| |
Main
Date: 18 May 2007 00:25:36
From: Jesus Tomb
Subject: Scientific Astrology and RTRRT (Abstract) - The Revision of the Zodiac
|
First published by Lulu Publications, 2007, www.lulu.com/astrology.
Copyright 2007 By Klaudio Zic. All Rights Reserved. No part of this
abstract may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or otherwise, for commercial purposes or otherwise, without
the written permission of the author, except when permitted by law.
THE REFORMATION OF THE ZODIAC
Klaudio Zic
Published conclusively 2006 August 24
ABSTRACT
What is the zodiac and how is it defined? Upon finding the definition
of the zodiac inadequate, we conducted a research resulting with
several publications as presented on http://www.lulu.com/astrology
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of the zodiac cannot be overemphasized since it is
within the frame of the zodiac that the planets, the sun and the moon
(our proposal) move. Civilization determines the ages in accordance
with precession as well as traditionally by observing the sun on
spring equinox. The great changes of our civilization happen in
accordance to precession as determined by the constellations and the
zodiac. In order to determine the nature of the zodiac we set our
research within the IAU standards. The scientific framework as well as
main reference for the research was provided and precision ensured by
the NASA JPL HORIZONS integrator by Jon Giorgini .
2. INCENTIVE
The IAU standards set a new definition of the zodiac, as they don't
comply with the general presumptions about the zodiacal belt. The IAU
constellation borders are not at all compatible with whatever
astrological simplification of the solar system. We have found the
IAU borders very apt in comparing our results with those of the
earlier civilizations. Thus, the Egyptians clearly coupled Leo with
Hydra as purported in detail in Zic, Klaudio, Venus in Hydra, Lulu
Publications. The prevalent idea of the zodiac does not hold water, as
the sun is e.g. in Libra on November 23rd. Moreover, the sun and the
planets do not follow any generally expected pattern at all as to the
number of constellations on their journey as well as the frequency of
their passage through a given constellation. As the sun enters
Ophiuchus every December so do the planets and the moon. But not every
planet enters e.g. Sextans, much as the sun only gets close to Cetus
and very close to Orion. Our task was to determine the number of the
zodiacal constellations. We included the moon in our survey along with
the planets and the sun.
3. APPROACH
The zodiac started crystallizing from our daily practice with several
astronomical programs. While the aforementioned HORIZONS integrator
served as main reference, we have made large use of Dance of the
Planets, Skyglobe, and Skychart programs. Our offline integrator was
Solex by Aldo Vitagliano.
4. RESULTS
The results of our research are as follow.
Venus spans through 21 zodiacal IAU constellation, including Orion
(2006), Hydra (2007), Scutum (2014) and Pegasus (2025). Each and all
the special positions of Venus are carefully documented, collected as
well as published within separate publications along with the
appropriate ephemeris.
As we decided to include the moon in our survey, the resulting
zodiac numbers 22 IAU constellations. The additional zodiacal station
was provided by the rather frequent position of moon in Auriga. Auriga
thus completes our zodiacal research.
Special consideration must be given to dwarf planets Pluto and Eris
for historical reasons. There are in fact several historical zodiacal
projects and publications dealing with Eris (2003 UB313) and Pluto,
now dwarf planets. The discovery of Pluto expanded the zodiac by
several constellations, most remarkably Eridanus, Coma Berenices and
Bootes, while the discovery of Eris greatly expanded the zodiac before
Eris and Pluto were officially proclaimed dwarf planets. Eris does not
follow any known zodiacal routine much as Pluto never enters Pisces or
Aries but dives through Cetus instead. The complex problematic of Eris
in the "x-zodiacal" positions has been dealt in our early publication
about the X zodiac, Zic, Klaudio, 2005 August 1, 2003 UB313 and the X
Zodiac, Lulu Publications. As Eris spans over 40 constellations we are
lucky to have Eris and Pluto out of the standard zodiacal environment
at least as concern practical matters. The zodiac that we were able to
determine as final is the historical N3 zodiacal model or the
Neptunian Zodiac. The P and X zodiacs are nevertheless not only a
fascinating but also recommendable study as concerns the recent
history of the zodiac.
Klaudio Zic iau28@yahoo.co.uk http://www.lulu.com/astrology
Solar System Dynamics Group, Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Jon.Giorgini@jpl.nasa.gov
Zic, Klaudio. 2004. Venus in Special Constellations, Klaudio
Zic Publications.
Zic, Klaudio. 2005. Venus in Pegasus. Klaudio Zic
Publications.
Zic, Klaudio. 2006. Venus in Scutum. Klaudio Zic Publication
First published by Lulu Publications, 2007, www.lulu.com/astrology.
Copyright 2007 By Klaudio Zic. All Rights Reserved. No part of this
abstract may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or otherwise, for commercial purposes or otherwise, without
the written permission of the author, except when permitted by law.
THE PRECESSED ASCENDANT
Klaudio Zic
Published 2005
ABSTRACT
What is the ascendant and how is it defined? Upon finding the
definition of the ascendant inadequate, we conducted a research
resulting with several publications as presented on http://www.lulu.com/astrology
1. INTRODUCTION
The ascendant was always of interest to the magus and astrologer and
religious person as it was assumed that the portents as deduced from
the rising star are indicative of further development of the situation
at hand. The rationale has it that the day is predictable by the
morning. While the statement that the first item in an array predicts
all subsequent items is a matter of discussion, it is our purpose to
elaborate on the star ascending in the east of the horoscope. This
star was variously known as guardian angel or ascendant. When the
eastern star is determined, the constellation containing the star is
also known as the ascendant.
2. INCENTIVE
By applying precession to the east point we actually arrive at the
progressive sets of ascendants for their respective epochs. The
ascendant set is not a fixed set of constellations. The IAU standards
set a new definition for the ascendant as clearly defined by the
constellation borders.
3. APPROACH
Our research on the ascendant was first conducted in such elementary
environment as provided by Skyglobe program for DOS. The immediate
result were the 16 eastern ascendants for the present epoch. We called
the ascendants "eastern" or "precessed" in order to stress their
nature as opposed to less scientific "ascendants".
4. RESULTS
The result of our research is as follow.
The total set of ascendants for planet Earth numbers 88 IAU
constellations, meaning that every constellation is ascendental at its
appointed epoch.
The present set of ascendants numbers 16 IAU constellations.
Other epochs may have up to two dozen ascendants, perhaps implying
diversity
5. CONCLUSION
The implications of zodiacal reformation are vast as concern general
culture as well as the very basis of our civilization. As already
Hipparchus rebuked the Greek astronomers for lack of update as concern
precession, we may be called to do the same. Questions will arise
whether the authorities knew of zodiacal positions such as Venus in
Hydra. National as well as Masonic heraldry will be looked upon with
critical eyes as we are naturally drawn into revision of whatever
legacy from our Masonic ancestors. National heraldry as based on
Masonic astronomy may receive due attention as subject to revision.
Ascendants may receive special interest as the Lion (Leo) and the
Unicorn (Monoceros) bracket Hydra. Discussion may stir around the
Eagle (Aquila) or Serpens Cauda representation for the national
symbols, depending on the true ascendant as well as natal data for a
given nation.
Klaudio Zic iau28@yahoo.co.uk http://www.lulu.com/astrology
The main reference for our research is the
Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System
as provided by the Solar System Dynamics Group,
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Jon.Giorgini@jpl.nasa.gov
Zic, Klaudio. 2004. 16 Ascendants in Astrology, Klaudio Zic
Publications.
Zic, Klaudio. 2005. 16 versus Hydra. Klaudio Zic
Publications.
Zic, Klaudio. 2006. Planetocentric Astrology. Klaudio Zic
Publications.
First published by Lulu Publications, 2007, www.lulu.com/astrology.
Copyright 2007 By Klaudio Zic. All Rights Reserved. No part of this
abstract may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or otherwise, for commercial purposes or otherwise, without
the written permission of the author, except when permitted by law.
REAL TIME REALITY RENDERING TOOLS
Klaudio Zic
Published 2004 - 2007
ABSTRACT
What god is a future one can not change? Upon finding the present
instant magick sets inadequate, we conducted a research resulting with
several publications as presented on http://www.lulu.com/astrology
1. INTRODUCTION
The wrong zodiacal data surely inflicted the mind of the westerner in
the past 2000 years as people born with sun in Virgo were told they
are "Scorpio", much as "Capricorn" is still the output of
"astrological programs" when Pisces is rising. False identification
makes for a false future as based on wrong values. Future changing
implies the correction of one's future, implying harmonious karmic
flow and the fulfillment of one's own destiny. As soon as horoscope
rectification is done on planetary level, humanity is ready for the
next step. What good is a future one cannot change? Then change it by
using the RTRRT suite of instant magick.
2. INCENTIVE
As soon as one knows one's true destiny as specified by a qualified
scientific astrologer, one is in the position of changing one's
future. Our purpose is therefore to design, test and promote instant
magick methods that will avert the bad transits as well as motivate
the client into changing one's own future according to one's own plan.
Albeit the techniques are as simple as they can be, there is much
learning in the process as one figuratively embarks into a fast karmic
boat, the boat of millions of years. Various grimoires complicate
issues by introducing impossible or at least improbable ritual
procedures while screening the substance from the non-initiated. Our
proposal was to offer an initiation for many in order to improve the
karmic status of the planet. As concern possible abuse there are many
karmic obstacles already standing on the way for the incipient magus,
and the RTRRT have been designed so as to channel incipient greed and
passion towards subsequent positive spiritual goals.
3. APPROACH
In the case of the O5 technique, we used an ancient Tibetan framework.
The task of O5 was to discreate the obstacle in order for the positive
event to manifest. When results started materializing in minutes, we
called the instant magick effect Snow Crash. Mind clearing technique
True Mind Distiller was an essential part of the O5 initiation. This
special technique enables the reemergence of true mind as it leaves
the initiate thoughtless for a remarkable amount of time. After
obtaining proficiency in instant magick by extended use of O5, Cascade
was next, as we wanted to design a lightning fast discreation/creation
technique for our everyday use. We based Cascade on simple Egyptian
ritual. The major breakthrough came with the advent of the Personal
Cosmic Secretary, the "thin interface to omnipotence". The potentials
of the P.C.S. are immense since the initiate feels intimately even
closer to God than during the previous initiations. The best feature
of the P.C.S. is optimization of the download of events from the
astral domain. The P.C.S. responds in "no time at all" to any need
while arranging the events of the day accordingly.
4. RESULTS
The test results of our research are enlisted as follow.
O5 or Oberon 5 is the universal problem solver. The technique
literally resolves (SOLVE) the problems in order for the positive
solution (COAGVLA) to set in. In this respect, one holds the keys of
magick and alchemy within a simple formula that is discretely
performed in seconds. In its "Snow Crash" version, O5 has materialized
events in minutes.
O5 has saved a commando squad from ambush, bypassed an unfriendly
minister adjutant in order to get the interview, passed an exam, and
made the professor skip the examination (one of the pranks). O5
initiates have produced love and money in record time, cured cancer,
cleared the throat cakra, discreated childhood fears, initiated into
immortality (O5IRIS) as well as produced a Reiki master.
Cascade is the simplest technique of the RTRRT suite. One just goes
through the obstacle. Cascade is the quickest way to do instant magick
that has been ever invented.
The Personal Cosmic Secretary is a new way to do magick, or even a
new religion.
The RTRRT may include other techniques such as in the "AutoReiki"
command within the P.C.S. command shell.
As sometimes the results of one's magick efforts come too late to
have the expected taste, the RTRRT are a solution for those who would
rather experience than wait. The RTRRT are thus of benefit especially
to those who are ready to experience their good karma instead of
listening to false or bad omens and dreadful predictions.
4. DISCUSSION
New Age may be at hand in less than 700 years from now as at present
we are in the Age of Cetus. Everyone can be trained in perhaps 20
minutes to perform instant calculation of anybody's horoscope. Thus,
people totally alien to astrology are able to tell the future in
minutes without referencing to the computer or ephemeris. If anybody
can predict the exact date of your marriage after being trained for
perhaps half an hour, what do we need astrologers for? Since
predicting any future has been made so easy at the hands of non-
astrologers, what we really need s changing the future predicted. One
does not want that bad transit on one's way. Already fancying a bad
future creates that very future. In order to avert any bad karma some
effort is needed. Since the RTRRT enable anyone into manifesting
anything, one can justly say that the RTRRT are able to change the
future of the planet. If so, they are a gift to the human race in
these hard apocalyptic times. Instant living requires instant magick
in response to the enormous stress as absorbed by modern man. In times
of chaos, it is a blessing to rediscover one's true horoscope as well
as adjust one's karma according to one's best intent. If a personal
scientific horoscope is usually limited to pragmatic goals, the RTRRT
can act in the abstract domain of the spirit, thus Bogeyman
initiations can evolve in active dreaming or through astral
projection. As the possibilities of the RTRRT are yet to be explored,
we consider them limitless for all karmic purposes. In that respect
one may treasure one's own favorite RTRRT in "afterlife", or in
whatever transcendence one happens to soar ever after.
Klaudio Zic iau28@yahoo.co.uk http://www.lulu.com/astrology
The initiate in question simply exclaimed "I am a Reiki master
now!" and proceeded clearing one's own doubts with O5. Another
successful exclamation was "I know Italian!" O5 can thus produce any
result in record time by simple affirmation/clearing technology.
Zic, Klaudio. 2004. O5 Master, Klaudio Zic Publications.
Zic, Klaudio. 2007. Personal Cosmic Secretary. Klaudio Zic
Publications.
Zic, Klaudio. 2007. O5IRIS. Lulu Publications.
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2007 15:04:19
From: marika
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology and RTRRT (Abstract) - The Revision of the Zodiac
|
Jesus Tomb wrote in message
<1179473136.742708.260710@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >...
>First published by Lulu Publications, 2007, www.lulu.com/astrology.
>Copyright 2007 By Klaudio Zic. All Rights Reserved. No part of this
>abstract may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
>electronic or otherwise, for commercial purposes or otherwise, without
>the written permission of the author, except when permitted by law.
>
>
>THE REFORMATION OF THE ZODIAC
>
and they were doing so well naming cars...
mk5000
"I'm calling the world
Calling everyone
I'm calling the world
Calling everyone"--rooney
|
| |
Date: 21 May 2007 03:23:38
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On May 21, 5:41 am, b...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> Pat O'Connell wrote:
> > Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is the
> > only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect someone at a
> > distance.
>
> Before we understood light as well as we do now, getting sunburns might
> also have seemed to be some mysterious "action at a distance." That you
> can't think of something else that might act at a distance is frankly
> not very convincing. When it comes right down to it, you can't dispute
> astrology on the basis of mechanism, because astrologers don't posit any
> specific, falsifiable mechanism--for a very good reason: Anything they
> could come up with would very likely be falsified in a New York minute.
>
> Chris is right: Assuming that you take it upon yourself to dispute the
> claims of astrology, the "right" way to do it is simply to show that it
> doesn't work better than random chance, whatever its purported mechanism
> might be. The perception that it does work is a reflection of the human
> mind's poor adaptation to precise statistical thinking:
Your problem is that you have no intutive intelligence,you actually
can't enjoy the gorgeous astronomical insights such as the Earth
overtaking the slower moving planets as the only way to resolve the
apparent retrogrades of the other planets.You are dull mathematicians
and do not have that wonderful way to grasp things instantly even
when you have the images before you and must have everything explained
to you step by step.
Before empiricism or the 'scientific method' cult,there were more
balanced people like Pascal who expressed in an accurate way the
balanced condition neccessary to approach celestial/terrestrial
phenomena.This era represents that balance so far out of kilter that
it now represents a pandemic illness of Western civilisation.I have no
doubt that there are nascient astronomer here who are not entirely
enamored of the astrological tendencies that have dominated astronomy
for so long and may recognise in the words of Pascal just how weak
these mathematicians actually are.
Although almost dormant,astronomy is fine,astrology is dying because
it cannot support its novelistic background any longer -
"The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind.-- In
the one, the principles are obvious , but removed from ordinary use;
so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's mind in that
direction: but if one turns there ever so little, one sees the
principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate mind who
reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost impossible
they should escape notice.
But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
draw false deductions from known principles.
All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight,
for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and
intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to
the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.
The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not
mathematical is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the
principles of mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not
intuitive is that they do not see what is before them, and that,
accustomed to the exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not
reasoning till they have well inspected and arranged their principles,
they are lost in matters of intuition where the principles do not
allow of such arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt
rather than seen; there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt
by those who do not of themselves perceive them. These principles are
so fine and so numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is
needed to perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.
Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at
a single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with
propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is
through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not
accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and
disheartened.
But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical.
Mathematicians who are only mathematicians have exact minds,
provided all things are explained to them by means of definitions and
axioms; otherwise they are inaccurate and insufferable, for they are
only right when the principles are quite clear.
And men of intuition who are only intuitive cannot have the patience
to reach to first principles of things speculative and conceptual,
which they have never seen in the world and which are altogether out
of the common.
2. There are different kinds of right understanding; some have right
understanding in a certain order of things, and not in others, where
they go astray. Some draw conclusions well from a few premises, and
this displays an acute judgment.
Others draw conclusions well where there are many premises.
For example, the former easily learn hydrostatics, where the
premises are few, but the conclusions are so fine that only the
greatest acuteness can reach them.
And in spite of that these persons would perhaps not be great
mathematicians, because mathematics contain a great number of
premises, and there is perhaps a kind of intellect that can search
with ease a few premises to the bottom and cannot in the least
penetrate those matters in which there are many premises.
There are then two kinds of intellect: the one able to penetrate
acutely and deeply into the conclusions of given premises, and this is
the precise intellect; the other able to comprehend a great number of
premises without confusing them, and this is the mathematical
intellect. The one has force and exactness, the other comprehension.
Now the one quality can exist without the other; the intellect can be
strong and narrow, and can also be comprehensive and weak.
3. Those who are accustomed to judge by feeling do not understand
the process of reasoning, for they would understand at first sight and
are not used to seek for principles. And others, on the contrary, who
are accustomed to reason from principles, do not at all understand
matters of feeling, seeking principles and being unable to see at a
glance."
Pascal
We really don't
> arrive at hypotheses in a deductive manner, generally speaking--it does
> happen, but it's comparatively uncommon. More typically, we arrive at
> an idea in some non-rational fashion, then attempt to confirm it by what
> are putatively rational means. The problem, though, is that we quite
> naturally place more weight on evidence that supports our ideas than on
> that which denies them. So we remember the times when the astrological
> predictions work, and ignore those times when they don't.
>
> This happens to scientists, too, since they're human. It is primarily
> the scientific community as a whole that is protected from this kind of
> self-serving behavior...and only imperfectly at that.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <b...@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| |
Date: 20 May 2007 03:14:42
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On May 20, 12:14 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:30:01 GMT, "TMA" <T...@nospan.com> wrote:
> >> The idea of a "separated, mechanistic, detached" universe is no more
> >> "scientific" than an astrological one. Either way, it reflects a
> >> misunderstanding of science.
>
> >1: Your last paragraph makes no sense. Explain it.
>
> Science isn't about finding "meaning" ("separated", "detached"), nor
> is it about strictly mechanistic answers. It's simply a method for
> understanding and explaining natural phenomena.
>
Physics is an attempt to understand astronomical data without going
through the methods and insights of astronomers.The system is does
choose is astrological hence its 'predictions' are colored in
imaginative shades ,unhealthy at best and civilisation destroying at
worst.
The guy who said that astronomy is a branch of physics is actually
convinced that it is,that is what indoctrination actually does.
> >2: Anyway, I like the idea that there is more out there and around
> >us rather than a pointless
> >random universe of matter, energy and "physical laws" of which we aren't
> >apart of or connected to on some
> > level.
>
> "Pointless" and "random" are philosophical ideas. There's nothing
> wrong with your desire to feel connected to the Universe, but
> astrology and other religions aren't the only way to get there. I feel
> strongly connected to everything, and the more I understand the
> workings of things (scientifically), the more I feel that way, and the
> more I appreciate the inter-connectedness of everything. It's physical
> laws that provide the connectedness!
>
There are no 'laws' there is just good judgement based on physical
considerations and this is common to all.How many good kids never get
to use their intutive intelligence in astronomy because of idiots like
yourself and your 'laws of physics' blocking their ability to
comprehend what you and your cronies cannot.
The original 'universal law of gravitation' never worked,Newton hung
his concepts on the astrological framework created by Flamsteed so
you are assured an attachment to a cartoon version of the great
cycles of the Earth so forget about a connection to the great
astronomical cycles,you are merely trapped in somebody's
imagination,specifically Flamsteed's celestial sphere nightmare.
How many genuine people who are real astronomers can not only
understand the Earth overtaking the slower planets as the main
argument for the orbital motion of the Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
while recognising that 'empirical science' does not understand this
simple Copernican insight -
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton
It is that simple and I hope people count themselves as real
astronomers by knowing the difference.
> I find scientists to be some of the most spiritual people around, even
> though most are not religious (nor astrological!) Science reduces
> detachment, it doesn't increase it.
>
You wake up one day to find that those blasted magnification guys were
setting things up to suit themselves and while you believe that
physics is the master of astronomy you find that astrology is driving
physical descriptions.
Do you not marvel that the insights of the great structural and
timeleeping astronomers are as safe from empirical speculations as
they are from the astrological framework which has obscured them for
the last 3 centuries ?.
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 11:56:48
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On May 19, 2:36 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:04:21 GMT, "TMA" <T...@nospan.com> wrote:
> >Only red neck, neanderthal idiots like you don't have the capacity to
> >consider
> >another point of view. Try this on for size
> >http://www.beliefnet.com/story/193/story_19389_1.html
>
> >The Enchanted Universe. Richard Tarnas.
>
> What other point of view would that be? There's nothing in the article
> to suggest that the author is different from any other astrologer,
> simply finding post hoc connections between astronomical and human
> events. The fallacy of that has been shown statistically many times,
> and should be pretty obvious to anybody who takes the time to think
> about it. Maybe you are referring to his philosophical argument that
> we should be part of an integrated universe? Hardly new, and while
> it's a reasonable model (better than that provided by most religions,
> IMO), it's easy to switch cause and effect- the integration is created
> by us, not by the Universe.
>
> More to the point, of course, it's completely unscientific. So why
> discuss it in an astronomy forum? There's clearly no relationship at
> all between astronomy and astrology, and there wouldn't be even if
> astrology worked.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
You really don't know do you ?.
As you look through all the threads in
sci.astrological.amateur ,whether it is observing with constellations
or the warped space of theorists threre it is an astrological
celestial sphere driving it all -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
You will have your work cut out for you insofar as the magnifications
guys are no longer apologetic about the celestial sphere framework
and the calendrically driven system which keeps it all neat.Maybe when
you inform your colleagues at Caltech about how productive their lives
will be when you discover that it is no longer astronomy but astrology
which is creating all that 'dark matter',warped space,multiple
universes junk and what have you in this bogus intellectual and
intutive atmosphere.
No doubt the works of Copernicus in regards to orbital comparisons and
Huygens in regards to clocks and the 24 hour/360 degree correlation
will eventually shine through the late 17th century errors but I no
longer believe,sadly,that it will come from within the ranks of people
here.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 05:28:25
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Astrology is nothing but garbage.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
|
| | |
Date: 25 May 2007 19:17:34
From: Jim Klein
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote:
>
>
>Astrology is nothing but garbage.
Yes but it pays way better than Astronomy and there are lots of hotter
women in Astrology than in Astronimy.
I'm a Leo, what's your sign ? :-)
Sincerely,
Jim Klein
James E. Klein
jameseklein@earthlink.net
Engineering Calculations
http://www.ecalculations.com
ecalculations@ecalculations.com
Engineering Calculations is the home of
the KDP-2 Optical Design Program
for Windows.
1-818-507-5706 (Voice and Fax)
1-818-823-4121
"KDP2, not quite easy enough for a Caveman to use" :-)
|
| | | |
Date: 26 May 2007 08:04:12
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
"Jim Klein" <jameseklein@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:eede53lukucifbn8pevv6qkvuntv159kd1@4ax.com...
> "Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Astrology is nothing but garbage.
>
> Yes but it pays way better than Astronomy and there are lots of hotter
> women in Astrology than in Astronimy.
>
> I'm a Leo, what's your sign ? :-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jim Klein
> James E. Klein
ROFLMAO!!!!
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 03:03:41
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On May 21, 6:12 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:46:17 -0600, Pat O'Connell <gyp...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is the
> >only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect someone at a
> >distance.
>
> It's because you approach astrology as something subject to physical
> laws that you need to find an "action at a distance". But astrology
> doesn't necessarily argue that the mechanism involves anything like
> that.
>
> >I know how Newtonian and Einsteinian physics work (haven't figured out
> >string theory though). I can't even begin to fathom how astrology could
> >ever predict anything about a person accurately, let alone figure out a
> >way to test it scientifically.
>
> There's no need to figure out _how_ astrology works (which could be
> hard) until you figure out _if_ it works (which is easy). You can set
> up a very conventional experiment, complete with controls, to assess
> whether any human traits, or actual events, correlate with planetary
> positions. And such experiments have been performed, and show that
> astrology is no more successful than random chance at predicting
> either behavior or events.
>
> Put a little differently, theorizing follows observation.
Flamsteed observed that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds of a 24 hour day and then draws the conclusion that axial
rotation is constant and so it remains to this day.
Theorizing did follow this incredibly silly correlation,specificall
empirical theorizing, as it was accepted as a given fact even though
the weight of astronomical methods,both structural and
tiumekeeping,never supporteds such a terrible correlation.
>If the
> observation can be demonstrated as false, there's no need to continue
> with the scientific process.
If you create an astrological framework out of celestial sphere
geometry and it is shown to be a destructive method there is no
possible way to continue with with anything productive.
The sickening feeling of watching so much careful astronomical
principles destroyed is small compared to the very real situation
where there is absolutely nobody capable or willing to take
responsibility for that disastrous 17th century error,the effects on
terrestrial studies today and the continuing rot imposed on future
generations.
The original principles are enjoyable,brilliant and easy to
understand,that is what is so disappointing with those who still wish
to stick with astrological conceptions of 'predictions,time
travel,warped spaced,multiple universes and all the other junk.
With astrology, there's no repeatable
> observation to test.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 18:22:17
From: Borked Pseudo Mailed
Subject: Re: SPAM TOPIC: Shitetard plagiarises skytonight Astro News my fawking arse
|
say shitetard did you oil up the wheels on your little red wagon for the 19th
bring your gerbils we will supply the chubby telescopes lager and ale
astronomers love their shela gimp the nancytard of buggertard
with gerbils too tube in tube out ooooooohhh aaaaaaaaahhhhh
Spammertard <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > plagiarised:
>Friday, May 18
>The thin Moon shines to the lower right of Venus
>this evening. Far below the Moon, can you spot
>shitetards arsehole yet?
>
>--
>There are buggers who chubby my arsehole here, sods out there at the star
>parties, far across the antelope valley shitehole for 70 iq shela buggers,
>with tribes of retarded buggers, who may have been the forefathers of the
>Super Adventure Club, or the Felchiwinkers, or the NAMBLA pedophiles, of
>which I am a SPAMMER. Some believe that they may yet be nancy poofters of my
>pongy bung hole, who even now fight over sloppy seconds, somewhere beyond the
>festering pustule that grows out of my sphincter like a glowing pimple.
>
> The Lone Trailer Trash Buggertard of Rosatard
> Chubby Telescope Gerbil Felchers FAQ
> http://gaffe.inreacharound.bugger.sod.orgy/shitetard
> Shitewalk Tinky Winky Arsehole Buggering and Wagon Oiling
> www.shitewalkarseholebuggery.info
> The Church of Eternity in Fawking Hell
> http://gaffe.inreacharound.bugger.sod.orgy/shitetard/church/EternityInHell.html
> Shitetards SPAMMY Gobshite Rubbish World
> http://www.spamworld.firmchubby.feltch/my/arsehole/
shitetard dennis bishop <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > the barmy fawking arsehole
shamelessly plagiarises the skytonight dot com astronomy site
denise blipshite posts his gobshite plagiarism spam under the subject
astro news
astro news my fawking arse the buggertard of rosatard cant even fawking spell he is
totally fawking illiterate shitetard rides the short yellow bus
all spammertard does is copy skytonights astronomer news and spam it spam spam
fawking spam stalk spam stalk spam all fawking day long day in and fawking day out
spamming stalking gobshite and plagiarising is all that shitetard ever does
the tardo boy with festering pustule on his arsehole spams his plagiarism to saa and aa
and ta pretending like he fawking wrote the skytonight news then dennis bishop gives no
fawking credit to skytonight shitetard gives no fawking credit at all to skytonight
dennis bishop is a spammer a stalker a plagiariser and a fawking mentally retarded
arsehole and dishonourably discharged coward that gets hard pissed arsehold and causes
bad wrecks on the motorway
why did the self pity 30% crippletard think he could get away with plagiarising the
skytonight web site shitetard is a major fawking arsehole
to think this fawking retarded arsehole is fifty eight years old he has the mentality
of a fawking two year old with his ickle toy red wagon in tow
squeak squeak squeak squeak hobble hobble squeak squeak
visit the 30% crippletard dennis bishop at his famous felching gerbil farm
470 20th st w rosamond ca post code 93560
trailer trash lot number 23
for a good time call his bugger sod trailer park manager 661 256 2175
go to their nancy star parties where they investigate uranus with their chubby
telescopes at night in the dark in front of children
everyone please fawking please send as many complaints as you fawking can about
shitetards nonstop fawking spamming and stalking and plagiarism to
http://skytonight.com
abuse@inreach.com
groups-abuse@google.com
starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
administrator@cafepress.com
http://www.publicdomainregistry.com/contactus/report-spam/
|
| | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 17:53:22
From:
Subject: Re: SPAM TOPIC: Shitetard plagiarises skytonight Astro News my fawking arse
|
If you want to speak to the Asshole directly, call his private number:
661.256.9065
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> say shitetard did you oil up the wheels on your little red wagon for the
>19th
>bring your gerbils we will supply the chubby telescopes lager and ale
>
> astronomers love their shela gimp the nancytard of buggertard
>with gerbils too tube in tube out ooooooohhh aaaaaaaaahhhhh
>
>Spammertard <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> plagiarised:
>>Friday, May 18
>>The thin Moon shines to the lower right of Venus
>>this evening. Far below the Moon, can you spot
>>shitetards arsehole yet?
>>
>>--
>>There are buggers who chubby my arsehole here, sods out there at the star
>>parties, far across the antelope valley shitehole for 70 iq shela buggers,
>>with tribes of retarded buggers, who may have been the forefathers of the
>>Super Adventure Club, or the Felchiwinkers, or the NAMBLA pedophiles, of
>>which I am a SPAMMER. Some believe that they may yet be nancy poofters of my
>>pongy bung hole, who even now fight over sloppy seconds, somewhere beyond the
>>festering pustule that grows out of my sphincter like a glowing pimple.
>>
>> The Lone Trailer Trash Buggertard of Rosatard
>> Chubby Telescope Gerbil Felchers FAQ
>> http://gaffe.inreacharound.bugger.sod.orgy/shitetard
>> Shitewalk Tinky Winky Arsehole Buggering and Wagon Oiling
>> www.shitewalkarseholebuggery.info
>> The Church of Eternity in Fawking Hell
>> http://gaffe.inreacharound.bugger.sod.orgy/shitetard/church/EternityInHell.ht
>> ml
>> Shitetards SPAMMY Gobshite Rubbish World
>> http://www.spamworld.firmchubby.feltch/my/arsehole/
>
> shitetard dennis bishop <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> the barmy fawking
>arsehole
>shamelessly plagiarises the skytonight dot com astronomy site
>
> denise blipshite posts his gobshite plagiarism spam under the subject
>
> astro news
>
> astro news my fawking arse the buggertard of rosatard cant even fawking
>spell he is
>totally fawking illiterate shitetard rides the short yellow bus
>
> all spammertard does is copy skytonights astronomer news and spam it
>spam spam
>fawking spam stalk spam stalk spam all fawking day long day in and
>fawking day out
>spamming stalking gobshite and plagiarising is all that shitetard ever does
>
> the tardo boy with festering pustule on his arsehole spams his plagiarism
>to saa and aa
>and ta pretending like he fawking wrote the skytonight news then dennis
>bishop gives no
>fawking credit to skytonight shitetard gives no fawking credit at all to
>skytonight
>
> dennis bishop is a spammer a stalker a plagiariser and a fawking mentally
>retarded
>arsehole and dishonourably discharged coward that gets hard pissed
>arsehold and causes
>bad wrecks on the motorway
>
> why did the self pity 30% crippletard think he could get away with
>plagiarising the
>skytonight web site shitetard is a major fawking arsehole
>
> to think this fawking retarded arsehole is fifty eight years old he has
>the mentality
>of a fawking two year old with his ickle toy red wagon in tow
>
> squeak squeak squeak squeak hobble hobble squeak
>squeak
>
>visit the 30% crippletard dennis bishop at his famous felching gerbil farm
>
> 470 20th st w rosamond ca post code 93560
>trailer trash lot number 23
>
> for a good time call his bugger sod trailer park manager 661 256 2175
>
> go to their nancy star parties where they investigate uranus with their
>chubby
>telescopes at night in the dark in front of children
>
> everyone please fawking please send as many complaints as you fawking can
>about
>shitetards nonstop fawking spamming and stalking and plagiarism to
>
>http://skytonight.com
> abuse@inreach.com
>groups-abuse@google.com
>starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
> administrator@cafepress.com
>http://www.publicdomainregistry.com/contactus/report-spam/
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 20:10:53
From: Servicio
Subject: Re: SPAM TOPIC: Shitetard plagiarises skytonight Astro News my fawking arse
|
In article <72e26e889719c5b391d8c8ee394c4bc2@msgid.frell.theremailer.net >
<dennis.bishop.info@zedz.net > <fritz@rodent.frell.eu.org> wrote:
>
>
> If you want
FOAD!
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 16:33:46
From: TMA
Subject: Re: SPAM TOPIC: Shitetard plagiarises skytonight Astro News my fawking arse
|
<dennis.bishop.info@zedz.netfritz@rodent.frell.eu.org > wrote in message
news:72e26e889719c5b391d8c8ee394c4bc2@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
> If you want to speak to the Asshole directly, call his private number:
>
> 661.256.9065
>
>
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
LMAO....
|
| | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 16:56:39
From: Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
Subject: Re: SPAM TOPIC: Shitetard plagiarises skytonight Astro News my fawking arse
|
If you want to speak to the Asshole directly, call his private number:
661.256.9065
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> say shitetard did you oil up the wheels on your little red wagon for the
>19th
>bring your gerbils we will supply the chubby telescopes lager and ale
>
> astronomers love their shela gimp the nancytard of buggertard
>with gerbils too tube in tube out ooooooohhh aaaaaaaaahhhhh
>
>Spammertard <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> plagiarised:
>>Friday, May 18
>>The thin Moon shines to the lower right of Venus
>>this evening. Far below the Moon, can you spot
>>shitetards arsehole yet?
>>
>>--
>>There are buggers who chubby my arsehole here, sods out there at the star
>>parties, far across the antelope valley shitehole for 70 iq shela buggers,
>>with tribes of retarded buggers, who may have been the forefathers of the
>>Super Adventure Club, or the Felchiwinkers, or the NAMBLA pedophiles, of
>>which I am a SPAMMER. Some believe that they may yet be nancy poofters of my
>>pongy bung hole, who even now fight over sloppy seconds, somewhere beyond the
>>festering pustule that grows out of my sphincter like a glowing pimple.
>>
>> The Lone Trailer Trash Buggertard of Rosatard
>> Chubby Telescope Gerbil Felchers FAQ
>> http://gaffe.inreacharound.bugger.sod.orgy/shitetard
>> Shitewalk Tinky Winky Arsehole Buggering and Wagon Oiling
>> www.shitewalkarseholebuggery.info
>> The Church of Eternity in Fawking Hell
>> http://gaffe.inreacharound.bugger.sod.orgy/shitetard/church/EternityInHell.ht
>> ml
>> Shitetards SPAMMY Gobshite Rubbish World
>> http://www.spamworld.firmchubby.feltch/my/arsehole/
>
> shitetard dennis bishop <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> the barmy fawking
>arsehole
>shamelessly plagiarises the skytonight dot com astronomy site
>
> denise blipshite posts his gobshite plagiarism spam under the subject
>
> astro news
>
> astro news my fawking arse the buggertard of rosatard cant even fawking
>spell he is
>totally fawking illiterate shitetard rides the short yellow bus
>
> all spammertard does is copy skytonights astronomer news and spam it
>spam spam
>fawking spam stalk spam stalk spam all fawking day long day in and
>fawking day out
>spamming stalking gobshite and plagiarising is all that shitetard ever does
>
> the tardo boy with festering pustule on his arsehole spams his plagiarism
>to saa and aa
>and ta pretending like he fawking wrote the skytonight news then dennis
>bishop gives no
>fawking credit to skytonight shitetard gives no fawking credit at all to
>skytonight
>
> dennis bishop is a spammer a stalker a plagiariser and a fawking mentally
>retarded
>arsehole and dishonourably discharged coward that gets hard pissed
>arsehold and causes
>bad wrecks on the motorway
>
> why did the self pity 30% crippletard think he could get away with
>plagiarising the
>skytonight web site shitetard is a major fawking arsehole
>
> to think this fawking retarded arsehole is fifty eight years old he has
>the mentality
>of a fawking two year old with his ickle toy red wagon in tow
>
> squeak squeak squeak squeak hobble hobble squeak
>squeak
>
>visit the 30% crippletard dennis bishop at his famous felching gerbil farm
>
> 470 20th st w rosamond ca post code 93560
>trailer trash lot number 23
>
> for a good time call his bugger sod trailer park manager 661 256 2175
>
> go to their nancy star parties where they investigate uranus with their
>chubby
>telescopes at night in the dark in front of children
>
> everyone please fawking please send as many complaints as you fawking can
>about
>shitetards nonstop fawking spamming and stalking and plagiarism to
>
>http://skytonight.com
> abuse@inreach.com
>groups-abuse@google.com
>starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
> administrator@cafepress.com
>http://www.publicdomainregistry.com/contactus/report-spam/
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 14:04:21
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Only red neck, neanderthal idiots like you don't have the capacity to
consider
another point of view. Try this on for size
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/193/story_19389_1.html
The Enchanted Universe. Richard Tarnas.
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:wZidnbqcl67KAdDbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@inreach.com...
>
>
> Astrology is nothing but garbage.
>
>
> --
> The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
> Sidewalk Astronomy
> www.sidewalkastronomy.info
> AD World
> http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
>
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 09:36:15
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:04:21 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote:
>Only red neck, neanderthal idiots like you don't have the capacity to
>consider
>another point of view. Try this on for size
>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/193/story_19389_1.html
>
>The Enchanted Universe. Richard Tarnas.
What other point of view would that be? There's nothing in the article
to suggest that the author is different from any other astrologer,
simply finding post hoc connections between astronomical and human
events. The fallacy of that has been shown statistically many times,
and should be pretty obvious to anybody who takes the time to think
about it. Maybe you are referring to his philosophical argument that
we should be part of an integrated universe? Hardly new, and while
it's a reasonable model (better than that provided by most religions,
IMO), it's easy to switch cause and effect- the integration is created
by us, not by the Universe.
More to the point, of course, it's completely unscientific. So why
discuss it in an astronomy forum? There's clearly no relationship at
all between astronomy and astrology, and there wouldn't be even if
astrology worked.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 14:21:15
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:8rut43lmlbpi6d5g1ib1k9p7agmu3btqda@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:04:21 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote:
>
>>Only red neck, neanderthal idiots like you don't have the capacity to
>>consider
>>another point of view. Try this on for size
>>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/193/story_19389_1.html
>>
>>The Enchanted Universe. Richard Tarnas.
>
> What other point of view would that be? There's nothing in the article
> to suggest that the author is different from any other astrologer,
> simply finding post hoc connections between astronomical and human
> events. The fallacy of that has been shown statistically many times,
> and should be pretty obvious to anybody who takes the time to think
> about it. Maybe you are referring to his philosophical argument that
> we should be part of an integrated universe? Hardly new, and while
> it's a reasonable model (better than that provided by most religions,
> IMO), it's easy to switch cause and effect- the integration is created
> by us, not by the Universe.
>
> More to the point, of course, it's completely unscientific. So why
> discuss it in an astronomy forum? There's clearly no relationship at
> all between astronomy and astrology, and there wouldn't be even if
> astrology worked.
Tarnas elevates the topic beyond "garbage". He spent years with others
amassing
real correlations of worldly events with alignments that step outside of
pure chance.
If you want to view the universe in a separated, mechanistic, detached way
that is
the pure "scientific" mode then sure..go ahead. He just says, go ahead and
take a look
into something that may or may not add to the grand mystery around us.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 10:16:34
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:21:15 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote:
>Tarnas elevates the topic beyond "garbage". He spent years with others
>amassing
>real correlations of worldly events with alignments that step outside of
>pure chance.
Well, others have made the same claim, and all have been bogus. On the
other hand, good scientific tests have been applied to astrology and
clearly shown it has no merit. So I don't plan on wasting my money or
time reading this guy's work.
>If you want to view the universe in a separated, mechanistic, detached way
>that is
>the pure "scientific" mode then sure..go ahead.
The idea of a "separated, mechanistic, detached" universe is no more
"scientific" than an astrological one. Either way, it reflects a
misunderstanding of science.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 16:30:01
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:5e1u439mvu539daiunb05mtjvbl3i8aahu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:21:15 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote:
>
>>Tarnas elevates the topic beyond "garbage". He spent years with others
>>amassing
>>real correlations of worldly events with alignments that step outside of
>>pure chance.
>
> Well, others have made the same claim, and all have been bogus. On the
> other hand, good scientific tests have been applied to astrology and
> clearly shown it has no merit. So I don't plan on wasting my money or
> time reading this guy's work.
>
>
>>If you want to view the universe in a separated, mechanistic, detached way
>>that is
>>the pure "scientific" mode then sure..go ahead.
>
> The idea of a "separated, mechanistic, detached" universe is no more
> "scientific" than an astrological one. Either way, it reflects a
> misunderstanding of science.
1: Your last paragraph makes no sense. Explain it.
2: Tarnas clearifies astrology since many or most have a wrong idea of it
and rightly so.
The biggest error is that the planets having a direct causal influence on
life and circumstance. That
is the big misunderstanding. The story of the birth on Christ even takes on
astrologic "meaning" ..ie.
The Magi and "the star". You can't get beyond this because it is integral
in the story of the the birth
of Christ. Anyway, I like the idea that there is more out there and around
us rather than a pointless
random universe of matter, energy and "physical laws" of which we aren't
apart of or connected to on some
level.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 19:14:02
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:30:01 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com > wrote:
>> The idea of a "separated, mechanistic, detached" universe is no more
>> "scientific" than an astrological one. Either way, it reflects a
>> misunderstanding of science.
>
>1: Your last paragraph makes no sense. Explain it.
Science isn't about finding "meaning" ("separated", "detached"), nor
is it about strictly mechanistic answers. It's simply a method for
understanding and explaining natural phenomena.
>2: Anyway, I like the idea that there is more out there and around
>us rather than a pointless
>random universe of matter, energy and "physical laws" of which we aren't
>apart of or connected to on some
> level.
"Pointless" and "random" are philosophical ideas. There's nothing
wrong with your desire to feel connected to the Universe, but
astrology and other religions aren't the only way to get there. I feel
strongly connected to everything, and the more I understand the
workings of things (scientifically), the more I feel that way, and the
more I appreciate the inter-connectedness of everything. It's physical
laws that provide the connectedness!
I find scientists to be some of the most spiritual people around, even
though most are not religious (nor astrological!) Science reduces
detachment, it doesn't increase it.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 16:22:55
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> Science reduces detachment, it doesn't increase it.
<nitpick >
It reduces *genuine* detachment. It might very well increase the
detachments of specious connections.
</nitpick >
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 00:14:59
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Ya, when a scientist says they believe in God I laugh.
The 2 are mutually exclusive. Believing in God isn't any different than
believing in the planets and what they indicate about world events and
humanity too.
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
news:f2o0sf$ifq$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> Science reduces detachment, it doesn't increase it.
>
> <nitpick>
> It reduces *genuine* detachment. It might very well increase the
> detachments of specious connections.
> </nitpick>
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 14:22:55
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
TMA wrote:
> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:5e1u439mvu539daiunb05mtjvbl3i8aahu@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:21:15 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tarnas elevates the topic beyond "garbage". He spent years with others
>>>amassing
>>>real correlations of worldly events with alignments that step outside of
>>>pure chance.
>>
>> Well, others have made the same claim, and all have been bogus. On the
>> other hand, good scientific tests have been applied to astrology and
>> clearly shown it has no merit. So I don't plan on wasting my money or
>> time reading this guy's work.
>>
>>
>>>If you want to view the universe in a separated, mechanistic, detached way
>>>that is
>>>the pure "scientific" mode then sure..go ahead.
>>
>> The idea of a "separated, mechanistic, detached" universe is no more
>> "scientific" than an astrological one. Either way, it reflects a
>> misunderstanding of science.
>
>
> 1: Your last paragraph makes no sense. Explain it.
>
> 2: Tarnas clearifies astrology since many or most have a wrong idea of it
> and rightly so.
That's "clarifies."
The idea that somehow the position of planets at the moment of our birth
somehow affects our lives is bogus. The question here is how?? Gravity?
Does Pluto affect us, does Eris, does Sedna, does Ceres, does the small
Earth grazer Apophis (an asteroid which might affect us, but only if it
hit the Earth)?
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 20:28:36
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
"Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:pe2dnSYrJPA9wdLbnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> TMA wrote:
>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> news:5e1u439mvu539daiunb05mtjvbl3i8aahu@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:21:15 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tarnas elevates the topic beyond "garbage". He spent years with others
>>>>amassing
>>>>real correlations of worldly events with alignments that step outside of
>>>>pure chance.
>>>
>>> Well, others have made the same claim, and all have been bogus. On the
>>> other hand, good scientific tests have been applied to astrology and
>>> clearly shown it has no merit. So I don't plan on wasting my money or
>>> time reading this guy's work.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you want to view the universe in a separated, mechanistic, detached
>>>>way
>>>>that is
>>>>the pure "scientific" mode then sure..go ahead.
>>>
>>> The idea of a "separated, mechanistic, detached" universe is no more
>>> "scientific" than an astrological one. Either way, it reflects a
>>> misunderstanding of science.
>>
>>
>> 1: Your last paragraph makes no sense. Explain it.
>>
>> 2: Tarnas clearifies astrology since many or most have a wrong idea of it
>> and rightly so.
>
> That's "clarifies."
>
> The idea that somehow the position of planets at the moment of our birth
> somehow affects our lives is bogus. The question here is how?? Gravity?
> Does Pluto affect us, does Eris, does Sedna, does Ceres, does the small
> Earth grazer Apophis (an asteroid which might affect us, but only if it
> hit the Earth)?
You are exactly of the misinformed. Read Tarnus's stuff and review.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 12:24:52
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
TMA wrote:
> "Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:pe2dnSYrJPA9wdLbnZ2dnUVZ_s2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> TMA wrote:
>>> "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:5e1u439mvu539daiunb05mtjvbl3i8aahu@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 14:21:15 GMT, "TMA" <TMA@nospan.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tarnas elevates the topic beyond "garbage". He spent years with others
>>>>>amassing
>>>>>real correlations of worldly events with alignments that step outside of
>>>>>pure chance.
>>>>
>>>> Well, others have made the same claim, and all have been bogus. On the
>>>> other hand, good scientific tests have been applied to astrology and
>>>> clearly shown it has no merit. So I don't plan on wasting my money or
>>>> time reading this guy's work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you want to view the universe in a separated, mechanistic, detached
>>>>>way
>>>>>that is
>>>>>the pure "scientific" mode then sure..go ahead.
>>>>
>>>> The idea of a "separated, mechanistic, detached" universe is no more
>>>> "scientific" than an astrological one. Either way, it reflects a
>>>> misunderstanding of science.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1: Your last paragraph makes no sense. Explain it.
>>>
>>> 2: Tarnas clearifies astrology since many or most have a wrong idea of it
>>> and rightly so.
>>
>> That's "clarifies."
>>
>> The idea that somehow the position of planets at the moment of our birth
>> somehow affects our lives is bogus. The question here is how?? Gravity?
>> Does Pluto affect us, does Eris, does Sedna, does Ceres, does the small
>> Earth grazer Apophis (an asteroid which might affect us, but only if it
>> hit the Earth)?
>
> You are exactly of the misinformed. Read Tarnus's stuff and review.
I looked quickly at his website--full of BS basically--lots of
pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. The idea that somehow the position of
planets at the moment of our birth affects our lives in any way is still
bogus.
The effect of gravity on the Earth from any planetary object other than
the Moon and the Sun (tides) is nil (though if Apophis ever gets
captured by the Earth's gravity and smacks into us, it won't be pretty).
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 22:31:50
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 12:24:52 -0600, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net >
wrote:
>I looked quickly at his website--full of BS basically--lots of
>pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. The idea that somehow the position of
>planets at the moment of our birth affects our lives in any way is still
>bogus.
>
>The effect of gravity on the Earth from any planetary object other than
>the Moon and the Sun (tides) is nil (though if Apophis ever gets
>captured by the Earth's gravity and smacks into us, it won't be pretty).
I doubt Tarnas says this. In fact, I've never heard an astrologer make
any such claim. The whole issue with gravity is actually a straw man,
set up unfortunately by scientists. Astrologers don't say that planets
influence people through some known force like gravity. Rather, they
claim that the motions of the planets and the "motions" of people are
in some sort of synchrony. It's as if you had a pair of clocks;
knowing the state of one would allow you to know the state of the
other, even though there is nothing directly connecting the two.
Challenging astrology with physics can never work. It is, however,
easily tested scientifically, and such tests have clearly shown that
astrological claims have no merit.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 21:46:17
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 12:24:52 -0600, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I looked quickly at his website--full of BS basically--lots of
>>pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. The idea that somehow the position of
>>planets at the moment of our birth affects our lives in any way is still
>>bogus.
>>
>>The effect of gravity on the Earth from any planetary object other than
>>the Moon and the Sun (tides) is nil (though if Apophis ever gets
>>captured by the Earth's gravity and smacks into us, it won't be pretty).
>
> I doubt Tarnas says this. In fact, I've never heard an astrologer make
> any such claim. The whole issue with gravity is actually a straw man,
> set up unfortunately by scientists.
Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is the
only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect someone at a
distance.
> Astrologers don't say that planets
> influence people through some known force like gravity. Rather, they
> claim that the motions of the planets and the "motions" of people are
> in some sort of synchrony. It's as if you had a pair of clocks;
> knowing the state of one would allow you to know the state of the
> other, even though there is nothing directly connecting the two.
>
> Challenging astrology with physics can never work. It is, however,
> easily tested scientifically, and such tests have clearly shown that
> astrological claims have no merit.
Which is not too surprising, actually. Wife, who believes in some things
like astrology, but also is interested in "real" cosmology (Hawking,
Kaku, Einstein, etc.), claims scientists don't have an open mind about
astrology.
I know how Newtonian and Einsteinian physics work (haven't figured out
string theory though). I can't even begin to fathom how astrology could
ever predict anything about a person accurately, let alone figure out a
way to test it scientifically.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 17:54:48
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
>> I doubt Tarnas says this. In fact, I've never heard an astrologer make
>> any such claim. The whole issue with gravity is actually a straw man,
>> set up unfortunately by scientists.
>
> Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is the
> only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect someone at a
> distance.
That's why you're Pat O'Connell and Richard Tarnas is Richard Tarnas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 23:02:38
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
TMA wrote:
>>> I doubt Tarnas says this. In fact, I've never heard an astrologer
>>> make any such claim. The whole issue with gravity is actually a
>>> straw man, set up unfortunately by scientists.
>>
>> Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is
>> the only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect
>> someone at a distance.
>
> That's why you're Pat O'Connell and Richard Tarnas is Richard Tarnas.
I read a bit of Tarnas's website, and concluded that it's all
gobbledygook. I'm glad I'm not Richard Tarnas, as I can actually sleep
well at night knowing I'm not trying to flimflam anyone. I quote:
"The basic principle of astrology is that the planets have a
fundamental, cosmically based connection to specific archetypal forces
or principles which influence human existence, and that the patterns
formed by the planets in the heavens bear a meaningful correspondence to
the patterns of human affairs on the Earth. "
Sorry--this is supposedly the basis of astrology per Mr. Tarnas, but
really makes no sense at all. He better turn his PhD back in, and get a
real one.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 14:56:18
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
"Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:28ednbTmbszx5M_bnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com...
> TMA wrote:
>>>> I doubt Tarnas says this. In fact, I've never heard an astrologer
>>>> make any such claim. The whole issue with gravity is actually a
>>>> straw man, set up unfortunately by scientists.
>>>
>>> Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is
>>> the only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect
>>> someone at a distance.
>>
>> That's why you're Pat O'Connell and Richard Tarnas is Richard Tarnas.
>
> I read a bit of Tarnas's website, and concluded that it's all
> gobbledygook. I'm glad I'm not Richard Tarnas, as I can actually sleep
> well at night knowing I'm not trying to flimflam anyone. I quote:
>
> "The basic principle of astrology is that the planets have a fundamental,
> cosmically based connection to specific archetypal forces or principles
> which influence human existence, and that the patterns formed by the
> planets in the heavens bear a meaningful correspondence to the patterns of
> human affairs on the Earth. "
>
> Sorry--this is supposedly the basis of astrology per Mr. Tarnas, but
> really makes no sense at all. He better turn his PhD back in, and get a
> real one.
He borrows from Jungian psychology of sychronicity and archetypes. The fact
is, it's equally
ridiculous to profess a God isn't it? Unless of course you into stroking
the status quo.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 09:19:58
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
TMA wrote:
> "Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:28ednbTmbszx5M_bnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> TMA wrote:
>>>>> I doubt Tarnas says this. In fact, I've never heard an astrologer
>>>>> make any such claim. The whole issue with gravity is actually a
>>>>> straw man, set up unfortunately by scientists.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is
>>>> the only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect
>>>> someone at a distance.
>>>
>>> That's why you're Pat O'Connell and Richard Tarnas is Richard Tarnas.
>>
>> I read a bit of Tarnas's website, and concluded that it's all
>> gobbledygook. I'm glad I'm not Richard Tarnas, as I can actually sleep
>> well at night knowing I'm not trying to flimflam anyone. I quote:
>>
>> "The basic principle of astrology is that the planets have a fundamental,
>> cosmically based connection to specific archetypal forces or principles
>> which influence human existence, and that the patterns formed by the
>> planets in the heavens bear a meaningful correspondence to the patterns of
>> human affairs on the Earth. "
>>
>> Sorry--this is supposedly the basis of astrology per Mr. Tarnas, but
>> really makes no sense at all. He better turn his PhD back in, and get a
>> real one.
>
>
> He borrows from Jungian psychology of sychronicity and archetypes. The fact
> is, it's equally
> ridiculous to profess a God isn't it? Unless of course you into stroking
> the status quo.
Professing a belief in a deity makes just as much sense as
astrology--which is not much.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 May 2007 23:12:42
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:19:58 -0600, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net >
wrote:
>Professing a belief in a deity makes just as much sense as
>astrology--which is not much.
Not necessarily. It is possible for a scientist to believe in a
non-interfering deity as a matter of faith, and there's no
contradiction with science. It's only in accepting a deity that
produces miracles, or taking literally much of the allegory found in
religious writings that can't be reconciled with science. The latter
is logically equivalent to astrology, the former is not. No scientist
can be a biblical literalist, for instance, any more than he can be an
astrologer.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 08:12:16
From: Paul Schlyter
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
In article <nub753l06h75gpamjjqv4ucbv05vgsa3n4@4ax.com >,
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:19:58 -0600, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Professing a belief in a deity makes just as much sense as
>> astrology--which is not much.
>
> Not necessarily. It is possible for a scientist to believe in a
> non-interfering deity as a matter of faith, and there's no
> contradiction with science.
It is possible for a scientist to believe in an interfering deity, and
remain consistent, if the proposed interference by the deity does not
contradict available empirical evidence. For instance one could
believe in a deity which created the world ten seconds ago, in that
state, including artefacts, our memories, as well as other remnants
from what we believe is from a time earlier than that. We cannot
scientifically prove this didn't happen - although we of course
dismiss this alternative for other reasons (Occam's Razor).
It is also possible for a scientist to believe in a deity which
interferes in ways which contradicts science, if those contradictions
appear in a field outside the expertise of this scientist. Today a
scientist must specialize - outside his field of expertise, and
perhaps also some adjacent fields, the scientist is merely a
layperson, like the rest of us. Historians for instance dismissed
Velikovsky's history as garbage but could be impressed by his
astronomy, while astronomers did the opposite: they dismissed
Velikovsky's astronomy but could be impressed by his history.
Finally, it is even possible for a scientist to believe in a deity
which interferes in ways which contradicts science even within his
field of expertise. After all, scientists are humans with human
weaknesses, they aren't flawless "logic machines". Perhaps the
scientist went through some personal crisis and found some religion to
be a way to carry him through the crisis? A probable outcome of such
an event would be that the parson ceased being a scientist. That
happened to e.g. Emanuel Swedenborg, who even founded his own religion
which still has some followers - before that he was a respected
scientist of his time.
> It's only in accepting a deity that produces miracles, or taking
> literally much of the allegory found in religious writings that can't
> be reconciled with science. The latter is logically equivalent to
> astrology, the former is not. No scientist can be a biblical literalist,
> for instance, any more than he can be an astrologer.
A scientist cannot be a believing astrologer, true, but he could still
practice astrology (without believing in it) to e.g. fund his
astronomical research. Kepler and Tycho Brahe both did that. For a
contemporary scientist it would be more problematic though: if he did
this, he would appear as a charlatan and lose his scientific
credibility. To try to avoid this he could practice astrology in
secret, but then he'd face a different problem: finding enough
customers to make his astrological practice profitable enough....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 06:48:29
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 08:12:16 GMT, pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
>It is possible for a scientist to believe in an interfering deity, and
>remain consistent, if the proposed interference by the deity does not
>contradict available empirical evidence...
Of course, it's possible to construct a variety of scenarios like
this. But basically, a scientist can't believe in an interfering deity
in the way that's usually taken, or as interpreted by nearly every
theistic religion (because that would produce observations that
contradict natural law, and we don't see that).
>A scientist cannot be a believing astrologer, true, but he could still
>practice astrology (without believing in it) to e.g. fund his
>astronomical research. Kepler and Tycho Brahe both did that. For a
>contemporary scientist it would be more problematic though: if he did
>this, he would appear as a charlatan and lose his scientific
>credibility. To try to avoid this he could practice astrology in
>secret, but then he'd face a different problem: finding enough
>customers to make his astrological practice profitable enough....
A "scientist" a few hundred years ago was quite a different thing than
one today. I'd certainly refuse to call anybody these days a scientist
if they practiced astrology (whether publicly or not) - even if part
of their life was spent practicing science.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2007 05:10:13
From: TMA
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:nub753l06h75gpamjjqv4ucbv05vgsa3n4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:19:58 -0600, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Professing a belief in a deity makes just as much sense as
>>astrology--which is not much.
>
> Not necessarily. It is possible for a scientist to believe in a
> non-interfering deity as a matter of faith, and there's no
> contradiction with science. It's only in accepting a deity that
> produces miracles, or taking literally much of the allegory found in
> religious writings that can't be reconciled with science. The latter
> is logically equivalent to astrology, the former is not. No scientist
> can be a biblical literalist, for instance, any more than he can be an
> astrologer.
Whatever......
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 01:12:20
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 21:46:17 -0600, Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net >
wrote:
>Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is the
>only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect someone at a
>distance.
It's because you approach astrology as something subject to physical
laws that you need to find an "action at a distance". But astrology
doesn't necessarily argue that the mechanism involves anything like
that.
>I know how Newtonian and Einsteinian physics work (haven't figured out
>string theory though). I can't even begin to fathom how astrology could
>ever predict anything about a person accurately, let alone figure out a
>way to test it scientifically.
There's no need to figure out _how_ astrology works (which could be
hard) until you figure out _if_ it works (which is easy). You can set
up a very conventional experiment, complete with controls, to assess
whether any human traits, or actual events, correlate with planetary
positions. And such experiments have been performed, and show that
astrology is no more successful than random chance at predicting
either behavior or events.
Put a little differently, theorizing follows observation. If the
observation can be demonstrated as false, there's no need to continue
with the scientific process. With astrology, there's no repeatable
observation to test.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 21:41:55
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Pat O'Connell wrote:
> Well, it's the only "action at a distance" force we know of, so is the
> only way I can think of that a planet might actually affect someone at a
> distance.
Before we understood light as well as we do now, getting sunburns might
also have seemed to be some mysterious "action at a distance." That you
can't think of something else that might act at a distance is frankly
not very convincing. When it comes right down to it, you can't dispute
astrology on the basis of mechanism, because astrologers don't posit any
specific, falsifiable mechanism--for a very good reason: Anything they
could come up with would very likely be falsified in a New York minute.
Chris is right: Assuming that you take it upon yourself to dispute the
claims of astrology, the "right" way to do it is simply to show that it
doesn't work better than random chance, whatever its purported mechanism
might be. The perception that it does work is a reflection of the human
mind's poor adaptation to precise statistical thinking: We really don't
arrive at hypotheses in a deductive manner, generally speaking--it does
happen, but it's comparatively uncommon. More typically, we arrive at
an idea in some non-rational fashion, then attempt to confirm it by what
are putatively rational means. The problem, though, is that we quite
naturally place more weight on evidence that supports our ideas than on
that which denies them. So we remember the times when the astrological
predictions work, and ignore those times when they don't.
This happens to scientists, too, since they're human. It is primarily
the scientific community as a whole that is protected from this kind of
self-serving behavior...and only imperfectly at that.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 20:55:33
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Pat O'Connell <gypkap@comcast.net > wrote:
>
>I looked quickly at his website--full of BS basically--lots of
>pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. The idea that somehow the position of
>planets at the moment of our birth affects our lives in any way is still
>bogus.
>
>The effect of gravity on the Earth from any planetary object other than
>the Moon and the Sun (tides) is nil (though if Apophis ever gets
>captured by the Earth's gravity and smacks into us, it won't be pretty).
>
I also wonder just how regularly astrological alignments happen and
what the statistical chances are of there being an astrologically
significant alignment whenever something noteworthy happens. Then I'd
like to see an analysis showing whether there is any correlation
beyond chance. Maybe then I'd sit up and take note. However the last
scientific trial I saw, somewhere in the 1970's IIRC, showed
absolutely no correlation - in fact the astrological
alignments/significant happenings were slightly below that predicted
by mere chance.
Eugene L Griessel
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do
with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 15:58:37
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
Eugene Griessel wrote:
> I also wonder just how regularly astrological alignments happen and
> what the statistical chances are of there being an astrologically
> significant alignment whenever something noteworthy happens.
Something noteworthy is *always* ahppening. So the chances of there
being an astrologically significant alignment when something noteworthy
happens are the same as the chances of there simply being a significant
alignment.
A claim of astrological significance generally says much more about the
claimant than about the subject matter.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 May 2007 05:59:29
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology is garbage
|
brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>> I also wonder just how regularly astrological alignments happen and
>> what the statistical chances are of there being an astrologically
>> significant alignment whenever something noteworthy happens.
>
>Something noteworthy is *always* ahppening. So the chances of there
>being an astrologically significant alignment when something noteworthy
>happens are the same as the chances of there simply being a significant
>alignment.
>
>A claim of astrological significance generally says much more about the
>claimant than about the subject matter.
It should be possible to take a single "noteworthy" event type - say
earthquakes with a magnitude exceeding 7 (I have data for this going
back 45 years) - which occur fairly regularly (1 every 24 days on
average) and see what (if any) astrological alignments occurred at the
time.
I have already done this for the popular notion that the moon
phase/proximity influences earthquakes and shown it to be false.
No statistical correlation between earthquakes and the moon's position
whatever.
Eugene L Griessel
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do
with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 03:41:33
From:
Subject: Re: Scientific Astrology and RTRRT (Abstract) - The Revision of the Zodiac
|
BZZZT. You appear to be lost. Note the title of this group is in the
sci (science) hierarchy. We aren't interested in occult stuff here.
Bill
|
|
