Possible metals of Uranus and Neptune

[unknown]

The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern. (I got this from Guy Ogilby's "The Alchemist's Kitchen", and it's
also in Sepharial.) Start with them in the traditional "Chaldean" order of
apparent speed, slowest to fastest: Saturn, lead (82) - Jupiter, tin (50) -
Mars, iron (29) - Sun, gold (79) - Venus, copper (29) - Mercury, mercury
(80) - Moon, silver (47). Then list every second metal, starting with the
lightest: iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - tin (50) - gold (79) -
mercury (80) - lead (82), the metals in order of atomic number. Which is
interesting, since the Chaldean sequence and the metal associations both
date from long before atomic numbers were discovered.

But what about other planets? I tried putting Uranus, Neptune and Pluto
into the list, but it doesn't work; with an even number of planets, counting
alternate ones won't catch every planet however many times you go round.
Four extra planets gives iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Pluto) -
(Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury (80) - (Eris) - (Neptune) - lead
(82), which doesn't work either; more than three planets slower than Saturn
requires more than one metal to come between mercury (80) and lead (82), and
you can't have a fractional atomic number. But adding just Uranus and
Neptune - the two that are definitely planets astronomically, not
representatives of a class of very similar bodies - works. That gives iron
(26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury
(80) - (Neptune) - lead (82), which would mean that Neptune rules thallium
(81) and Uranus either cadmium (48) or indium (49).

Does this seem plausible to any of you? I suppose it could be tested by
Kolisko's capillary dynamolysis reaction, if that really works, but it's
doubtful whether it does.
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.

[Kjell Pettersson]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[unknown]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern.

---

Post by unknown
which would mean that Neptune rules thallium
(81) and Uranus either cadmium (48) or indium (49).

Very interesting post for an old alchemist like myself, thank you!
I checked what everwise Wikipedia had to say about thallium, and
looking at it from a purely analogical viewpoint, I see no problem in
associating the metal with the planet.
Thallium
- is toxic to humans
- is kept stable if kept in oil (does not oxidize)
- is soluble in water and almost tasteless
- has the nicknames "The Poisoner's Poison" and "Inheritance
Powder" (with arsenic)
It has some small medical use, but not as a drug, which if we accepted
the metal for Neptune, could be interpreted to mean that the planet is
predominantly a "malefic" and that perhaps it is not governing
pharmaceutics and medicin at all.
Choosing between cadmium and indium, cadmium seems an almost perfect
choice for Uranus.
Cadmium
- is used for electro-plating -- in the aircraft industry
- is used to control neutrons in nuclear fission
- is used in black and white television phosphors and in the blue and
green phosphors for color television picture tubes
Other uses are (or have been) in batteries (Uranus is connected with
electricity) and electronics.
It can be toxic, but most not be. I would see Uranus as less of a
malefic than Neptune if judging by associating these metals with them.
That's interesting considering that they have been associated with the
greater malefic (Uranus going to Aqurius, ruled by Saturn) and the
greater benefic (Neptune for Pisces, ruled by Jupiter), but that here
the plusses and minuses, so to speak, are inverted.
My personal verdict, if going by analogies, is that associating Uranus
with cadmium is a jackpot and Neptune with thallium is analogically
"OK" but not *exceptionally* so. Uranus/cadmium is really quite
convincing though.
/Kjell
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Thallium
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Indium
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cadmium

Seemed promising to me, too, but you've explained the analogies much more
convincingly than I could - even to myself. Of course there are things that
don't quite fit, like cadmium's use in paints, but then neither does
copper's use in water pipes. There's a slight pun, too - thallium's name
actually comes from Greek "thallos", a shoot, after a green line in its
spectrum, but it's not so unlike Greek "thalatta", the sea.

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern.

---

Post by unknown
Does this seem plausible to any of you?

I just got the wildest idea (Raymond, are you reading this?). What if
all the basic elements can be associated with heavenly bodies? That
would mean that at the least some 100+ heavenly bodies would be of at
least some importance. I for one would certainly want to have, say,
Regulus and Algol included, but nothing says it would have to be stars
only, we could just as well have Pluto, Eris, Chiron and a host of
others included. Then the classical metals of alchemy would only point
to the most important heavenly bodies, and their order and
relationships, but not be a complete list of correlations between the
earthly and the celestial.

/K

[unknown]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern.

---

Post by unknown
Does this seem plausible to any of you?

I just got the wildest idea (Raymond, are you reading this?). What if
all the basic elements can be associated with heavenly bodies? That
would mean that at the least some 100+ heavenly bodies would be of at
least some importance. I for one would certainly want to have, say,
Regulus and Algol included, but nothing says it would have to be stars
only, we could just as well have Pluto, Eris, Chiron and a host of
others included. Then the classical metals of alchemy would only point
to the most important heavenly bodies, and their order and
relationships, but not be a complete list of correlations between the
earthly and the celestial.

Now that's an idea! I never thought of that - made a few attempts to find a
regular rule to assign them all to the usual planets, but only gave myself a
headache. If we're using small bodies, I suppose Ceres would be near the
front of the queue, along with those you mentioned. I wonder what she'd
get? Seems presumptuous to give her carbon, but why not after all. Hmm...

[unknown]

Post by Kjell Pettersson

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern.

---

Post by unknown
Does this seem plausible to any of you?

I just got the wildest idea (Raymond, are you reading this?). What if
all the basic elements can be associated with heavenly bodies? That
would mean that at the least some 100+ heavenly bodies would be of at
least some importance. I for one would certainly want to have, say,
Regulus and Algol included, but nothing says it would have to be stars
only, we could just as well have Pluto, Eris, Chiron and a host of
others included. Then the classical metals of alchemy would only point
to the most important heavenly bodies, and their order and
relationships, but not be a complete list of correlations between the
earthly and the celestial.

Maybe the Lanthanide series ("rare earth" metals) belong to asteroids, and
the Actinide series (radioactive metals, incl uranium and the man-made
elements) to the KBOs. No evidence, just feels right to me. The elements
in each series all fall in the same group and period, so it seems right that
they should correspond to close groups of similar bodies. It could fit the
pattern, too, if you start again at Mars after lead. Of course there are
more asteroids than Lanthanides, so they'd have to share, or just use the
main ones.

There are also the "homoeopathic cell salts", which are often assigned to
Zodiac signs - Ari potassium phosphate, Tau sodium sulphate, Gem potassium
chloride, Can calcium fluoride, Leo magnesium phosphate, Vir potassium
sulphate, Lib sodium phosphate, Sco calcium sulphate, Sag silicon dioxide,
Cap calcium phosphate, Aqu sodium chloride, Pis iron phosphate, and to some
extent the polar signs have each other's salt as well. I can't see any
rhyme or reason to it.

[Kjell Pettersson]

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern.  

---

Post by unknown
 That gives iron
(26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury
(80)

...

Looking at the periodic table, one sees that iron is on the same row
as copper (both belong to the fourth period), but it does not share
column with any other classical alchemical metal, nor thallium etc, if
we assume them. Copper, however, shares column (group) with both
silver and gold. The rest, including thallium et al., share period
with either silver or gold.

Anyhow, my reflection on this is that it fits with Mars being the
planet liked by none of the others, except Venus. (Noting that this
would be true not only classically but also for Uranus and Neptune.)

/K

[unknown]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Looking at the periodic table, one sees that iron is on the same row
as copper (both belong to the fourth period), but it does not share
column with any other classical alchemical metal, nor thallium etc, if
we assume them. Copper, however, shares column (group) with both
silver and gold. The rest, including thallium et al., share period
with either silver or gold.
Anyhow, my reflection on this is that it fits with Mars being the
planet liked by none of the others, except Venus. (Noting that this
would be true not only classically but also for Uranus and Neptune.)

I'd forgotten about the "friendships". I'll check my well-thumbed digital
copy of Lilly...
I think you're on to something. Every planet is a "friend" of those it
shares a row or column with, except: The Sun is the enemy of Saturn, but
Saturn the friend of the Sun; Mercury is the enemy of the Sun, but the Sun
is the friend of Mercury; and the Moon is described as "indifferent" to the
Sun.

[Todd Carnes]

Post by unknown
Does this seem plausible to any of you?

As you know, I'm not a big fan of using the outers in any capacity, BUT
this does seem to work out... at least in the case of Neptune & Uranus.

Post by unknown
I suppose it could be tested by Kolisko's capillary
dynamolysis reaction, if that really works, but it's
doubtful whether it does.

I don't think I've heard of this.

Todd

[unknown]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by unknown
I suppose it could be tested by Kolisko's capillary
dynamolysis reaction, if that really works, but it's
doubtful whether it does.

I don't think I've heard of this.

It's an experiment where solutions of salts of the planetary metals (e.g.
silver nitrate and iron sulphate) are mixed and allowed to rise up a strip
of filter paper, chromatography-style. The salts react on the way up and
deposit an insoluble precipitate on the paper, forming a pattern.
Supposedly, the pattern is different when the planet ruling one of the salts
is occulted by another planet.

Full details at http://www.science.anth.org.uk/kolisko/index.htm, extra
references are in my alt.astrology FAQs somewhere. It's rather a pet theory
of mine, despite never having been able to try it myself. If it really
worked, it would be an ideal way to settle the question - apart from the
outstanding horridness of both the substances.

[Todd Carnes]

Post by unknown
Does this seem plausible to any of you?

As you know, I'm not a big fan of using the outers in any capacity, BUT
this does seem to work out... at least in the case of Neptune & Uranus.

Post by unknown
I suppose it could be tested by Kolisko's capillary
dynamolysis reaction, if that really works, but it's
doubtful whether it does.

I don't think I've heard of this.

Todd

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Todd Carnes

Post by unknown
Does this seem plausible to any of you?

As you know, I'm not a big fan of using the outers in any capacity, BUT
this does seem to work out... at least in the case of Neptune & Uranus.

Post by unknown
I suppose it could be tested by Kolisko's capillary dynamolysis
reaction, if that really works, but it's doubtful whether it does.

I don't think I've heard of this.
Todd

Oops, sorry for accidentally posting that twice.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern. (I got this from Guy Ogilby's "The Alchemist's Kitchen", and it's
also in Sepharial.) Start with them in the traditional "Chaldean" order of
apparent speed, slowest to fastest: Saturn, lead (82) - Jupiter, tin (50) -
Mars, iron (29) - Sun, gold (79) - Venus, copper (29) - Mercury, mercury
(80) - Moon, silver (47). Then list every second metal, starting with the
lightest: iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - tin (50) - gold (79) -
mercury (80) - lead (82), the metals in order of atomic number. Which is
interesting, since the Chaldean sequence and the metal associations both
date from long before atomic numbers were discovered.
But what about other planets? I tried putting Uranus, Neptune and Pluto
into the list, but it doesn't work; with an even number of planets, counting
alternate ones won't catch every planet however many times you go round.
Four extra planets gives iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Pluto) -
(Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury (80) - (Eris) - (Neptune) - lead
(82), which doesn't work either; more than three planets slower than Saturn
requires more than one metal to come between mercury (80) and lead (82), and
you can't have a fractional atomic number. But adding just Uranus and
Neptune - the two that are definitely planets astronomically, not
representatives of a class of very similar bodies - works. That gives iron
(26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury
(80) - (Neptune) - lead (82), which would mean that Neptune rules thallium
(81) and Uranus either cadmium (48) or indium (49).
Does this seem plausible to any of you? I suppose it could be tested by
Kolisko's capillary dynamolysis reaction, if that really works, but it's
doubtful whether it does.
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.

The only thing that seems a bit off is that all this subsumes that Iron will always be the metal that will weigh the lightest. It could very well be that the outer planets may rule over an en element lighter than iron...

[unknown]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern. (I got this from Guy Ogilby's "The Alchemist's Kitchen", and it's
also in Sepharial.) Start with them in the traditional "Chaldean" order of
apparent speed, slowest to fastest: Saturn, lead (82) - Jupiter, tin (50) -
Mars, iron (29) - Sun, gold (79) - Venus, copper (29) - Mercury, mercury
(80) - Moon, silver (47). Then list every second metal, starting with the
lightest: iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - tin (50) - gold (79) -
mercury (80) - lead (82), the metals in order of atomic number. Which is
interesting, since the Chaldean sequence and the metal associations both
date from long before atomic numbers were discovered.
But what about other planets? I tried putting Uranus, Neptune and Pluto
into the list, but it doesn't work; with an even number of planets, counting
alternate ones won't catch every planet however many times you go round.
Four extra planets gives iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Pluto) -
(Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury (80) - (Eris) - (Neptune) - lead
(82), which doesn't work either; more than three planets slower than Saturn
requires more than one metal to come between mercury (80) and lead (82), and
you can't have a fractional atomic number. But adding just Uranus and
Neptune - the two that are definitely planets astronomically, not
representatives of a class of very similar bodies - works. That gives iron
(26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury
(80) - (Neptune) - lead (82), which would mean that Neptune rules thallium
(81) and Uranus either cadmium (48) or indium (49).
Does this seem plausible to any of you? I suppose it could be tested by
Kolisko's capillary dynamolysis reaction, if that really works, but it's
doubtful whether it does.
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.

The only thing that seems a bit off is that all this subsumes that Iron
will always be the metal that will weigh the lightest. It could very well
be that the outer planets may rule over an en element lighter than iron...

Good point. To be honest, I'd forgotten all about this - I'll go over those
sequences again, and see where elements lighter than iron could fit in. I
rather think there was some mathematical reason why they couldn't, at least
if that rule continued to hold, but if so I can't remember what it was.

[Robin Wilkie]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by unknown
The atomic numbers of the metals associated with the planets follow a
pattern. (I got this from Guy Ogilby's "The Alchemist's Kitchen", and it's
also in Sepharial.) Start with them in the traditional "Chaldean" order of
apparent speed, slowest to fastest: Saturn, lead (82) - Jupiter, tin (50) -
Mars, iron (26*) - Sun, gold (79) - Venus, copper (29) - Mercury, mercury
(80) - Moon, silver (47).
iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury
(80) - lead (82),
the metals in order of atomic number. Which is
interesting, since the Chaldean sequence and the metal associations both
date from long before atomic numbers were discovered.
But what about other planets? I tried putting Uranus, Neptune and Pluto
into the list, but it doesn't work; with an even number of planets, counting
alternate ones won't catch every planet however many times you go round.
Four extra planets gives iron (26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Pluto) -
(Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury (80) - (Eris) - (Neptune) - lead
(82), which doesn't work either; more than three planets slower than Saturn
requires more than one metal to come between mercury (80) and lead (82), and
you can't have a fractional atomic number.
But adding just Uranus and
Neptune - the two that are definitely planets astronomically, not
representatives of a class of very similar bodies - works. That gives iron
(26) - copper (29) - silver (47) - (Uranus) - tin (50) - gold (79) - mercury
(80) - (Neptune) - lead (82), which would mean that Neptune rules thallium
(81) and Uranus either cadmium (48) or indium (49).
Does this seem plausible to any of you? I suppose it could be tested by
Kolisko's capillary dynamolysis reaction, if that really works, but it's
doubtful whether it does.
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.

The only thing that seems a bit off is that all this subsumes that Iron
will always be
the metal that will weigh the lightest. It could very well be that the
outer planets
may rule over an element lighter than iron...

New wine in a very old bottle can be a problem?
I don't know about Neptune but I've seen too many correspondences between
Uranus - Uranium and Pluto - Plutonium to worry about the possible
connections
with other elements. Fukushima and the ongoing squares of Uranus & Pluto is
an obvious (and more worrying) example.

-=Rab

[Todd Carnes]

Ummm, what's wrong with using uranium (92), neptunium (93) & plutonium (94)?

Todd

[unknown]

Post by Todd Carnes
Ummm, what's wrong with using uranium (92), neptunium (93) & plutonium (94)?
Todd

Why not, but then again, why, apart from the names? Uranus and Pluto are at
least planets with explosive connotations, so they could support that more
or less, but the equally unstable neptunium does seem a particularly bad fit
for Neptune and Pisces, unless there are things I don't know about it. And
of course you'd have to abandon the apparent mathematical relationship
between the other 7 if you were going to use uranium, neptunium and
plutonium. I was just trying to work out correspondences along the same
kind of mathematicalalchemicalbizarrical lines as the original 7 planetary
elements (and possibly failing, but worth a try).

If that did hold water, though (and who's to say that a planet can only rule
one metal, anyway?), would that suggest something for helium and selenium,
too? And just possibly cerium and palladium, if we're going to include
asteroids. Interesting. I suppose the only real way to settle this would
be by experiment - the Kolisko effect, for instance, if it actually works.
But it's fun to talk about.

[9***@gmail.com]

Metal for Neptune is cobalt and Uranus is bismuth

[unknown]

Post by 9***@gmail.com
Metal for Neptune is cobalt and Uranus is bismuth

Where did you come by that?

I did hear that Isaac Newton assigned bismuth to Neptune (must have meant
the Roman god, since the planet wasn't discovered), but I'm not sure why if
that's true - and of course that's the other way around.