Some people have written stating that they had never read an explanation of the mechanism of action of the Placidus measurement of the houses that were as simple or straightforward as the one presented in «Time Dilation […] and Why the Placidus Measurement […] is Compatible with Relativity Theory», published 26 September 2024 in Montgomery, TX. This can be ironic because (herein lies the beauty of it, I believe): although compatible with something as complex as Einstein’s relativity, it is quite simple from an astrological perspective, that is, to understand relativity from said standpoint. [1]

Why or how? Because, to date, only two forms of time dilation exist or are known to us (special relativity, or velocity, and general relativity, or gravity). Our paper, in turn, postulates that there is a third expression of time dilation, viz: the tilt of a moving reference frame (Earth) relative to another inertial frame of reference (ecliptic, or zodiacal belt), which yields 360 different times of oblique ascension, confirmation or recognition possible by the Placidean formula only (reason for which only Placidus-measured houses are “in perfect harmony with the use of planetary [seasonal or sun] hours”, as Deborah Houlding has stated).

Although this bears not a mystery to those with trigonometric or physical knowledge, very little astrologists today possess said knowledge, and those that do, unfortunately do not study physics or at least relativity (spacetime) so as to notice the clear relationship or same phenomenon in astrology and/or time-based quadrant house measurements (as said in Galileo and Placidus, spatial measurements cannot bear the fruits which only that of time can bear). [2] What are, however, the implications of said relativity beyond house measurement? Gravitational ones, of course, even if the differences are minimal or otherwise negligible, and only if we were to apply atomic clocks to oblique ascensional times would we learn these differences. This was presented — theoretically — in one of the appendices of the paper to which we earlier referred. (Appendix B. Look too for a key word: “atomic clock” or “oblique/zodiacal clock”. Very fun stuff.)

Returning to the astrographic regions, while it is true that the Placidus houses are named after the brilliant Benedictine monk who popularised them during the 17th century, they are not Placidean: they are simply the houses of the sun or solar houses or just plain natural or utmost natural houses, not to mention that they respect a truth confirmed by science hundreds of years before it was confirmed (1905, special relativity; 1915, general relativity): spacetime. In this sense, they can also be called spacetime houses or relative houses.

The School of Traditional Astrology, for their part, presided by Deborah Houlding, Facebook published (15 October 2024) a a commentary on the natural compatibility of the method in question with planetary hours noting that “the Placidus house system offers perfect harmony with the use of planetary hours because every cusp marks a degree that the ascendant [had it been the degree occupied by the sun at the time of birth] will move to at a subsequent [two] planetary hour[s].”

It turns out that this method of house division (Placidean or relative) makes it possible to recognise the ascensional times of each degree of the circumference simultaneously and uninterruptedly, that is, in a temporally simultaneous and spatially uninterrupted manner during its displacements from the horizon (ASC) to the midheaven (MC), as it takes into consideration what in physics is known as proper time (i.e. the true journey or path of an object measured according to spacetime displacement). Simply put, said measurement is able to show or reveal the exact position on the horizon that any one degree can take at any given time at any given latitude. Planetary hours are thus one of the consequences of astrological relativity as explained in the abovementioned paper. Please read STA’s explanation of the planetary hours.

Why then try to escape or circumvent the one method of measuring houses that would bring astrology closer to the place it occupied centuries ago? That is, the clearest feature that would make it compatible with physics (if not a branch of physics). Or can it be asked whether the method was not understood until now? Be that as it may, there is no need to divide the spacetime of our horizon in a manner different from that set or established by the sun, unless one has a particular bias (e.g. adherence to a particular astrological tradition). No one has said it nicer or in a more polite manner than our dear colleague Anthony Louis (December 2022): “[…] astrological house systems should be consistent with the prevailing scientific worldview [3] of the epoch in which they are used. In other words, the astrological houses of a natal chart must necessarily divide the spacetime [horizon] around us at the moment of birth.” (Highlight is mine.)

And further notes: “The Placidus system is consistent with Ptolemy’s description of ‘releasing’ and the primary directions of points intermediate between the horizon and meridian, which takes into account both space and time, anticipating Einstein’s notions of space-time and the non-Euclidean geometries of the 19th century, implicit in Ptolemy’s original writings in the 2nd century CE. It is not surprising that Placidus fascinated British astrologers in the 19th century and became the predominant house system in the English-speaking world.”

Mike Wackford, for his part, points out (2006) that: “The houses in question [Placidus] are inextricably linked to both the idea behind Planetary Hours and the most ‘natural’ system of Primary Directions. To use either whilst adopting a different house system is to rather miss the point”. And further notes: “Students of horary who retain the traditional use of planetary hours whilst following William Lilly in his choice of Regiomontanus houses may wish to reflect upon the inconsistency of this.”

Deborah Houlding would appear to agree, as she writes (without date): “Mike Wackford presents convincing arguments about the great theoretical strength that the Placidus system has due to the fact that «The houses in question are inextricably linked to both the idea behind Planetary Hours and the most ‘natural’ system of Primary Directions».”

Indeed. In the case of the planetary hours, this is due to the fact that (as it was mentioned in the second paragraph) only the Placidean formula is able to recognise or record the ascensional times of each ecliptic or oblique degree (a footprint of the sun) from the ASC to the MC and from the MC to the DES at any given latitude, as shown in this paper. For this reason, only Placidus-measured houses will reflect that each cusp — from the ASC to the MC and from the MC to the DES — coincides exactly with each amount or length of time of each two seasonal (planetary) hours.

Houlding explains: “To calculate manually, divide the time between sunrise and sunset by 12 to obtain the duration of each diurnal [planetary or seasonal] hour; then divide the time between sunset and sunrise the by 12 to obtain the duration of each nocturnal [planetary or seasonal] hour. The Placidus house system offers perfect harmony with the use of planetary hours because every cusp marks a degree that the ascendant [had it been the degree occupied by the sun at the time of birth] will move to at a subsequent [two] planetary hour[s], so the 12th cusp marks where the ascendant [had it been the degree occupied by the sun at the time of birth] will be positioned 2 planetary hours after the chart is cast; the 11th house where it will be after 4 hours, etcetera.”

Should you were to conduct this measurement with the example provided in Time Dilation and Why the Placidus Measurement of the Houses are Compatible with Relativity Theory (26 September 2024), which chart was erected at Kodiak, Alaska (that is, 57º N of the equator), you will see that the 152,5-minute rate at which the degree occupied by the sun (20º Leo) displaces itself in spacetime (each one sixth of the diurnal arc) constitutes exactly two planetary or seasonal hours in said chart, that is, 76,25 minutes x 2 = 152,5 minutes (or 1 hr 32 min), for the total amount of diurnal hours (sunlight) at this latitude on the day of birth (12 August 2024) is 15,25, that is, 915 minutes (or 152,5 minutes x 6 = 915 = 10hr 15min).

So that, should you now place the degree occupied by the sun (20º Leo) at the ASC, that is, should we change the hour of birth from 4:33 a.m. to 6:36:09 a.m., we will se that it will take exactly 915 minutes or 10hr 15min for said degree of the ecliptic to set or reach the Descendant, and this will remain or continue to be so eternally even when the sun has abandoned or left said point of the ecliptic, for it has left its footprint therein. In order to prove it, you may now set the date for, say, 12 January 2024, and you will be able to confirm that it does take exactly 915 minutes for the 20º Leo to travel from the ASC to the DES, that is, to set (10:47:56 p.m.) since it rose (7:32:56 a.m.). It will also be true that, should we continue to employ Placidus, we will have watched the sun travel exactly half of the length of each house every 76,25 minutes (or 1 hr 16 min, one seasonal or planetary hour), or each house cusp every 76,25 x 2 = 152,5, that is, every two planetary or seasonal hours.

It (Placidus) is as simple as that! To understand this phenomenon better, even visualise it, please read our paper referred to above, «The Astrological Theory of Relativity», and employ the ‘animate’ feature of your astrological/astronomical software to confirm everything or become a witness.

______________________

[1] For my part, like very few others, I believe that astrology constitutes the true bridge or the only discipline able to reconcile quantum physics with classical physics, and easily so. There is, however, no interest whatsoever on the part of the scientific community because of their confusion about astrology: they are yet to distinguish signs from constellations and astrology from the contemporary western capitalist society’s industrial product, namely, horoscopism. It will serve them well to reflect on the fact that astrologists before the two industrial revolutions were not horoscopists nor YouTubers or Instagramers, but astronomers, physicians, and mathematicians (e.g. Morin de Villefranche, Nostradamus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Giovani Antonio Magini, Placidus de Titis, Claudius Ptolemy, and, among others — allegedly so — even Newton).

[2] Anthony Louis is — besides José Luis Pascual Blázquez and myself — the only person alive that I know to study both astrology and physics (if you were to distinguish one from the other, of course), and that is why the paper carries with it a comment from him on the relativity naturally inherent in aspectual relationships at higher latitudes (for reasons also stated throughout the paper), a phenomenon first adverted by William Lilly and by Ptolemy before him.

[3] “[…] with the prevailing scientific worldview”, Louis says. That is but the minimum requirement for any theory in any field to become successful, to at least not contradict the latest truth confirmed by science. Even Einstein, if one were to consider the fact that all inertial frames of reference are, like Galileo rightfully implied, created equal before the eyes of God or Physics, did not, as revolutionary as he was, contradict any physical laws “of the epoch”. What he contradicted was the interpretation of these laws, for it was, after all, an erroneous interpretation. In other words, Einstein only took the known laws of his time to the next or a higher level, one unimaginable by others. And the only reason he was able to do this was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. That is, on the shoulders of Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, and Lorentz, who laid the physical founding ground upon which he would work and even fantasise (think), just as much as we have worked and thought too upon the measurements of Alcabitius and Placidus to present our astrological theory of relativity in «Time Dilation […] and Why the Placidus Measurement […] is Compatible with Relativity Theory».

Freepik