Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Astrology: Setting the record straight

241 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Eagle Eye
By all means of respect, but astrology is NOT science. And that is a fact! Astrology is not based on anything that can be proven/verified and even said to be based on observable event. It is folklore and based on imaginative rules for when celestial bodies are in given positions.

I do not want to step on any toes and I respect that you enjoy and use Astrology, however, science is one thing that it most certainly is not! And you can hardly say that Astrology is the origin of many sciences. Philosophy was and from the early Greeks it was a mishmash of theology, astrology, mathematics, chemistry, physics and so on. Neither which can claim to be the origin of any of the others as they were all interdependent and interwoven :)

Best,

Badeskov

I hear you Badeskov, but the only "toes" you are stepping on are your own. Learn more first and build up your own knowledge base by asking good questions and studying before submitting your opinions as facts ~ especially when using the oft-abused word "science." Your opinions are not facts. They are just not. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
Theodore I just have to say you explain it SO WELL! Hats off! linked-image

I have much to learn about astrology and your posts are always excellent. Much respect! :tu:

Thanks Alara. It's just that some people allow their ignorance to substitute as knowledge ~ and they are not the same. Opinions are fine, but they are not facts, either based on knowledge or personal experiences misidentified as having validity ~ especially when some people use the word "science" as if it is written in stone ~ but are biases, or attempts to cover up gaps in their own knowledge base with comments that are stated as if they were in fact true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
Not by those who don't know what they are talking about ~ that's for sure ~ since people like that have no basis for their opinions, and they are "opinions" ~ when it comes to Astrology. The exact mechanism is astrophysical forces (known as electromagnetics) that directly influence geophysical life on Earth.

By all means of respect, but the notion that the electromagnetic fields of the planets has any significant impact on us here on Earth is, scientifically, utter nonsense. The Sun is by far the largest electromagnetic source in the solar system and by far outweighs all other planets combined. They completely drown out. It is like saying that you are affected by someone lighting a candle at a distance of 1000km with your self being bathed in light from a big spot light.

Indeed, unless solar flares are happening, the strongest electromagnetic fields we encounter are the Earths own and that generated by all the nice, electrical gadget we surround ourselves by. And the latter fluctuate so much that any minuscule addition from, say, Venus one would not be able to measure :)

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
I hear you Badeskov, but the only "toes" you are stepping on are your own. Learn more first and build up your own knowledge base by asking good questions and studying before submitting your opinions as facts ~ especially when using the oft-abused word "science." Your opinions are not facts. They are just not. Cheers.

Err...are you aware that badeskov actually is a scientist? He's not talking about personal opinions here, science is what he does for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
By all means of respect, but the notion that the electromagnetic fields of the planets has any significant impact on us here on Earth is, scientifically, utter nonsense. The Sun is by far the largest electromagnetic source in the solar system and by far outweighs all other planets combined. They completely drown out. It is like saying that you are affected by someone lighting a candle at a distance of 1000km with your self being bathed in light from a big spot light.

Indeed, unless solar flares are happening, the strongest electromagnetic fields we encounter are the Earths own and that generated by all the nice, electrical gadget we surround ourselves by. And the latter fluctuate so much that any minuscule addition from, say, Venus one would not be able to measure :)

Best,

Badeskov

That goes to show what you know Badeskov, or, rather, what you don't know.

Listen ~ every square foot of the Earth (including where you are now) is pierced by electro-magnetic lines of force. There is not a place on this planet where you can escape this physical fact.

It is not a "notion" and as a scientist Badeskov, you should have known this already.

You see, you learn something new every day.

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
Err...are you aware that badeskov actually is a scientist? He's not talking about personal opinions here, science is what he does for a living.

I am a scientist too. And I do it for a living. What is your point? That a "scientist" cannot have an opinion that is in error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
I hear you Badeskov, but the only "toes" you are stepping on are your own. Learn more first and build up your own knowledge base by asking good questions and studying before submitting your opinions as facts ~ especially when using the oft-abused word "science." Your opinions are not facts. They are just not. Cheers.

Thanks Theodore, I am good at stepping on my own toes ;) But unfortunately I have been studying some facts and this interaction that the whole Astrology system is based on is just non-existent. You can call it my opinion, but that doesn't mean that it isn't factual in a scientific sense. You claim that we are influenced by the electromagnetic fields of all the other planets. Well, a couple of science facts:

1) The sun is the strongest electromagnetic source in the solar system

2) When no solar flares are occurring, the strongest electromagnetic field is the Earth's own and what else we generate here on Earth

3) The impact from other planets are immeasurable

The above three are scientific facts and not my opinion, thus you cannot change. Yet, you claim that Astrology is a science even though the above 3 point clearly negates that. I am just wondering. :)

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
I am a scientist too. And I do it for a living. What is your point? That a "scientist" cannot have an opinion that is in error?

My point is that a person who actually is a scientist is far better qualified to comment on exactly what science entails.

Another one of my points is that since Astrology isn't a science then those who do Astrology aren't scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
Thanks Theodore, I am good at stepping on my own toes ;) But unfortunately I have been studying some facts and this interaction that the whole Astrology system is based on is just non-existent. You can call it my opinion, but that doesn't mean that it isn't factual in a scientific sense. You claim that we are influenced by the electromagnetic fields of all the other planets. Well, a couple of science facts:

1) The sun is the strongest electromagnetic source in the solar system

2) When no solar flares are occurring, the strongest electromagnetic field is the Earth's own and what else we generate here on Earth

3) The impact from other planets are immeasurable

The above three are scientific facts and not my opinion, thus you cannot change. Yet, you claim that Astrology is a science even though the above 3 point clearly negates that. I am just wondering. :)

Best,

Badeskov

Listen Badeskov, you seem to be confusing lots of things ~ especially about electromagnetic fields. Yes, the Sun is the source of all electomagnetic force. The arms of the Sun spread its rays throughout the entire solar system, and the planets modulate these magnetic forces as they orbit through this space.

No matter the level of sunspot activity ~ there are ALWAYS electromagnetic lines of force throughout ALL of the Earth ~ ALL THE TIME. Sometimes they are higher, other times, lower ~ but EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF THE EARTH ~ this planet ~ is always pierced by electromagnetic lines of force. All the time.

Astrologers "read" these modulations, based on mathematical princips discovered and outlined by the classical astrologer Johannes Kepler, and then forecasted based on thousands of years of observations and records of the influences, such as those on the weather, which I forecast using astrology, and based on the works of Ptolemy, Brahe, Galileo, and Kepler ~ all of them astrologers.

What you seem to not understand is based on your lack of knowledge of Astrology. Period. Once you gain some knowledge about what you are talking about, then you will be able to make more sense, but, at this time, you are talking about the conventional practice of science ~ NOT science itself. There are many, many applications of the sciences, and your use of the word in a monolethic manner does not justify your statements on Astrology, or science for that matter.

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
My point is that a person who actually is a scientist is far better qualified to comment on exactly what science entails.

Another one of my points is that since Astrology isn't a science then those who do Astrology aren't scientists.

Wrong. Just plain wrong Lily. You haven't a faint clue as to what you are saying about Astrology, science, etc. You just don't. Suggest you read and study more Lily, and leave the commenting on what is and what is not Astrology, or science, to those who do know. It's not personal man, but, obviously, you seem to be lazy by just saying whatever, but, you don't know what you are talking about.

In your terms, people like Brahe, Kepler, Galileo are not "scientists" since they were astrologers, right? Kepler, who discovered the laws of planetary motion, the classical astrologer, is not a scientist? Yeah, right, and the sky is not blue. Get real Lily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
based on the works of Ptolemy, Brahe, Galileo, and Kepler ~ all of them astrologers.

All of them astronomers too. Their scientific works (in Astronomy) have stood the test of time and are still accepted by real scientists. There superstitions (Astrology) have not stood up to scientific scrutiny which is why you will find no real astronomers (scientists) practising astrology and why no reputable university teaches astrology as a science (or at all).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Wrong. Just plain wrong Lily. You haven't a faint clue as to what you are saying about Astrology, science, etc. You just don't. Suggest you read and study more Lily, and leave the commenting on what is and what is not Astrology, or science, to those who do know. It's not personal man, but, obviously, you seem to be lazy by just saying whatever, but, you don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, so let's see what a real Astronomer has to say about Astrology: see link to Dr. Phil Plait's take on all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
Listen Badeskov, you seem to be confusing lots of things ~ especially about electromagnetic fields. Yes, the Sun is the source of all electomagnetic force. The arms of the Sun spread its rays throughout the entire solar system, and the planets modulate these magnetic forces as they orbit through this space.

Sorry, but you are the one confusing terms. The sun is NOT the source of all the electromagnetic fields, only a source. All the planets have magnetic fields, just weaker! Secondly, while the planets have an insignificant influence on the Suns' electromagnetic field, you cannot measure that here on Earth. That is nonsense - pure and simple. And, that my friend, is a scientific fact! The effect is so small (yes, one can actually sit down an calculate that) that your TV would completely drown it out, thus you would be basing your Astrology on what's on TV rather than the planets.

No matter the level of sunspot activity ~ there are ALWAYS electromagnetic lines of force throughout ALL of the Earth ~ ALL THE TIME. Sometimes they are higher, other times, lower ~ but EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF THE EARTH ~ this planet ~ is always pierced by electromagnetic lines of force. All the time.

Of course there is, but the question is how strong they are and unfortunately they are so week as to be drowned out by Earths own magnetic field + whatever electronics gear that you are running.

Astrologers "read" these modulations, based on mathematical princips discovered and outlined by the classical astrologer Johannes Kepler, and then forecasted based on thousands of years of observations and records of the influences, such as those on the weather, which I forecast using astrology, and based on the works of Ptolemy, Brahe, Galileo, and Kepler ~ all of them astrologers.

Again, you cannot read those modulations. Scientific fact.

What you seem to not understand is based on your lack of knowledge of Astrology. Period. Once you gain some knowledge about what you are talking about, then you will be able to make more sense, but, at this time, you are talking about the conventional practice of science ~ NOT science itself. There are many, many applications of the sciences, and your use of the word in a monolethic manner does not justify your statements on Astrology, or science for that matter.

Yes, I am talking about conventional science. The other science is pseudoscience, and that is where Astrology belongs.

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
Ok, so let's see what a real Astronomer has to say about Astrology: see link to Dr. Phil Plait's take on all this.

Who cares? Listen, astronomers are not philosophers. They are stellar cartographers. Astronomy is a branch of Classical Astrology. Always has been. The branch of "astronomy" is the naming, identification and mapping of celestial bodies. It is a branch that all professional astrologers have had to learn, as that of Meteorology, and the other branches of Classical Astrology. The most famous were classical astrologers. All of them.

I think what you are having a problem with is that you were trained in conventional science, which, as I've said, is very young, and has a bi-polar problem when dealing with science in general. Many of those who practice conventional forms of science have always been the first to deny that which we now know to be true, and the last to admit it. You will find conventional scientists who said that manned flight would never happen, etc., etc., when we all know that indeed it did. Or that man would never get into space. We know that this has happened. See my point here?

So, going out and finding a conventional "astronomer" who agrees with your view just doesn't cut the cake Lily, and no matter how many you want to find who do, it does not get you any closer to discovering just what it is that you are talking about.

The only thing that does that is STUDY. And ~ until you do some, you will continue to assert your own bias/opinion as facts when they are clearly not.

One more thing ~ I am a professional classical scientific astrologer with over 33 years of experience. I have written on, and taught the subject, and so, I suggest that you will do better to ask good questions rather than attempting to debate me because to be able to debate, you have to know the subject you are debating, and clearly, you don't know anything about Astrology.

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
Sorry, but you are the one confusing terms. The sun is NOT the source of all the electromagnetic fields, only a source. All the planets have magnetic fields, just weaker! Secondly, while the planets have an insignificant influence on the Suns' electromagnetic field, you cannot measure that here on Earth. That is nonsense - pure and simple. And, that my friend, is a scientific fact! The effect is so small (yes, one can actually sit down an calculate that) that your TV would completely drown it out, thus you would be basing your Astrology on what's on TV rather than the planets.

Of course there is, but the question is how strong they are and unfortunately they are so week as to be drowned out by Earths own magnetic field + whatever electronics gear that you are running.

Again, you cannot read those modulations. Scientific fact.

Yes, I am talking about conventional science. The other science is pseudoscience, and that is where Astrology belongs.

Best,

Badeskov

That's your opinion Badeskov ~ not fact. I suggest you do more study about the Sun, and about electromagnetic fields, and especially the fact that electromagnetics pierce every square foot of this planet. You should know this already, as I've said, and the fact that you do not seriously calls into question your knowledge of basic scientific facts ~ geophysical and astrophysical.

The Earth is not the only planet to display an influence on the formation of sunspots, though it is the most influential. Electron acceleration has been observed near Jupiter, not only along magnetic field lines, but across the regular magnetic field and toward the Sun. In fact, some of these electrons have been noted in the Earth's orbit. An astrophysicist's comment reveals what could be expected of a time-varying accelerator, "the source acts for some days and is then switched off."

This is also true of the other planets, and this is one of the reasons why we observe planetary periods in solar activity. It has been known for a long time that planetary positions that create degree angles of 0o, 90o, 180o, 270o, or two planets at 180o with the third at 90o affect short-wave radio reception, and radio signals due to increased solar activity. These angles are typical of the dynamics of electric and magnetic field interactions. From 1952 onwards, forecasting based on this understanding alone has been 80% effective.

The Earth in an angular relationship with any of the other planets, such as Venus-Earth configurations, influences the formation of sunspots. Configurations involving Mercury, Earth and Venus show some of the greatest effects. A 110-day cycle of angular acceleration between Venus, Earth and Jupiter is correlated to energetic x-ray bursts. The sources can be noted in the observation that the solar wind is associated with the local depletion of ion concentrations in the Venus and Earth ionospheres.

The four outer, largest planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) are the most important for determining the position of the Sun, and the center of mass in the Solar System. The three closest (Mercury, Venus and Earth) are the most important for causing the jerk or change of acceleration of the Sun. These influences are the greatest gravitational effects, which are still far too weak to cause the observed shifts in solar activity.

The astrological terms used to describe the angles between the planets are conjunction (0o), square (90o), and opposition (180o), all of which are noted in effects on solar activity. When Venus and Earth are in opposition there are 60% more sunspots than during conjunction. When the Earth, Venus and Jupiter are in conjunction, there are even more sunspots. A study covering a 300-year period disclosed that sunspots increase when Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction, square and opposition. Uranus and Neptune are in square during maximums, and in conjunction or opposition during minimums. The positions of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter are correlated with solar proton events.

Mercury's revolution around the Sun is also a solar cycle (87.976 days). When Venus, Earth and Jupiter are on the same side of the Sun with Mercury at closest approach (perihelion) the effect doubles. That is, Mercury's orbital period in sunspot data also depends on the phases of Venus, Earth and Jupiter. The conclusions from the data are clear: "There is a close link between various planetary alignments and the dates of sunspot maxima and minima."

The influence is a combination of electromagnetic fields in dynamic interaction that overcome the gravitational (tidal) forces. This is why studies that claim gravitational forces are responsible have been put into the skeptics corner, so to speak, and have somewhat discredited this whole area of study. Gravitational forces are far too weak to be responsible for the effects.

This electromagnetic long-range force is also why there are planetary periods in sunspots. What particularly illustrates this is that Pluto, the farthest (most of the time) and smallest of the planets, has a period that shows up in sunspot data. The influence cannot possibly be gravitational, as a scientist exclaims: "These planetary influences cannot be gravitational, but must be magnetic or electrical in character." Planetary positions have been used to predict solar flares, which is not explainable by gravitational effects. A scientist studying planetary positions and solar activity makes a comment that reflects the limitations of present perspectives: "There was as yet no understanding of why this should be."

The five outer planets' orbital (synodic) periods display close associations with sunspot periods, with the exception of Neptune. A scientist expresses concern over this enigma: "Note that, in spite of its size and great distance from the Sun, Pluto is included as one of the planets involved in a synodic period associated with a sunspot period. This is most surprising. Pluto is the most eccentric of the planets; Neptune, next to Venus, is the least eccentric. In fact, Neptune's orbit is almost exactly circular."

The reason Neptune's synodic period does not show up in sunspot periods is due to the way in which Neptune's magnetic field is offset in relation to the ecliptic plane and the IMF. It is not anywhere near the angular interactions that the other planets have with the IMF. This is also evident in lower radio emissions and an offset auroral zone that rotates with Neptune away from the Sun and the IMF.

Not only do planetary synodic periods correlate with solar activity, but also variations from orbital eccentricity are found in sunspot periods. Conjunctions of Jupiter and the center of mass of the Solar System (barycenter) have been used to predict energetic x-ray flares. Planetary effects on solar activity have been shown in numerous other studies. Many scientists acknowledge that the effect is not gravitational (i.e., tidal).

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
...One more thing ~ I am a professional classical scientific astrologer with over 33 years of experience. I have written on, and taught the subject, and so, I suggest that you will do better to ask good questions rather than attempting to debate me because to be able to debate, you have to know the subject you are debating, and clearly, you don't know anything about Astrology.

I'm not talking about the specific details of Astrology, I'm talking about Science. And, science is something I do know something about (not as much as badeskov...but I can hold my own). BTW, how about answering badeskov regarding electromagnetism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
I'm not talking about the specific details of Astrology, I'm talking about Science. And, science is something I do know something about (not as much as badeskov...but I can hold my own). BTW, how about answering badeskov regarding electromagnetism?

I already did.

As for details about Astrology, listen Lilly, you just don't exhibit any knowledge at all about Astrology, and no, you are not "holding your own" against me. I am a professional astrologer, a teacher, and you are going to have to make a quantum leap in your knowledge to hold anything when it comes to astrology.

I suggest you study more, and for many more years, before attempting to take on the likes of me. You are out of your wieght class. It is better to learn from a teacher. Not debate him ~ especially when he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the omni-science of Classical Astrology and its related topics.

Try some scientific Astrology basics ~

The Earth is not the only planet to display an influence on the formation of sunspots, though it is the most influential. Electron acceleration has been observed near Jupiter, not only along magnetic field lines, but across the regular magnetic field and toward the Sun. In fact, some of these electrons have been noted in the Earth's orbit. An astrophysicist's comment reveals what could be expected of a time-varying accelerator, "the source acts for some days and is then switched off."

This is also true of the other planets, and this is one of the reasons why we observe planetary periods in solar activity. It has been known for a long time that planetary positions that create degree angles of 0o, 90o, 180o, 270o, or two planets at 180o with the third at 90o affect short-wave radio reception, and radio signals due to increased solar activity. These angles are typical of the dynamics of electric and magnetic field interactions. From 1952 onwards, forecasting based on this understanding alone has been 80% effective.

The Earth in an angular relationship with any of the other planets, such as Venus-Earth configurations, influences the formation of sunspots. Configurations involving Mercury, Earth and Venus show some of the greatest effects. A 110-day cycle of angular acceleration between Venus, Earth and Jupiter is correlated to energetic x-ray bursts. The sources can be noted in the observation that the solar wind is associated with the local depletion of ion concentrations in the Venus and Earth ionospheres.

The four outer, largest planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) are the most important for determining the position of the Sun, and the center of mass in the Solar System. The three closest (Mercury, Venus and Earth) are the most important for causing the jerk or change of acceleration of the Sun. These influences are the greatest gravitational effects, which are still far too weak to cause the observed shifts in solar activity.

The astrological terms used to describe the angles between the planets are conjunction (0o), square (90o), and opposition (180o), all of which are noted in effects on solar activity. When Venus and Earth are in opposition there are 60% more sunspots than during conjunction. When the Earth, Venus and Jupiter are in conjunction, there are even more sunspots. A study covering a 300-year period disclosed that sunspots increase when Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction, square and opposition. Uranus and Neptune are in square during maximums, and in conjunction or opposition during minimums. The positions of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter are correlated with solar proton events.

Mercury's revolution around the Sun is also a solar cycle (87.976 days). When Venus, Earth and Jupiter are on the same side of the Sun with Mercury at closest approach (perihelion) the effect doubles. That is, Mercury's orbital period in sunspot data also depends on the phases of Venus, Earth and Jupiter. The conclusions from the data are clear: "There is a close link between various planetary alignments and the dates of sunspot maxima and minima."

The influence is a combination of electromagnetic fields in dynamic interaction that overcome the gravitational (tidal) forces. This is why studies that claim gravitational forces are responsible have been put into the skeptics corner, so to speak, and have somewhat discredited this whole area of study. Gravitational forces are far too weak to be responsible for the effects.

This electromagnetic long-range force is also why there are planetary periods in sunspots. What particularly illustrates this is that Pluto, the farthest (most of the time) and smallest of the planets, has a period that shows up in sunspot data. The influence cannot possibly be gravitational, as a scientist exclaims: "These planetary influences cannot be gravitational, but must be magnetic or electrical in character." Planetary positions have been used to predict solar flares, which is not explainable by gravitational effects. A scientist studying planetary positions and solar activity makes a comment that reflects the limitations of present perspectives: "There was as yet no understanding of why this should be."

The five outer planets' orbital (synodic) periods display close associations with sunspot periods, with the exception of Neptune. A scientist expresses concern over this enigma: "Note that, in spite of its size and great distance from the Sun, Pluto is included as one of the planets involved in a synodic period associated with a sunspot period. This is most surprising. Pluto is the most eccentric of the planets; Neptune, next to Venus, is the least eccentric. In fact, Neptune's orbit is almost exactly circular."

The reason Neptune's synodic period does not show up in sunspot periods is due to the way in which Neptune's magnetic field is offset in relation to the ecliptic plane and the IMF. It is not anywhere near the angular interactions that the other planets have with the IMF. This is also evident in lower radio emissions and an offset auroral zone that rotates with Neptune away from the Sun and the IMF.

Not only do planetary synodic periods correlate with solar activity, but also variations from orbital eccentricity are found in sunspot periods. Conjunctions of Jupiter and the center of mass of the Solar System (barycenter) have been used to predict energetic x-ray flares. Planetary effects on solar activity have been shown in numerous other studies. Many scientists acknowledge that the effect is not gravitational (i.e., tidal).

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
Who cares? Listen, astronomers are not philosophers. They are stellar cartographers. Astronomy is a branch of Classical Astrology. Always has been. The branch of "astronomy" is the naming, identification and mapping of celestial bodies. It is a branch that all professional astrologers have had to learn, as that of Meteorology, and the other branches of Classical Astrology. The most famous were classical astrologers. All of them.

I think what you are having a problem with is that you were trained in conventional science, which, as I've said, is very young, and has a bi-polar problem when dealing with science in general. Many of those who practice conventional forms of science have always been the first to deny that which we now know to be true, and the last to admit it. You will find conventional scientists who said that manned flight would never happen, etc., etc., when we all know that indeed it did. Or that man would never get into space. We know that this has happened. See my point here?

So, going out and finding a conventional "astronomer" who agrees with your view just doesn't cut the cake Lily, and no matter how many you want to find who do, it does not get you any closer to discovering just what it is that you are talking about.

The only thing that does that is STUDY. And ~ until you do some, you will continue to assert your own bias/opinion as facts when they are clearly not.

One more thing ~ I am a professional classical scientific astrologer with over 33 years of experience. I have written on, and taught the subject, and so, I suggest that you will do better to ask good questions rather than attempting to debate me because to be able to debate, you have to know the subject you are debating, and clearly, you don't know anything about Astrology.

Well, conventional science evolved simply because there was too much pseudoscience, which includes Astrology, yes. It is based on a system of beliefs that are not verifiable, no matter how much you jump around and scream. I am sure it is fun and entertaining for some, including you, and I respect that, but the fact of the matter remains: astrology has nothing whatsoever to with science.

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
Well, conventional science evolved simply because there was too much pseudoscience, which includes Astrology, yes. It is based on a system of beliefs that are not verifiable, no matter how much you jump around and scream. I am sure it is fun and entertaining for some, including you, and I respect that, but the fact of the matter remains: astrology has nothing whatsoever to with science.

Best,

Badeskov

Your opinion ~ not fact. And no one is doing any "jump around and scream." You are talking to a professional classical scientific astrologer. It might be entertaining for you, but the fact of the matter is that I practice it as a science. A fact.

Conventional science did not evolve because of "too much pseudoscience" ~ it came about from the centuries of scientific exploration and discovery built upon legacy data and the hard work of classical astrologers such as Ptolemy, Plato, Brahe, Kepler, and many, many other classical astrologers.

Your facts are wrong Badeskov, and your views, narrow, biased, and not based on historical facts to the contrary.

Even the citation index, which you should know about as a scientist, was invented by a classical astrologer.

It would be much better if you actually knew what you are talking about. I suggest you scroll back up, and do more learning, and read more on Astrology as a science, and dump the pop-culture view you have, which is silly, and not befitting a scientist at all. If anything is "pseudo" it is that. Cheers.

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
That's your opinion Badeskov ~ not fact. I suggest you do more study about the Sun, and about electromagnetic fields, and especially the fact that electromagnetics pierce every square foot of this planet. You should know this already, as I've said, and the fact that you do not seriously calls into question your knowledge of basic scientific facts ~ geophysical and astrophysical.

The Earth is not the only planet to display an influence on the formation of sunspots, though it is the most influential. Electron acceleration has been observed near Jupiter, not only along magnetic field lines, but across the regular magnetic field and toward the Sun. In fact, some of these electrons have been noted in the Earth's orbit. An astrophysicist's comment reveals what could be expected of a time-varying accelerator, "the source acts for some days and is then switched off."

This is also true of the other planets, and this is one of the reasons why we observe planetary periods in solar activity. It has been known for a long time that planetary positions that create degree angles of 0o, 90o, 180o, 270o, or two planets at 180o with the third at 90o affect short-wave radio reception, and radio signals due to increased solar activity. These angles are typical of the dynamics of electric and magnetic field interactions. From 1952 onwards, forecasting based on this understanding alone has been 80% effective.

The Earth in an angular relationship with any of the other planets, such as Venus-Earth configurations, influences the formation of sunspots. Configurations involving Mercury, Earth and Venus show some of the greatest effects. A 110-day cycle of angular acceleration between Venus, Earth and Jupiter is correlated to energetic x-ray bursts. The sources can be noted in the observation that the solar wind is associated with the local depletion of ion concentrations in the Venus and Earth ionospheres.

The four outer, largest planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus) are the most important for determining the position of the Sun, and the center of mass in the Solar System. The three closest (Mercury, Venus and Earth) are the most important for causing the jerk or change of acceleration of the Sun. These influences are the greatest gravitational effects, which are still far too weak to cause the observed shifts in solar activity.

The astrological terms used to describe the angles between the planets are conjunction (0o), square (90o), and opposition (180o), all of which are noted in effects on solar activity. When Venus and Earth are in opposition there are 60% more sunspots than during conjunction. When the Earth, Venus and Jupiter are in conjunction, there are even more sunspots. A study covering a 300-year period disclosed that sunspots increase when Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction, square and opposition. Uranus and Neptune are in square during maximums, and in conjunction or opposition during minimums. The positions of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter are correlated with solar proton events.

Mercury's revolution around the Sun is also a solar cycle (87.976 days). When Venus, Earth and Jupiter are on the same side of the Sun with Mercury at closest approach (perihelion) the effect doubles. That is, Mercury's orbital period in sunspot data also depends on the phases of Venus, Earth and Jupiter. The conclusions from the data are clear: "There is a close link between various planetary alignments and the dates of sunspot maxima and minima."

The influence is a combination of electromagnetic fields in dynamic interaction that overcome the gravitational (tidal) forces. This is why studies that claim gravitational forces are responsible have been put into the skeptics corner, so to speak, and have somewhat discredited this whole area of study. Gravitational forces are far too weak to be responsible for the effects.

This electromagnetic long-range force is also why there are planetary periods in sunspots. What particularly illustrates this is that Pluto, the farthest (most of the time) and smallest of the planets, has a period that shows up in sunspot data. The influence cannot possibly be gravitational, as a scientist exclaims: "These planetary influences cannot be gravitational, but must be magnetic or electrical in character." Planetary positions have been used to predict solar flares, which is not explainable by gravitational effects. A scientist studying planetary positions and solar activity makes a comment that reflects the limitations of present perspectives: "There was as yet no understanding of why this should be."

The five outer planets' orbital (synodic) periods display close associations with sunspot periods, with the exception of Neptune. A scientist expresses concern over this enigma: "Note that, in spite of its size and great distance from the Sun, Pluto is included as one of the planets involved in a synodic period associated with a sunspot period. This is most surprising. Pluto is the most eccentric of the planets; Neptune, next to Venus, is the least eccentric. In fact, Neptune's orbit is almost exactly circular."

The reason Neptune's synodic period does not show up in sunspot periods is due to the way in which Neptune's magnetic field is offset in relation to the ecliptic plane and the IMF. It is not anywhere near the angular interactions that the other planets have with the IMF. This is also evident in lower radio emissions and an offset auroral zone that rotates with Neptune away from the Sun and the IMF.

Not only do planetary synodic periods correlate with solar activity, but also variations from orbital eccentricity are found in sunspot periods. Conjunctions of Jupiter and the center of mass of the Solar System (barycenter) have been used to predict energetic x-ray flares. Planetary effects on solar activity have been shown in numerous other studies. Many scientists acknowledge that the effect is not gravitational (i.e., tidal).

I will chew a bit on this one when I get home, as I am still at work.

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
I suggest you study more, and for many more years, before attempting to take on the likes of me. You are out of your wieght class. It is better to learn from a teacher. Not debate him ~ especially when he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the omni-science of Classical Astrology and its related topics.

Well, I've taught science for just as many years, perhaps you are out of your weight class? I have no desire to debate you on Astrology so please stop trying to change the subject. The subject here is: Astrology as a science. As for Astronomy having come forth from Astrology, no one is arguing this. However, this does not serve to support the contention that Astrology is a science.

Badeskov has pointed out to you that electromagnetism can not be the source for the claims Astrology makes. So, back to the the subject: What is the exact mechanism that allows for predictions about people's personalities and divining of the future? Oh, going on about electromagnetic effects on planetary motion does not serve to support this argument either. So, exactly how does electromagnetism or *something else* influence human behavior and the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
All of them astronomers too. Their scientific works (in Astronomy) have stood the test of time and are still accepted by real scientists. There superstitions (Astrology) have not stood up to scientific scrutiny which is why you will find no real astronomers (scientists) practising astrology and why no reputable university teaches astrology as a science (or at all).

Again ~ wrong. the first university was started by classical astrologers, and you can guess what the first subject taught was as well. And, there are reputable universities in the world that teaches astrology. The citation index, which is used in all academic/professional groups was the invention of a classical astrologer. Most, if not all, of the major chairs were manned by masters of mathematics, which is what classical astrologers were known as.

Astrology is NOT a superstition. Never has been. The only people who believe such things are the ignorant.

As for "scientific scrutiny" ~ it is very hard to prove anything if you don't know about the topic in the first place. The only people able to provide the scutiny are those versed in astrology.

Get your facts straight Waspie. Jeez.

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagle Eye
Well, I've taught science for just as many years, perhaps you are out of your weight class? I have no desire to debate you on Astrology so please stop trying to change the subject. The subject here is: Astrology as a science. As for Astronomy having come forth from Astrology, no one is arguing this. However, this does not serve to support the contention that Astrology is a science.

Badeskov has pointed out to you that electromagnetism can not be the source for the claims Astrology makes. So, back to the the subject: What is the exact mechanism that allows for predictions about people's personalities and divining of the future? Oh, going on about electromagnetic effects on planetary motion does not serve to support this argument either. So, exactly how does electromagnetism or *something else* influence human behavior and the future?

Hey, that's ok if you've taught your version of what you think constitutes "science" but that has nothing to do with Science as a whole, ok? And, you have been debating me ~ and not very well at that. Don't expect me to have to read your comments on Astrology stated as fact well at all since I find your knowledge base so suspect as to not be funny. You've made statements as if they are fact ~ when they are not Lilly ~ and you should know better.

As for Badeskov, he can speak for himself.

As for the "mechanism" that allows for predictions ~ in astrometeorology, it is the mathematical alignments of celestial bodies relative to the Earth, and the positions of the Sun and Moon relative to the Earth.

In nativities, it is time & space ~ the transits of a individual born in a time cycle ~ and the legacy data that astrologers have to determine future potentials.

Electromagnetism ~ your own body is based on electromagnetic energies, as is all life on Earth.

As for your term ~ "the claims that Astrology makes? ~ just how do you draw the nerve to make such a statement as this? The claims that Astrology makes? Who makes such claims?

Again, you are coming from a pop-culture "astrology" view that has no basis. Drop that view. Get some real texts and materials, and read them. That would greatly help.

Edited by Theodore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exeter

I personally rely on my lucky mood ring myself. There's nothing like this to shut you "scientific types" up. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Hey Exeter, is that mood ring of yours one of the blinky types? I really like the blinky ones! linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.