
Fortune. To draw the Part of Fortune on a lunar
map one should find another glyph. But above all I
find it appropriate to tie the Earth to the
centre of the chart by drawing a straight, solid,
thick line that makes us remember that
particular fixity of the Earth that Mr. Frisari
apparently forgot to mention in his lecture of
Milan. Seen from the Earth, the Moon shows always
the same face to us because its
revolution around the Earth has the same duration
as its spinning motion around its own
axis. I used to think that this was an exceptional
fact, but to my best knowledge of today,
apparently all the "moons" of our solar system act
exactly the same way. From this point of
view, the planets cannot be correctly considered
as the "satellites" of the Sun because they
miss the typical feature of the natural satellites
of planets: i.e. they do not show always the
same face to the Sun. Astronomers used to believe
that Mercury had such a feature, but
more recently they have found that it is not so.
If such a planet existed, it would possess a
period of rotation ("day") equal to that of
revolution ("year") and on its surface there
wouldn’t be any alternation of night and day. On
such hypothetical, planet the Sun would
move through the signs but would be immobile
compared to the local horizon: therefore half
a planet would be constantly touched by the solar
light, while the other half would live in a
perennial night.
On the Moon something very similar happens: the
Earth is still compared to the local
horizon, but in motion on the Celestial Vault.
Second Principle of Lunar Astrology: on the
Moon – but only on the Moon - the Earth moves
across the signs but not across the Houses.
This may seem to be a banality, but it’s a fact
that carries huge implications, with heavy
consequences for the interpretation of the chart.
Let us assume that we land ("moon-land")
on an area of the Moon where the Earth is at the
Zenith. Well, all life on we’ll see the Earth:
• cross the twelve signs at the same speed with
which we see the Moon move across the
Zodiac, namely with a daily pitch variable from
12° to 15°30' approximately
• show phases, exactly like the Moon shows phases
to the observer on the Earth; but its
phases would be opposite to the lunar ones: we’ll
have Full Earth on the Moon when there is
New Moon on the Earth, and New Earth when there is
Full Moon on the Earth, and so on
• and it would stay always, constantly, forever at
the Zenith!
In his already mentioned lecture, Mr. Frisari
wondered what would be the effect of an Earth
at the Ascendant of the lunar map. But to have the
Earth at the Ascendant, one must simply
be at the extreme edge of the visible surface of
the Moon (i.e. visible from here, from the
Earth), in an area that, precisely for this
reason, is not likely to become the ideal place
a stable lunar base would be built and where human
births would possibly happen one day.
Such a building would be likely erected in an area
that assures the best visibility of the lunar
hemisphere that faces the Earth: precisely that
area where we have assumed to moon-land
shortly before. At an astrological level, we
should therefore be concerned about the Earth in
the Medium Coeli rather than the Earth in the
Considering the fixity of the Earth in the Houses
and the reduced dimension of our satellite,
shifts of a few kilometers on the surface of the
Moon would be sufficient to obtain
substantial relocations of the maps, whilst the
same result can be achieved here on the Earth
only by means of expensive intercontinental
travels. In other words, on the Moon it would
be much easier to relocate one’s own Solar Return.
As a counterpart, at least during the first
decades of lunar colonization, moving few
kilometers on the lunar surface would certainly
mean high costs and complex technological
hindrances to overcome.
There are two moons on Mars: Phobos and Deimos.
When casting a Martian chart we
should place Mars at the centre of the drawing. We
could therefore consider: 1) Sun, 2)
Mercury, 3) Venus, 4) Earth, 5) Moon, 6) Phobos,
7) Deimos, 8) Jupiter, 9) Saturn, 10)
Uranus, 11) Neptune and 12) Pluto = twelve
planets? Too good to be true! In fact my humble
opinion is that we must ignore both Mercury and
our Moon on Mars. I stated that astrology
is based upon a projective system: if this is
true, seen from Mars (and much more if we
observe them from farther planets), the Moon and
the Earth form a strict planetary couple
always in conjunction; at most, they detach from
time to time, but of a few degrees only if
not less. Mercury, on the other hand, will be
always combust by the Sun. Besides, the Moon
is the satellite of the Earth - but in terrestrial
Astral maps we don’t use the satellites of other
For eventually, what does "count" in a Natal
chart? Among the many-many objects that turn
around us, either visible or invisible, huge and
little, natural and artificial, real or
hypothetical – comets, shuttles, airplanes,
asteroids, meteors, UFOs, fix stars, space rubbish
etc. – what makes a celestial body (any celestial
body) an eligible element to be placed into a
birth chart as a valid and significant element at
an astrological level? It’s the Second
Principle of Extraterrestrial Astrology that tells
us: in the interpretative practice, it’s not the
distance or the actual observability of a planet
that counts (for if it were so, the
transaturnian planets would not count, and Pluto
would have got a substantially different
interpretative weight depending upon its position
being inside or outside the orbit of
Neptune). Rather, its "individuability" is what
counts: in other words, in order to become
part of an extraterrestrial horoscope as a valid
and useful element for its interpretation, a
celestial body must be easily individuable; it
must possess individual features such as a
cyclicity of its motion that differs from any
other celestial body. Particularly, it must have
got (seen from the planet at the centre of the
chart) a discreet elongation; i.e. it must be able
to detach from the other celestial bodies as much
as needed to deserve an individual
interpretation. For this reason, if per absurdum
there would be two planets in mutual and
perennial opposition or trine or square, I think
we should consider only one of them.
So we don't use Mercury on Mars, but that doesn't
mean that the native Martians would be
idiots without brain and no communication ability!
Of course the Martians will possess
cleverness and communication ability; but with a
missing Mercury in their Natal charts,
we'll be forced to find their mercurial values
elsewhere in the chart. Thanks God, on Mars
we can count on the help of Phobos and Deimos to
replace the Moon (amalgamated to the
Earth) and Mercury (combust by the Sun); for them
we must find precise interpretative
attributes. As an example, we should understand
which one plays the "role" of the Moon and
which one plays the "role" of Mercury.
Extending our reasoning: on each planet or moon
where we act (it seems that some of the
moons of Jupiter and Saturn may actually support
forms of life) we’ll have a different set of
celestial bodies to draw in our Astral charts.
This means problems of two kinds.
One kind of problems is practical: among all the
things that turn around on the birth sky – if
we could potentially use "all" of them – according
to what criteria do we use some of them
and do we reject others? Why, in geocentric
astrology, do we consider significant the
position of the Moon but not that of the ISS? Why
do we use Pluto but not its companion,
Charon? Why do we consider some of the asteroids,
but ignore other thousands of them? As
we said before, dealing with EA leads us to a
serious reflection over details that we take for
granted in our daily practice as astrologers.
Somebody says that all this doesn’t make any
sense, because we must first wait until the
first human being be born on the Moon or on Mars,
and only then could we make some
attempts to cast his/her horoscope in order to
evaluate its practical effectiveness. Yet, it is
my opinion that knowledge doesn’t step forward
this way. What the inductivist galileans
say isn’t true: that a theory comes out from the
careful, detached and "objective" observation
of the reality. Neither are right the
falsificationist popperians, who claim that if
it’s not
possible to prove the certainty of a theory, one
could at least prove its possible falseness.
Epistemologists overcame such "naive" positions
ages ago, claiming that it's sufficient to
consider the history of science to clearly
understand that the scientific knowledge works in
very different way indeed: namely, there is always
a theory that precedes and leads the
observation. Hence the importance to create – with
the EA – a logical and coherent structure
to precede and lead the first empirical and
statistical observations in this field.
The second problem refers to the ideal, or
absolute, number of planets to be used in EA. We
have two extreme positions. Lisa Morpurgo’s
followers on one hand: they support the "12
planets 12" ideals that lead the perfect universal
harmony of the astrological system to its
fulfillment: 12 signs, 12 Houses, 12 planets, 12
domiciles. André l'Éclair's position on the other
hand: he used – based upon astrological
considerations and reflection rather than direct
observation – almost twenty celestial bodies. My
proposal is an in-between way that
represents a sensible compromise to both
positions. I suggest dismissing any dogma and
accepting what we are verifying in the practice.
The Second Principle of Extraterrestrial
Astrology helps us remember that only the
celestial bodies with an appropriate mutual
elongation can have an appreciable interpretative
For the above mentioned reasons, I find it
counterproductive to fix an ideal number of
planets. Some talk about the harmony and the
symbolic perfection of the number 12, and
make comparison with the world of music: but the
real world is complex and irregular, and
man often simplifies reality, thus forcing himself
to operate little later with a number of
elements other than the ideal ones. Even the
musical theory is a bookish simplification
without a perfect correspondence in the complex
variety of the world of real sounds. Even
further, there isn’t perfect match between the
ingenious periodic table of chemical elements
(best known as Mendeleyev's table) and the reality
of facts. The real world shows many
missing elements and the redundancy of some
others, that we are forced to compact into a
single "cell" of the periodic table.
So far we have assumed the existence of a unique
universal external zodiac, valid and usable
in the whole solar system, if not in the whole
universe. Is it really so? The vernal point
starts the division of our Zodiac into the twelve
signs and it coincides with the first degree
of Aries. Since each planet (except maybe Mercury)
has got a rotation axis oblique in respect
to its own orbital plane, there is a different
vernal point for each planet. As a consequence, it
is possible (although it may not be useful) to
build a different zodiacal circle for each single
planet of the solar system. It is therefore
extremely important to know the exact date of the
equinox for each planet, because from their point
gamma starts the division of their local
zodiac into the twelve signs.
To locate and study the position of the vernal
point of each planet means to know the lag or
phase difference of each individual local zodiac
(that of Mercury, that of Mars etc.)
compared to the hypothetical belt of the zodiac
constellations that we have already named
universal external zodiac. Hence we should be able
to deduce useful information on the
Astrological Age reached by the considered planet,
and therefore on the degree of
"evolution" of a possible autochthonous
civilization. As a mere hypothesis, let’s say that
Mars’ vernal point be in the first degrees of
Sagittarius in the external zodiac belt (universal
zodiac). Mars would consequently be in its Age of
Sagittarius, like the Earth many
thousands years ago... or like the Earth in some
thousands years from now.
Sooner or later it would be convenient (if not
necessary) to use a mixed system of three
zodiacs, fully similar to the method we are using
here on the Earth to measure time. In fact,
here on the Earth we use:
• a universal time measured on the GMT zone (the
time zone of Greenwich meridian),
particularly useful for astronomic or
international measures;
• a local mean time of the zone time we are in,
widely used to settle innumerable aspects of
the daily life of a nation (transports,
communication); and last but not least
• a real local time, whose noon corresponds to the
culmination of the Sun on the local
meridian (useful for the domification and
questions of local geography).
A businessman takes a flight for an
intercontinental travel. He then uses both the
local mean
time (time zone) of the place of departure and the
local mean time of the place of arrival. He
can adjust his watch as he prefers, choosing the
best moment for him (at the departure, at
the arrival or during the flight) to better cope
with the lag caused by the phase difference
between the two ways of measuring time. In any
case, our top manager should use the time
of the place of arrival to sleep, to eat, to
communicate with the other people, to live in
society, to make dates; but to phone home, to send
a fax to office or even to think of what his
family is doing home at any moment, he should
definitely use the time of the place of
departure. Probably, the astronauts in space
communicate with the Earth according to the
time zone of the base they are in touch with at
any moment; and in order not to loose the
natural rhythms of sleep and wakefulness, they
likely stick (at least this is how I think) to
the time zone of the place they left from, or of
the place where they are to land.
Similarly, the EA should use a mixed system of
zodiacs that comprises:
1. a terrestrial zodiac to be referred constantly
to, especially if we study the birth of a human
being or the launch of a space probe towards
others planets.
2. a universal external zodiac corresponding to
the "belt of zodiac constellations" described
by von Klöckler; although we cannot determinate it
with precision, for we cannot know
exactly when and if the terrestrial zodiac matched
the universal external one.
3. a local zodiac (the Martian one, the Venusian
one, etc.) based on the position of the vernal
point of the planet that we consider to be at the
centre of our chart; certainly this local zodiac
will be "out of phase" as compared to the other
two zodiacs.
I would preferably use the terrestrial zodiac
during the first generation of star trekking,
interplanetary missions, orbiting bases and lunar
or Martian colonies: for except unexpected
developments in the ufological field, their crew
would be surely formed by human beings
born on the Earth; terrestrial will be the
building and the launch place of rockets and
shuttles; terrestrial will also be the origin of
all the components and rough materials.
In a following phase I would introduce the local
zodiacs for the human births on other
planets, for possible alien beings we should meet
there; but also to study at an astrological
level the degree of success of a single lunar or
Martian mission: be it a mere landing of a
probe or – in a much more advanced age of space –
be the more or less daily problems that
may take place on a stable space colony. It will
also be useful to consider the lag between the
terrestrial zodiac and the local one in order to
evaluate, from an astrological point of view,
the flux of communication and traffic (commercial,
touristy) between the space base and the
Earth, the degree of autonomy achieved by the
space base, the degree of nostalgia or
emotional involvement (or au contraire: the
detachment, the wish of political autonomy,
etc.) that the human beings born in space would
feel towards their ancestors’ planet.
The universal zodiac (still to be defined exactly)
will be useful in a further phase of the
space age, to harmonize astrology of the cosmic
enterprise considered in its globally; to
"date" and evaluate (like we are doing now with
the universal time)
astronomical/astrological events of wide
consequences that may involve different planets or
a whole sector of the galaxy. As an example, one
could use the universal zodiac for the
astrological study of the diplomatic relationship,
of the traffic, of the business, of the
communication, of the migratory flux between a
space colony and another; or to consider
the influence of an external event (asteroid,
comet, alien menace...) on each celestial body of
the solar system.
Let us consider a hypothetical birth on a natural
satellite (moon) of a planet. The orbits of
natural satellites around their planet have an
obliquity as compared both to the terrestrial
Ecliptic and to the orbital plane of their own
planet. So which zodiac should we consider in
this case? For our Moon we could use either the
terrestrial zodiac or a lunar zodiac; the latter
would have its own 0° of Aries in the ascendant
lunar node ("vernal or gamma point of the
Moon"). I know that some astrologers have already
cast charts in which the ascendant lunar
node plays the role of starting point, taking the
place of the cusp of the first House or of the
first degree of Aries. Of course such astral maps
have nothing to do with hypothetical birth
outside the Earth.
If we imagine being on the surface of other
natural satellites, like Io or Europa (they are
moons of Jupiter), we should extricate ourselves
among three orbital planes with mutual
1. The orbital plane of the satellite around
2. The orbital plane of Jupiter around the Sun
(Ecliptic of Jupiter)
3. And the plane of the proper Ecliptic (the
terrestrial one).
If we considered the ascendant node of a moon as
the "vernal point" – i.e. to indicate the
starting point of a local zodiac – this would
actually mean that we attribute to its planet the
overwhelming astrological role usually played by
the Sun. It is interesting to note that the
giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn) seem to produce
such intense radiations that they may be able
to "replace" the solar light itself and support
the existence of forms of life on some of their
moons. At an interpretative and symbolic level,
such a central role of the father planets
should be very significant. If this hypothesis
should prove to be coherent, the role of the
Sun, so much vital in our geocentric astrology, in
the EA could be limited to second-plane or
subsidiary roles.
Maybe the Earth could replace the Sun in a lunar
chart too, but I find this hypothesis a little
bit overstated. It is true that seen from the
Moon, our Earth looks like 70 times brighter than
our Full Moon; nevertheless I believe that on a
lunar chart, the Earth may rather play the
role of Lesser Luminary. In other worlds, it would
take the place of our Moon, rather than
the place of the Sun.
The rotation axis of Mercury is almost exactly
perpendicular to the Ecliptic: Ecliptic and
Equator lay virtually on the same plane; over
there, on Mercury, it makes no sense to talk
about equinoctial points. Without a starting point
for the zodiac, on Mercury it would make
no sense even to talk about a zodiac! Or to be
optimistic, a zodiac exists, but we would not be
able to divide it into the twelve signs because we
couldn’t know where to begin from. I
therefore plant two hypotheses: on Mercury there
is a kind of space-temporal-zodiacal
continuum in which the twelve signs fuse, merge,
superpose so that they aren’t identifiable
in any case; or the zodiac of Mercury is made
of... one, huge, unique zodiacal sign of 360°!
It is well known that there are different methods
of domification, and that most of them
share the calculations required to determine the
ASC and the MC with Placidus
domification (that we can surely define the most
common method). The other methods
differ for the way they determine the cusps of the
other Houses. For the sake of brevity here,
we’ll discuss Placidus method only.
The equinoctial or equatorial domification system
gives twelve 30-degree Houses at any
latitude; this way, we can overcome one of the
most serious limits of Placidus domification,
namely its impossibility to domificate beyond the
Polar Circles. Here, on the Earth, it is
quite difficult to find inhabited territories
beyond the Polar Circles, while on other planets
the polar circles may be found at much lower
latitudes: the consequence being that over
there, on wide lands that might be theoretically
colonisable and inhabited, it would be
practically impossible to apply Placidus
There is one concrete reason why Placidus
domification doesn’t work beyond the Polar
Circles: it is the fact that in his complex
trigonometric formula, Placidus considered a fix
angle corresponding to the obliquity between the
Equator and the Ecliptic (on Earth this
angle is 23°27' – see the graphic on the next
page). In order to determine the Ascendant point
and the following cusps, the latitude of the birth
place is added to this fix angle. So if a birth
takes place on the terrestrial Polar Circle, the
resulting angle is 23°27' + 66°33' = 90°. Without
considering Placidus formula in details, a vague
notion of mathematics is enough to
understand that a 90°-angle represents a limit
value for many trigonometric functions. The
aforesaid lets intuitively understand why a 90°angle is enough to "tease" the complex
system of calculations upon which Placidus
domification is built.
The extension of the Tropics and Polar Circles is
strictly linked to that fix angle of Placidus;
let us remember that this angle is equal to the
mutual obliquity of the rotation axis and the
orbital plan of the Earth. This is the reason why
on the Earth the Tropics has latitude of
23°27' and the Polar Circles has latitude of
66°33'. On each planet the latitude of the Tropics
corresponds to the degree of obliquity between the
Equator and the Ecliptic, while the
latitude of the Polar Circles corresponds to its
complementary angle.
The rotation axis of Mercury is virtually
perpendicular to its orbital plane. Equator and
Ecliptic of Mercury lie on the same plane;
therefore, over there, we’ll have twelve regular
30°-degree Houses all year long and at any
latitude. On Mercury one could not perceive any
seasonal cycle. The Sun would always be at the
zenith on the Equator of Mercury, and it
would always be at the horizon at the Poles of
Mercury. Over there it would be extremely
easy to domificate, except if the birth takes
place exactly on one of the two Poles of
Venus has got a 3°-degree only obliquity on its
Ecliptic, therefore we’ll have a thin tropical
belt on its surface, measuring only 6° - three
above and three under the Equator; and two
Polar Circles at the latitude of 87° North and 87°
South. In other words, on Venus we’ll have
a very wide domificable area: it would be
impossible to use Placidus domification only if a
birth took place beyond the latitude of 87°. To be
more precise, actually the obliquity of the
rotation axis of Venus is of 177° approximately:
because Venus rotates "upside down", its
North Pole is "down" and its South Pole is
"above". In other words, Venus spins around its
own axis in the opposite direction than the Earth.
So on Venus the cardinal points are
inverted: over there the Sun rises at West and
sets at East.
Mars is the most similar planet to the Earth from
the point of view of domification: the
obliquity of its rotation axis is about 25°, so
that we have a tropical belt that extends 25°
above and under the Equator and two Polar Circles
at the latitude of 65° North and 65°
It is worth to mention also our Moon, which orbits
around the Earth on a plane whose
obliquity on the Ecliptic is of 5°15'. The lunar
tropical belts are narrow, they extend only 10°
approximately, five above and five under the Lunar
Equator; and the Lunar Polar Circles
locate at latitude of 85°. The lunar situation –
exclusively from the point of view of Placidus
domification - appears very close to that of
Extrapolating what we have seen so far, as a
general rule I define domificable area of a planet
as being the belt between the Equator and the
Polar Circles. Inside this area we can
determine a narrower or wider tropical belt in
which the Houses are virtually regular (30°Houses
all year long) and an intermediate belt (between
the Tropics and the Polar Circles)
in which the Houses have got variable extensions
depending upon the seasons. At last,
there’s the non-domificable area corresponding to
the Polar Caps.
Now we can imagine we are able to change gradually
the obliquity of the rotation axis of
Mercury from 0° to 45°. What do you think would
happen? As the obliquity increases
gradually from 0° to 45°, the tropical belt
increases too: it would actually "lift" towards
higher latitudes. At the same time, the Polar Caps
would also widen because the Polar
Circles would "go down" towards lower latitudes.
At a mutual obliquity of 45°, Tropics and
Polar Circles would meet, obviously, at the 45th
parallel. Exactly half of the surface of such a
planet would be domificable, and the other half
would be non-domificable.
What if the orbital obliquity overcomes the 45°?
Let us consider as an example Uranus,
whose rotation axis has got an obliquity of almost
98° on its orbital plane. Uranus is
virtually "lying" on its orbital plane, and in
certain periods of the year one would say it
actually "rolls" around the Sun. Its Equator is
oblique to the Ecliptic, yet it is quite hard to
talk about equinoxes and solstices, of an
alternation of nights and days on Uranus. If we
pretend we are on Uranus, what would we see?
On Uranus the Sun lights one of the Poles for a
good portion of the year, leaving the
opposite Pole in shadow, while it hardly laps the
Equator. As a consequence, if we were on
the lit Pole of Uranus on the day of solstice, we
would see the Sun at the zenith draw little
circular movements in the sky – similar to the
ones of the miracle of the three suns of
Fatima. As day go by, the circles in the sky would
become wider and wider and they would
gradually decline towards the horizon. When the
day of the equinox comes from the Pole of
Uranus, we would see the Sun roll all around us
along the whole horizon, without ever
setting! Then the Sun of Uranus would eventually
set and it would repeat its wonderful
show of decreasing circles in the night hemisphere
for the following half a year.
But if we were on the Equator of Uranus at the
moment of the solstice, we would see the
Sun repeatedly wink at the horizon, almost rising
and setting in the proximity of the South
point. As days go by, the Sun would draw wider and
wider day and night arcs approaching
the culmination East-West line; then come the
equinox and we would see it rise exactly in
the West and set exactly in the East. We would
then observe the Sun continue its annual
path reducing gradually the width of its arcs
northward. After that, it would come back to
cross the Celestial Vault in the opposite
direction, "rising back" from the North,
on the line East-West and "setting back" in the
I am planning to illustrate these and other odd
behaviors of the stars on the Celestial Vault,
as seen from some of the planets and moons of our
solar system, in a future series of articles.
You will then discover how and why, during the
long and boring days of Mercury, the Sun
can rise in Aries, culminate in Libra and set in
Aries again; whilst on Venus the Sun can rise
in Aries, culminate in Cancer and set in Libra!
But what I wish to remark now is that, due to the
inversion of Poles and Equator we get on
Uranus creating the practical swap of "year" and
"day" on that planet, it would be extremely
hard not only to use Placidus domification, but
even to perceive and determine the ascendant
and descendant points.
We are not usually aware of that, but in our
geocentric astrology the speed rate between the
rotation and the revolution of a planet plays a
fundamental role. Each planet performs, in
fact, two rotational movements, which are
extremely important for astrology:
1) a proper rotation (around its own axis), which
causes an apparent motion of the Celestial
Vault compared with the visible horizon; therefore
this motion concurs to determinate the
Ascendant sign. To make things simple, let's call
"day" the time in which a planet makes a
complete "spinning-top-line" turn around its own
2) a revolutionary motion (around the Sun), which
causes an apparent motion of the Sun
along the Ecliptic. Let’s call "year" the time in
which the planet makes a complete turn
around the Sun.
Now let us forget for a while that there are two
kinds of signs, of rapid and slow ascension.
For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that all
the twelve signs raise regularly one after the
other at the Ascendant horizon, each every 12th
fraction of the day (i.e. every two hours,
speaking of the Earth).
Let us also ignore that there are different kinds
of "days" and "years" (sidereal, solar, civil
ones). Let us define the day as the time in which
a planet makes a complete turn around its
own axis taking the Zodiac as a reference – that’s
to say the time needed to watch the same
zodiacal degree rise once again at the Eastern
horizon. Let us similarly define the year as the
time in which the planet makes a complete orbit
around its central star ("Sun"), equivalent
to the period needed for the Sun, as seen from
that planet, comes back to occupy the same
zodiacal degree.
The Earth has got a revolution period
corresponding to approximately 365 rotations
its own axis. Each day we see the Sun shift along
the Ecliptic of about one degree, and return
at the same identical zodiacal position every 365
days approximately. In other words, on the
Earth, the ratio between year and day is about
1:365. This implies an alternate occurrence of
not only nights and days, but also of months and
seasons that we take for granted. With
other celestial bodies, things may yet be quite
On the Moon the rotation (around its own axis) and
the revolution (around the Earth) have
exactly the very same duration. Moon and Earth
perform together also a common motion:
their revolution around the Sun. This implies that
on the Moon:
- you perceive a motion of the Celestial Vault,
which makes a complete turn each 28 days
approximately; therefore on the Moon the Ascendant
changes every 28:12 = 2 days and 1/3
- you can also perceive an apparent motion of the
Sun on the Ecliptic, which lead it to
perambulate the twelve signs in a period
approximately corresponding to our terrestrial
- the fact that the Moon shows us always the same
face implies that on the Moon, the Earth
appears to be still compared to the lunar horizon.
Yet the Earth, seen from the Moon, moves
along the signs at the same speed in which, seen
from the Earth, the Moon changes sign,
namely every 2 days and 1/3 approximately.
Given such conditions, it is possible to
domificate on the Moon. A nice spring morning on
the Moon Base, the Sun rises in Aries, i.e. Aries
is the Ascendant sign. At the same moment,
the Earth is Capricorn at the lunar MC (as we have
explained earlier, this depends
exclusively on our location on the lunar surface,
regardless the time of day). The following
lunar morning, the Sun rises again, but in the
meanwhile 28 terrestrial days have past, so the
Sun is now in Taurus. On the Moon Base we’ll have
a dawn with Ascendant Taurus, while
the Earth is still over there, at the lunar MC,
although it would have moved to Aquarius.
Let’s keep in mind that, seen from the Moon, the
Earth moves in the signs but not in the
Houses, because it progresses along the Zodiac
with the same speed with which the Celestial
Vault turns in the opposite direction.
Let us fancy of a planet linked to the Sun, the
way the Moon is linked to the Earth: like a
stone girded to a string that we make rotate with
our hand. Let us call this planet Hot,
because the name Romulus is already covered by
copyright (or at least I think so) – because
it is a short name, and because on its hemisphere
perennially lit by the Sun there would
certainly be sultry weather. Yes, because Hot
keeps always the same face towards the Sun.
Seen from Hot, the Sun appears fixed compared to
the horizon: Hot has got a rotation that
lasts exactly as long as its own revolution. Up to
not so many years ago, scientists used to
believe that Mercury had exactly this
characteristic. More recent observations tell us
although extremely slow, the rotation of Mercury
is out of phase compared with its
revolution. Yet such a planet as Hot might well
exist in the reality – no one can exclude it.
On Hot the year lasts one day and the day lasts
one year. There is no alternate occurrence of
night and day over there, because the Sun of Hot
never rises and never sets. The zodiacal
signs of Hot do. There is an Ascendant: you can
domificate on Hot. When a news sign rises
at the ascendant point, the Sun of Hot has moved
30° and is located in the following sign. In
other words, seen from the surface of Hot, the
movement of the Sun along the Zodiac
compensates exactly the movement of the Celestial
Vault in the opposite direction. So the
Sun moves across the signs but remains still
compared to the Houses. Exactly like the Earth,
seen from the Moon.
Dot is another odd planet: it orbits around the
Sun but does not turn around its own axis. It
has got a revolution but not a rotation. This
doesn’t mean that we cannot determine
geographic coordinates of Dot: an equator, two
poles and a local meridian. We can also
develop a system of orienteering with the
classical four cardinal points. So we have now
landed on Dot and we see the Sun at the East
Horizon, in the sign of Aries. During its
motion around the Sun, Dot doesn’t spin, therefore
the Celestial Vault remains still and
we’ll have a rising Aries at the horizon all over
the year. Well, under the circumstances, one
cannot really say that there is any ascendant sign
at all on Dot. But we could well define it in
some other way ("the sign intersected by the
Eastern horizon") and proceed to a
domification in any way.
Nevertheless we should keep in mind that, since
the Celestial Vault of Dot is still, the cusps
of the Houses of a Dotian astral map keep still –
they change sign only if we move on the
surface of this planet. Light oscillations of the
cusps may be possibly perceivable as the
planet approaches the equinoctial points or moves
away from them. The cusps of the Houses
are still, the signs too are still compared to the
local horizon; but surely the Sun and the
other celestial bodies that we can observe from
Dot would move along the Celestial Vault,
either across the signs and across the Houses:
therefore a Dotian Astrology can exist.
Also on Dot, from a certain point of view, one
"year" corresponds to a "day": for the Sun
takes six months to cross the diurnal arc, then it
sets – and six months later it rises again. In
the meanwhile, it also moves of six signs. So, if
we suppose that also Dot orbits around the
Sun in anticlockwise direction (just like any
other known planet of our solar system), on
Dot we could see the Sun rises in Aries, culminate
in Capricorn, and set in Libra. The
constantly "retrograde" motion of the Sun of Dot
is due to the fact that it is not compensated
(as it happens here on the Earth) by a rotation
motion quicker than the revolution.
Spot performs rotations around its own axis, but
it does not orbit around the Sun. Therefore
we have got "days" without "years" on Spot. The
Spotian Sun rises and sets, but is still on
the Celestial Vault; nevertheless the latter makes
a complete turn every 21 Spotian "hours".
Then the Sun of Spot rises, culminates and sets
always in the same only sign. Nevertheless
there will be an ascendant sign and it is possible
to domificate.
Lot is a still planet that doesn’t spin; neither
does it show any revolution around the Sun. It
is not such an absurd hypothesis: in the first
months of the year 2001, some "orphan" planets
were discovered, i.e. shattered in the outer space
without any central star to orbit around.
Not knowing how those celestial bodies sustain
themselves in space, we may well consider
them to be still or at least without those two
motions that we are taking about. So on Lot the
Sun doesn’t move, either on the horizon and in the
Zodiac; so in my opinion this Sun would
be of no astrological importance at all in a
Lotian astrology. In fact, to possess an
interpretative value, a celestial body must show
some basic features, among which the
apparent speed (i.e. movement) plays a fundamental
role. All the celestial bodies that we
consider in our geocentric Astrology move, both in
the Houses and in the signs. A body
stationary in one sign but moving in the Houses
may theoretically have an interpretative
weight; a body stationary in one House but moving
in the Zodiac may theoretically have an
astrological weight; but an object immobile either
in the Zodiac and compared to the
horizon! I would immediately exclude it from any
possible astrological research. I ask
whoever disagrees to rise his/her hand and explain
me why on Earth (...or on Moon, Mars
and so on) should we give any symbolic and
interpretative attribute to such an object.
Let’s finally land on the planet Wot, which spins
around its own axis slower than its
revolutionary movement around the Sun. So one day
lasts much more that the year on the
planet Wot. Let us assume that the day/year ratio
on Wot be 3:1, in such away that Wot
makes three complete revolutions around the Sun
during the same exact time in which it
makes a complete turn around its own axis. We can
also say that the "day" on Wot lasts 3
"years": the Sun perambulates the Zodiac three
times between a dawn and the following one.
The Sun of Wot comes back to the same degree of
the sign of Aries three times a year, i.e.
once every third fraction of a day. A third of a
day on Wot corresponds to one year. In a 12th
of Wotian day (the time in which a new sign rises
from the Eastern horizon), Wot makes a
portion of orbit corresponding to 360°x3:12 = 90°,
equal to the shift of its Sun across three
zodiacal signs. So, if the Sun rises in Aries on
Wot, when the Ascendant changes to Taurus,
the Sun has moved 90° and is located in Cancer, at
the nadir or Imum Coeli. When the
ascendant is Gemini, the Sun is in Libra. With the
ascendant in Cancer, the Sun is in Aries
once again, but at the MC. With the ascendant Leo,
the Sun is in Cancer; with the ascendant
Virgo, it is in Libra once again; with the
ascendant in Libra Sun is still at the IC in
Capricorn; with the ascendant Scorpio, it is in
Aries for the third time, and with the
ascendant Aquarius Sun is still in Cancer. When
the Ascendant is Pisces the Sun of Wot is
in Capricorn, and when the Ascendant comes back to
Aries the Sun is once again rising in
Aries, after having completed the full turn of the
Zodiac three times!
This is only a theoretical example of one of the
innumerable astrological combinations
connected with the different durations of the
rotation compared with the revolution. I am
preparing some articles in which – from "real"
astronomic figures – I’ll show you how the
particular combinations of revolution and rotation
of some of the planets of our solar system
imply quite bizarre and fascinating astrological
scenarios – as odd as those of the planets Hot
(also known as: Sultryweather), Dot, Spot, Lot,
and Wot.
We have explained why the Earth, seen from the
Moon, appears practically still as compared
to the twelve Houses. What might this mean, at an
interpretative level?
A first working hypothesis may be to ignore the
position of the Earth in the 12 Houses.
Maybe we might refer to the slogan: "No motion? No
meaning". In fact, here on Earth it is
the passage of the Moon over the waters that
provoke tides and refluxes; but on the Moon,
even if there were water in its liquid state, the
Earth wouldn’t cause any tide, because it
doesn’t "pass": it is simply there, fixed over a
given lunar area. On the other hand, it appears
logical to suppose that the gravitational
influence of the Earth on the lunar surface
in a significant measure upon its own angular
position, and that you could feel it if you were
there, on the Moon. I mean, it is likely that the
same body having the same mass, would
weight more if it were located on the dark side of
the Moon (with the Earth at the Imum
Coeli); would be a little lighter at the visible
edge of the lunar globe (with the Earth at the
Ascendant or at the Descendant); and would weight
much less with the Earth at the MC.
In a word, the apparent fixity of the Earth must
have a huge importance in the
interpretation of a lunar horoscope. Speaking for
myself, the notion of having a huge Earth
hanging over my head makes me feel uncomfortable:
seen from the Moon, the Earth appears
much larger, up to 70 times brighter than the full
Moon on the Earth. The Earth in a lunar
chart might then have something to do with
impending facts, such as e.g. a necessary and
predetermined doom, maybe tragic and distressing,
against which the subject can do little, if
not move, run away from it; or au contraire act
positively, firmly, definitely facing any
limiting situation. From this point of view, the
Earth in a lunar chart might indicate the
degree of free will of the hypothetical native
Selenite. An indirect confirmation to this
hypothesis seems to arrive from Mr. Frisari and
Ms. Morpurgo, who trace interesting
parallels between the astronomical features of the
Sun, the Moon and the planets and their
respective symbolic meanings. According to what
they write, the rapid motion and the
phases of the Moon imply a symbolism of
instability, variation, mobility. If this is how
things are, in analogy to its fixity in the
Houses, the Earth might have got a symbology
connected to the immobilism, the stability factors
in the ever-changing, and the fixations.
The remarkable apparent dimensions of the Earth
seen from the Moon may indicate its
stronger importance in the lunar horoscope. On the
other hand, the fixity of our planet in
the lunar Houses might downplay its effective
astrological weight. Certainly, an angular
Earth would be very important but, according to
this logic, not so much as the importance of
an angular Moon in a terrestrial horoscope. Let me
repeat that, in my humble opinion, in our
astrology what counts is the motion of each
element of the chart rather then the position
itself. We shouldn’t forget that the astral map is
a snap picture of a situation in complex and
perennial motion, and that the good astrologer
doesn’t forget to notice if the motion of a
planet is fast or slow, stationary or direct or
retrograde. The fixity of our planet over the
lunar horizon might therefore considerably
mitigate the importance of the position of the
Earth in the 12 Houses of a selenocentric
horoscope. Yet, we should assign a precise
astrological meaning to the position of the Earth
in the 12 signs, in the 12 Houses and in its
angular aspects with all the other elements of the
lunar chart. During the interpretation of a
lunar horoscope, we should nevertheless take care
not to give too strong importance to the
position of the Earth in the Houses.
Another hypothesis on the role of the Earth in
lunar astrology may be the following. In a
lunar chart, Moon and Earth swap their position?
Well, if so, they also probably swap their
interpretative role. If it were so, on the Moon we
would have an Earth having domicile in
Cancer, which would be connected to the meanings
of the element Water and to the same
female variability feminine that we assign to the
Moon in the terrestrial horoscope. Seen
from the Moon - do not forget it – it is the Earth
that has got phases: this could be one more
reason to believe that the "lunar" Earth might
well support "lunar" astrological meanings.
The terrestrial surface covered by waters is much
wider than the emerging continents, so it
shouldn’t be such a bizarre hypothesis to assign
Water values to the Earth. Somebody even
proposed to call our planet "Water", and for the
same reason our planet is also called the
"Blue Planet".
It is a fact that in a lunar chart Earth and Moon
swap their position; but it is another fact
that the Earth occupies the diametrically opposite
zodiacal position than the one occupied by
the Moon at the same time in the homologue
terrestrial chart. When the Moon is in Gemini
seen from Earth, the Earth is in Sagittarius seen
from the Moon. Also the "terrestrial phases"
are opposite compared to the lunar ones. This
might mean that the Earth behaves like a kind
of antimoon with antithetic, opposite or
complementary values than the lunar ones. It would
then have its domicile in Capricorn and it would
carry earthly values.
I find it likely that a celestial body have got a
definite, profound influence for those who are
born on it. The Selenites, only for their having
been born on the Moon, might have clear
lunar characters such as being easily influenced,
or femininity, ciclotimia...) And the
Martians, only for their having been born on the
Red Planet, might have evident martian
features like bellicosity, irascibility,
aggressiveness... What some people who contacted
were abducted by aliens from another planet say,
seem to validate such a hypothesis. The
inhabitants of Venus who contacted George Adamski
show indeed venusian features in his
description of them; the (hypothetical, of
course...) inhabitants of Mercury could reveal to
smart business beings with a shrewd and juvenile
aspect. For the supporters of Star Trek:
aren’t mercurial people the Ferengi, born
business-aliens who live following their terrible
"Rules of Acquisition"? As the Martians, whoever
knows, could they really be as aggressive
as the monsters depicted in "The war of the
worlds"? For if it was so, we human beings, only
for our having been born on the Earth, should also
possess some typically terrestrial
characters. We are hardly aware of such characters
because we haven’t had yet any occasion
to meet living beings born elsewhere. Discovering
such earthly characters would help us to
more fully understand the symbolic value of the
Earth in the EA.
In which sign could the domicile of the Earth be?
What criterion hides behind the sequence
of domiciles traditionally used by the
astrologers, that put Mars domiciled in Aries,
in Taurus, Mercury in Gemini, Moon in Cancer, Sun
in Lion, again Mercury in Virgo,
Venus in Libra, Mars in Scorpion, Jupiter in
Sagittarius, Saturn in Capricorn, again Saturn
in Aquarius and finally Jupiter in Pisces? It is
1. the Main Luminary takes place in Leo "by
2. the Lesser Luminary places in the preceding
sign (Cancer)
3. we place all the other planets, in order of
distance from the Sun, into the preceding and in
the following signs than those of the Luminaries.
This is the reason why Mercury finds "home" both
in Gemini and in Virgo; Venus has got a
domicile in Taurus but also in Libra, and so on.
With the discovery of the planets beyond
Saturn, the sequence has been completed by simply
progressively eliminating the "doublets"
from the signs after Leo: thus Uranus has been
inserted into the Aquarius instead of Saturn,
Neptune has been given a domicile in Pisces
instead of Jupiter, and Pluto has taken the place
of Mars in Aries. By the way, so far no one could
explain why the sequence has been
completed starting from Virgo, rather than the
opposite way, starting from Taurus.
For the domicile of the Earth, in the lunar
horoscope we have therefore three possibilities:
1. the Sun keeps its domicile in Leo and the Earth
takes domicile in Cancer; the rest of the
sequence doesn’t change.
2. the Earth becomes, on the Moon, the Main
Luminary (thanks to the analogy planet-star
and satellite-planet; but we have discussed that
this analogy is faulty and scarcely coherent);
by definition, the Main Luminary has got domicile
in Leo; the Sun, having become a
secondary Luminary, takes domicile in Cancer; the
rest of the sequence doesn’t change.
3. if the Earth is an "antimoon" whose domicile is
in Capricorn, then the Earth would be a
lesser luminary and it would have domicile in the
sign preceding the solar domicile in the
view that we want to stick strictly to the above
mentioned criteria; namely, the Sun of the
Lunar Extraterrestrial astrology would have its
domicile in Aquarius; this would imply a
very bizarre sequence like: Mercury in Pisces,
Venus in Aries, Mars in Taurus and so on.
From the point of view of a "marsocentric"
Extraterrestrial astrology, in the hypothetical
TN cast on the Red Planet there wouldn’t be place
either for our Moon and for Mercury
(way too close, the former to our Earth and the
latter to the Sun, to possess a significant
astrological meaning); on the other hand we should
be able to interpret the horoscopic
position of either Phobos and Deimos, the two
natural satellites of Mars. Consequently,
we’ll have three Luminaries on Mars: the Main
Luminary, the Sun; and two Lesser
Luminaries, Phobos and Deimos. The sequence of
domiciles of the Martian astrology would
be based upon the "pillar" of the Sun in Leo (as
we have already pointed out, the Main
Luminary has its domicile in Leo by definition),
while in my opinion one between Phobos
and Deimos would take place in the preceding sign
(Cancer), and the other one would take
place in the following sign (Virgo).
Although it doesn’t match the criteria of
domiciliation seen so far, I find it a reasonable
hypothesis to assign a double domicile to one of
the moons of Mars, as in the following
example: Venus domiciled in Taurus, Deimos in
Gemini, Phobos in Cancer, the Sun in Leo,
Deimos in Virgo, Venus in Libra and so on.
We have no elements at all to tell us which one,
between Phobos and Deimos, should have
the double domicile in Gemini and Virgo, and which
one would consequently have its
domicile in Cancer. For the time being, it’s a
mere working hypothesis. Of course, if it
would be Deimos having its domicile both in Gemini
and in Virgo, it would be Deimos who
would possess (in a martian horoscope) the
symbolic attributes of mercurial kind, thus fully
substituting the apparent "disappearing" of
Mercury from the sky of the Red Planet, as we
have already explained before. In this case, in
the Martian EA Phobos would "take the place"
of the Moon and Deimos would "take the place" of
Mercury. If we realize that Phobos has a
double domicile, it is logical to understand that
Phobos would be the "mercurial" planet
while Deimos would have "lunar" attributes.
This is the reason why I spent so many words to
examine different possible sequences of
domiciles: because finding out the correct
sequence of domiciles on each celestial body that
occupy the centre of an EA chart would certainly
help us deduce the interpretative value to
be assigned to those planets or luminaries not
normally used in our terrestrial charts – and
that we would be forced to use currently in the
Lunar, Martian, etc., astrology.
As for the interpretative value to assign to the
two moons of Mars, I propose four directions
of research.
The first one is to accurately examine their
astronomical (physical-chemical) features. Lisa
Morpurgo and Massimo Frisari seem to suggest that
it is possible to create associations
between the astronomical features of each planet
and Luminary and their respective
astrological meanings. If it is so, it is also
possible to operate the opposite way: i.e. to
(at least, partly) the interpretative, symbolic
and archetypical value of a celestial body also
based upon its physical-chemical features.
A second way to argue the interpretative weight of
a celestial body is to consider its apparent
speed in the signs and in the Houses. Phobos
changes sign every 40 minutes, Deimos every
two and a half hours. On the Moon, we had assigned
a particular meaning to the fixity of
the Earth over the horizon; on Mars we should keep
in mind the exceptional speed of its
moons. On a psychological level, it might imply
suddenly changing moods, apparently
unjustified emotional reactions, unexpected and
quickly passing intuitions, maybe the
capacity of reacting very quickly ("in real time",
with a quite stereotyped expression) to any
external stimulation. The transits of Phobos and
Deimos might help us date the Martian
events with a precision of a few minutes, while
here on the Earth we can exclude that we’ll
ever be able to reach such a precision with any
predictive method at all.
A third research should be to consider the name
assigned to a celestial body by the tradition
or by its discoverer. This may be obvious until we
consider the traditional celestial bodies –
but it becomes incredible if we consider more
recent facts. It appears particularly incredible
in the case of Pluto, whose name, they say (it may
be a metropolitan legend, of course)
doesn’t derive from the name of the god Pluto but
from the name of Mickey Mouse’s pet!
Allegedly, the idea of this name occurred to one
of the discoverers’ daughter, who was very
kin of Disney’s characters. The astronomers
Pickering and Lowell accepted the suggestion
because the first two letters of this name were
also their respective initials (one of the glyphs
used by the astrologers for Pluto is a kind of
fusion between a capital P and a capital L). We
can easily understand this human side of them.
Yet, at a rational level, it is quite hard to
understand why such a casual and banal choice of a
name would reveal itself to be fully
functional and working at an astrological level.
The only possible explanation in my
opinion, if we expect the mere choice, is that the
name of the thing contains much more
information than just being a mere conventional
denomination. It is not by chance that in
the Garden of Eden, God spurs Adam to assign a
name to every living being. Very probably,
then, the astrological meaning of Phobos and
Deimos is already there: in their names, too.
Last, considering the sequence of the domiciles
may well be the fourth direction of research
that, together with the previous three, may help
us understand the correct interpretative
meaning of the celestial bodies that we would be
forced to consider and use while casting
and interpreting an extraterrestrial chart.
What about statistics? Of course, statistics and
the astrological practice would have the last
word in this field. But until we collect a
sufficiently wide statistical specimen, we should
forced to proceed by attempts, trying to make up
some empirical interpretation, anticipating
the statistics, trying to be logical, using our
common sense, sticking to the astrological
tradition and maybe, to these guidelines of mine.
At the present stage of scientific knowledge, we
don’t know for sure if certain features of our
Solar system represent an exception, or the rule
in the Universe. For example, let us consider
the sequence of the planets in order of orbital
distance from the Sun: the closer planets are
smaller, they have a rock mass, and they have an
atmosphere, and few moons or no moon at
all. The central belt of our Solar system is the
home of the giant planets made of gas, and
with many moons. The more external planets are
quite large ones, yet they are smaller than
the central giants, and – as far as we know – they
have few moons or no moon at all. Such a
distribution of the planets (little rocks close to
the star, giant gas in the middle, mediumsized on
the edge of the system) is it an exceptional fact,
something typical of our Solar
system, or is it a common feature of all the
planetary systems of the Universe?
Let us consider the orbits of the planets around
the star. All the planets that orbit around the
Sun move "virtually" on the same plane, as if they
were planet on a disc, or on a... pizza. The
only two planets that detach meaningfully from the
"dish" on which all the others seem to
be placed are Mercury (with an obliquity of 7°)
and Pluto (about 17°). Pluto, in particular,
sometimes orbits "outside" the zodiacal belt,
having defined the latter as the belt that
extends "of some degrees" (4° to 12° depending on
the Authors) above and under the Ecliptic.
We don’t know if in other solar systems all the
planets orbit on a restricted plane as well, or
if they move around their own sun on differently
oblique orbits, like the electrons do in the
typical simplified drawing of an atom. For if it
was so, we would have planets that
constantly go out and come back to and from the
Zodiac. In the extreme cases, we might
even imagine a polar orbit (of 90°, i.e.
perpendicular) compared to the Zodiac.
If such a planet be discovered in our solar
system, we should be forced to widen our
definition of Zodiac. If a planet be observed
whose orbit is strongly oblique on the Ecliptic,
we should determine on the Celestial vault an
extra-zodiacal belt (which extends many
degrees above and under the zodiacal belt that we
consider traditionally). Within this
extended belt, we should find the way to make a
simple projection of any celestial body onto
the Zodiac - whatever is its position on the
Celestial Sphere – by applying appropriate
corrective trigonometric formula, similar to those
on which the most common domification
methods are based upon.
Let us imagine that a planet exists whose orbit
remains for most of the time outside the
traditional Zodiac. We could project on the
celestial sphere the same "domificable belts" of
the Earth, namely:
1. in the tropical belt of the Earth (0° to +/23°27') Placidus Houses are equal. In the
corresponding extra-zodiacal belt of the Celestial
vault (up to 23°27' above and under the
Ecliptic), we could proceed with a simple
orthogonal projection of the object that transits
that area
2. at medium latitudes (23°27' to 66°33' over and
under the Equator) Placidus method implies
a gradual deformation of the Houses. In order to
project onto the Zodiac an object that orbits
in the corresponding extra-zodiacal belt (between
23°27' and 66°33' over and under the
Ecliptic), we should use gradual corrective
3. here on the Earth it is not possible to use
Placidus domification beyond the Polar Circles.
So, it would not be possible to project onto the
Zodiac any object whose angular distance
from the Ecliptic is more than 66°33'.
The values of 23°27' and 66°33' are obviously
referred to a geocentric astrology. On other
planets they would have other values, strictly
connected to the mutual inclination between
the rotation axis and the orbiting plane of the
planet that we considered as our point of
observation, i.e. the centre of the Celestial
Such division of the Celestial sphere would have
two consequences. The first one, an
effective expansion of the zodiacal belt, which
would lead the astrologers to consider in the
astral charts celestial bodies that they usually
ignore in their traditional astrological analysis,
simply because they move normally on orbits even
more oblique than Pluto. The other
consequence would be the exclusion of celestial
bodies too much distant from the Zodiac;
they would still be ignored even if potentially
relevant at an astrological level.
There is another possible solution to the problem
of the projection of planets onto the
zodiacal belt in the "atom-like" planetary
systems: to take in due consideration the
hypothesis of a spherical zodiac. This does not
necessarily mean a "sliced" Zodiac. Let me
elaborate, above all, what I mean for a "sliced
Zodiac". Here on the Earth, the Equator is
touched by a series of lines perpendicular to the
Equator itself and parallel to each other.
They are the meridians, they divide the
terrestrial surface into 360 slices (the same can
said for the 24 time zones, each made of 15
degrees-meridians). Let us imagine now to apply
the same pattern to the Celestial vault, extending
the zodiacal belt we normally use by
prolongating perpendicularly up and down the ideal
segments that delimit the 12 signs. We’d
have thus divided the celestial sphere into 12
slices (we could call them "zodiacal time
zones") that meet all together at the "zodiacal
Now we ideally incline gradually the orbit of a
hypothetical planet from 0° to 90° compared
to the centre of an ideal Ecliptic taken as
reference. Like the meridians and the time zones
the Earth meet at the Poles, in the "sliced
zodiac" the extension of the 12 signs or "zodiacal
time zones" progressively decrease up to becoming
null where the slices meet. This way, a
planet with an extremely oblique orbit crosses
signs with different extensions: larger ones in
the intersection area closer to traditional
zodiacal belt, and much narrower ones in the area
close to the zodiacal poles.
Seen from the planets whose orbit has an obliquity
of 0° (coinciding with the Ecliptic of
reference, taken as the centre of the zodiacal
belt), the Sun would cross the 12 signs of the
Zodiac with a very regular motion, except light
variations in speed at the perihelion
(minimum distance from the Sun) where the planet
accelerates, and at the aphelion
(maximum distance from the Sun) where the planet
decelerates. For less oblique orbits (up
to 45°) the difference in the extensions of the
zodiacal slices may be negligible. But in the
event of an orbit inclined more than 70° we would
have a planet that remains in the very
same sign for half a year; then it would rapidly
cross five signs in a few days; and it would
eventually transit in the following sign (the
opposite one, referred to the starting sign)
during another half a year, and so on. I say, the
planet transits: but of course it would be the
Sun, seen from that planet, that would move along
the Zodiac in such a bizarre way.
The limit case is a polar orbit of 90°
(perpendicular to the Ecliptic). In this case, the
would touch two zodiacal signs only – more
precisely, the Sun seen from that planet would
do it: one each half an year, except two very
short moments of the year when it would pass
exactly over the "zodiacal pole", the point of
conjunction of all the 12 signs-slices.
It is interesting to note that the different
extension of the 12 signs has its correspondence
the deformation of the Houses of a chart, cast
with Placidus, at extreme latitudes, such as
the "extreme" birth charts that we mentioned at
the beginning of our study. In such charts,
some Houses extend until almost 180°, while the
others reduce to this "pieces" of a few
fractions of degree each.
We have figured a Zodiac made up of 12 signsslices similar to the 24 time zones of our
planet Earth. To cross over a time zone on the
Equator, one must go about 1,670 km in a
East-West direction, but to do the same by the
Poles one must walk a few meters only. On
the other hand, if we traveled around the world in
a North-South direction along the same
meridian, like Monty Python's actor Michael Palin
in the BBC series "From Pole to Pole",
we’d never change time zone and we’d never be in
the need to adjust our watch. This is due
to the particular "sliced" pattern in which we
divide the terrestrial surface.
But I imagine (at least for the "atom-like” solar
systems) a spherical zodiac not necessarily
sliced. A zodiac in which all the signs are 30°
for all the planets along the whole celestial
sphere. How could this be possible, sincerely I
don’t know. I guess it would make necessary
a revision or an extension of the spherical
geometry we use now – and this is not so absurd,
if we consider that the spherical geometry
represents an extension of the Euclidian plane
In plane geometry, in fact, we meet axioms that
nobody would ever dare contradict: yet the
very same axioms are not valid in spherical
geometry (which is one of the possible
nonEuclidian geometries). As an instance:
1) In plane geometry the parallel straight lines
never meet; they do meet in the spherical
geometry (it’s the meridians: they are parallel
straight lines that meet at the poles).
2) In the Euclidian geometry the sum of the inner
angles of a triangle is equal to 180°; in
spherical geometry it may be more or less than
180° (depending upon if we draw the triangle
on a convex or concave surface).
So maybe I commit no heresy if I declare that a
spherical zodiac in which all the 12 signs
have a constant extension of 30° each, in
whatsoever point of the sphere, is certainly a
bizarre notion, but maybe it is feasible with an
adequate mathematical model.
Some solar systems are formed by planets that turn
around double or triple stars.
Astrologers might live over there that daily have
something to do with astral charts with
two or three Main Luminaries. Should we live on a
planet with many moons, we’d have also
an undefined number of Lesser Luminaries. In which
sign would they have their own
domicile? According to the Theory of
Domiciliations previously detailed, to answer to
question we should:
1. first of all, determine the principal Main
Luminary: this would have "per axioma" its
domicile in the sign of Leo.
2. distribute the domiciles of the other suns
(ancillary Main Luminaries) in the signs
immediately following and/or preceding Leo.
3. assign the domiciles, before and after the
"solar" signs, to the Lesser Luminaries (i.e. the
moons, the natural satellites).
4. the sequence of domiciles of the planets of
that solar system would be completed by
assigning them, in order of distance from their
central star – be it a single, double, triple or
multiple star – in the signs that precede and
follow the signs already assigned as domicile to
the Luminaries.
At an interpretative level, what about a natal
chart with, say, three suns and seven moons?
Well, the answer of course is not easy, but even
in this case I would suggest the four criteria
of astrological research already mentioned,
1. consider the physical aspect of the celestial
body whose symbolic and astrological meaning
we are investigating. A dwarf yellow sun wouldn’t
probably carry the same astrological
weight as a giant red star as the source of life,
light and heat; an imposing and splendid moon
like ours wouldn’t have the same astrological
weight as a natural satellite with minute
dimensions, scarcely visible from the surface of
the planet it orbits around, and so on.
2. consider the apparent speed of the celestial
body, both in the signs and in the Houses. Seen
from a hypothetical planet orbiting around it, a
little star that orbits around a larger star
would show an oscillating behavior on the local
zodiac with frequent period of retrograde
motion (just like Mercury that, seen from the
Earth, constantly "oscillates" around the Sun).
Such a little star would therefore carry a
different interpretative value compared to a Sun
like ours, perennially in direct motion along our
Zodiac. Stick to the Second Principle of
Extraterrestrial Astrology, which refers to the
elongation of a celestial body compared to any
other. In more complex star systems, if a smaller
star doesn’t detach much from its larger
companion, my opinion is that the lesser partner
may be simply ignored when interpreting
an astral map, especially if the birth (or any
other event that we wish to study from an
astrological point of view) should take place on
one of the more external planets of that solar
system. Elongation, in fact, is a phenomenon due
to the projection and it decreases if the
astronomical distances increase.
3. consider also the name assigned by man or by
the inhabitants of that alien world (the one
at the centre of the astral map, I mean) to the
celestial body whose astrological meaning we
would be investigating: be it a star, a moon or a
4. pay particular attention to the sequence of the
domiciles. We should be find out if,
following the logic of domiciles, a celestial body
"finds home" – e.g. in the sign of Virgo, the
supposition that such a celestial body carries
mercurial astrological values appears logical,
and so on.
Until now I haven’t mentioned possible births in
orbit around the Earth. This scenario
(which appears the most likely to become reality
in the short terms) actually implies
different problems, that I have studied in my
article on "Orbital Astrology”, a study of the
Solar Returns of astronauts in space. If we
consider the space shuttle or the International
Space Base ISS as "the celestial body on which the
birth takes place", should we cast a
horoscope having the shuttle or the orbiting
station itself at the centre of the chart? I
even consider this hypothesis. I found it
exaggerated to hypothesize a... "starbasocentric"
"shuttlocentric" astrology. The dimensions and the
mass of the artificial satellites are so
insignificant at an astronomical level that I find
it superfluous and time-consuming to
calculate the "ascendant" or the "Medium Coeli" of
such a small body like a space shuttle. Do
you wish to try, yet? Well, you should be able to
create a coherent system of "geographical
coordinates" to be applied to the space shuttle,
establishing on it a rotation axis, two poles,
and an equator and so on. But if we consider the
shuttle or the orbiting station to have a
spinning motion, its crew or inhabitants could see
the Sun set and rise even many times a
day. Should we consider then "orbital days" of a
few hours? On the other hand, especially on
certain orbits, the space shuttle might remain in
shadow or – on the contrary: be continually
lit by the Sun – for days and days, if not even...
for ever. Thus it would make no sense at all
to talk about days and night, which are the
fundamental elements for our astrology.
Considering that a vertical shift of a few
kilometers only is enough to find ourselves in
seen from a shuttle, the Earth keeps such
dimensions to occupy a good portion of the visual
fields. So in a "shuttleocentric” natal birth,
should we draw a huge Earth covering four or
five signs? This seems to be another exaggeration.
I therefore think that you should rather
ignore the factor altitude and take rather in
consideration the so called subsatellital place,
the place flown over by the satellite at any
moment. I guess that the factor altitude is
even in the case of births that take place on high
mountains or in airplanes.
I have not hypothesized zodiacs made of more or
less than 12 signs. Absolute and
indiscerptible dogma of the EA is that the Zodiac
(be it terrestrial or martian, local or
universal, internal, external, spherical or in
slices) is always divided in 12 signs, starting
the vernal point. As a consequence, there is no
room for the Ophiucus in any of the zodiacs
described so far.
Now let us imagine a planet that orbits around a
remote star very far away from our Sun.
What constellations would touch their zodiac? In
that case, the signs might touch different
constellations from the ones known down here, and
the 12 signs used over there might carry
names and symbols different from ours. Still, my
opinion is that the signs would be 12 in any
case, not 15 or 24.
We could imagine of an extraterrestrial
civilization that use different mathematical rules
than ours. One would say: "This is impossible!
Mathematics is a universal language!" This
postulate is not fully true. I know a teacher of
maths who asked the classroom to
demonstrate "why x to zero is equal to one". The
following day, after some pupil uselessly
tried to find a logical demonstration of that, the
teacher explained that x to 0 = 1 is a "dogma”
of our algebra: therefore it is not demonstrable.
She added that nothing prevents us from
creating a different mathematics, in which x
elevated to zero be equal x, or in which x to
zero be equal zero, or even more: be equal...
three. The brave genius who were able to invent
such a "personal” algebra should be also able to
derivate from this initial dogma, without
contradictions, all the patterns of coherent
mathematics corollaries and rules. Something
similar happens in the numerations whose base is
different from 10. We normally use a
decimal system in which 1 + 1 is equal 2:
everybody knows! But in the binary system 1 + 1 is
not equal 2! In the sexagesimal system 55' + 38'
is 1°33' (even if the expression 93' is not
wrong). And in the system of computation of time,
23 + 5 hours is not 28 but 4!
Who cultivates the illusion of dialoguing with an
alien visitor by tracing "universal”
symbols and figures on the sand forgets that man
himself uses different methods of
computation and numeric writing. The most known is
the system in which the position of
the figures multiply their decimal value: as an
example, 1,434 implies that we mentally
multiply the figures (1x1,000, 4x100 etc.) and
then we sum the results (1,000+400+30+4 =
1434). It is not the only possible system. The
ancient Romans used a logic of sum and
subtraction. The ancient Roman started from the
higher figure (M, in this case) and went on
towards right summing the lower figures (D, C, L,
X, V, I), with the following important
exception: when he met, after certain symbol, a
letter with a higher value (for instance a
C=100 preceding a D=500, or an I=1 coming before a
V=5) instead of summing the two
values, the Roman subtracted them. It is according
to this rule, which is neither intuitive nor
"logical" at all, that even today we know that
MCDXXXIV is not to be read like MC D
XXXI V (one thousand and a hundred, five hundred,
thirty one, and five), but M CD XXX
IV, namely one hundred four hundred and thirty
Having stated that mathematics is not that
universal language, or at least it is not a
universal enough as to grant us a sane and civil
"chat" with a hypothetical extraterrestrial
civilization, what does remain to us of truly
universal? Heaven knows; maybe Astrology... © 2022