Moon in Pisces for scientists

[Ray Murphy]

Hi All,

The Gauquelin data for the 3646 scientists who were born over a 124
year period from 1794 to 1918 shows that people were always more
likely to become scientists if they had Moon in Pisces than in any
other moon sign.

Let's put it this way - if some alert astrologer had noticed the trend
after those first 100 scientists had qualified in about 1838 when each
of them had been at least 30 years of age, the increased Moon in
Pisces trend would have been quite strong, but nowhere near being
statistically significant because of the ridiculously low number of
scientists involved, but if another check was done after a running
total 200 scientists had qualified by 1844, the trend would have still
been there.

And so on it went:
300 qualified by 1851 trend still there
400 qualified by 1858 trend still there
500 qualified by 1863 trend still there
600 qualified by 1869 trend still there
700 qualified by 1873 trend still there
800 qualified by 1877 trend still there
900 qualified by 1880 trend still there
1000 qualified by 1883 trend still there
.............
3500 qualified by 1932 trend still there
3600 qualified by 1937 trend still there
3646 qualified by 1948 trend still there

The trend was always at least 11.5% more than the average, although
considerably higher in the earlier years and sitting on 12.5% above
average by the time 3646 had qualified.

Ray

[l martin]

cool being moon in pisces... i get it... my best skill being research...   keep up the good work. Linda/texas --- On Fri, 8/21/09, Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

[Ray Murphy]

On Aug 21, 8:44 pm, l martin <sleepswith2c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> cool being moon in pisces... i get it...
> my best skill being research...
>  
> keep up the good work.
> Linda/texas

RM: Well since I posted the above message a few hours ago I've found
that the Sun, Mer and Ven in Pisces have done pretty much the same
thing all along as well, but to a slightly lesser extent.

If MO or SU or ME or VE in Pisces are combined for a search in that
data, then 27.2% of those scientists had it, compared with the average
of 24.43% which makes it 11.1% higher.

I'll post some graphs to show that the continuity is certainly there
at any given point in the 3646 data. The percentage for all 4 bodies
was considerably higher than the average in the earlier years, with it
being about 20% higher with a quarter of the data counted - and about
15% higher at the half-way mark.

Ray