Scientific Evidence for Astrology
SDuraybito
Why should anyone need scientific evidence of astrology? Either you
believe it or you don't. Pretty simple, really.
L. Frederick File
>Why should anyone need scientific evidence of astrology? Either you
>believe it or you don't. Pretty simple, really.
Yeah, its just like god and Santa Claus!!
lff
Joe Clyde
Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
have ever been able to find.
vasanth S kothnur
Your argument is something like this :
The sun rises in the east everyday. I go to school everyday. Perfect
correlation exists between the two. Therfore I go to school everyday
because the sun rises in the east everyday..
Try to recognise the difference between whats real research and whats junk.
--vasanth
Joseph Koothrappally
Joe Clyde wrote:
> Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
You should have said statistical evidence, and tell yourself
that there are lies, and big lies, and then statistics.
> As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
> mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
> a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
> power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
> significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
> numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
> average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
> numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
> thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
> have ever been able to find.
I hope you did not attend the statistics 651 classes at Texas A&M.
FYI, regarding statistical significance did you know that the
null hypothesis was never accepted, and if you did gave your
answers that way, Dr. Ringer would give you a zipher with 1.0
probability? You can only reject it with certain amount of
confidence, based on probability. Also, you may need to realize
that statistics can be twisted around based on the way you
frame the questions, especially if there is flawed basis for the
comparison as well as flawed data.
They had a better chance of coming up with irrefutable
statistical differences if they compared the trajectory of
a tennis ball and the location of mars in their natal chart.
The reason for aggressiveness is in the genes and hormones,
and you can give some prozac and mess the mars theory down
the drain.
If planets had anything to do with you, move yourself
into another galaxy and think where the position of
mars is in the constellation, and how it can affect you.
Why are their still some people who believe in astrology?
If it works for you, you accept it, and if it does not,
you do not accept it. The ones who accept it become believers
and the rest become skeptics. The believers accept any errors
in astrology as a deviation and not as a chance in itself.
The bottom-line is that given enough information anything
is predictable, in the absence of it, any guess is 50% accurate
either way. If a Jyothishi can predict head-or-tails everytime
one tosses it, he will be 50% accurate too, in sufficient trials.
And some people like out net-con-man use
computers and the internet to make it look as
if it was all true, and legitimizes it by attempting
to be a spokesperson for women, children, and animals
(mostly of the same faith, usually).
Thanks
Joseph
Thomas D. Lowe
In article <lffile.116...@cais.com>, lff...@cais.com (L. Frederick
File) wrote:
> In article <324ACB...@holli.com> Joe Clyde <jcl...@holli.com> writes:
>
> >Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
>
> >As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
> >mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
> >a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
> >power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
> >significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
> >numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
> >average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
> >numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
> >thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
> >have ever been able to find.
>
> Sorry mate, lots of junk like that around but until it is replicated it is
> just junk.
There's really a very simple correlation, if one is willing to check up on it...
For some reason, the sign rising on the horizon (the Ascendant) has an
extremely marked affect on personal appearance. So much so, in fact, that
once one knows a person's sun sign, it is fairly easy to guess what time
they were born. I give it an extremely unscientific 90% correlation. In
such instances, there are usually very strong influences from other
planets.
This correlation is so unmistakable, and so reliable, that it gives
credence to the whole field.
Another interesting little tidbit - a woman cannot conceive unless the sun
and the moon are the exact same number of degrees apart as the moment of
her birth. 99% corr. I can give references to the paper, if anyone is
interested.
Just my $0.02. <plunk, plunk>
-- Daniel
Holla
Thomas D. Lowe (td...@nova.msstate.edu) wrote:
: .............. I can give references to the paper, if anyone is
: interested.
Yes! I am interested.
Please give us the references.
--
Padmanabha api swarNamayI lankA na mE lakshmaNa rOchatE |
Holla jananI janmabhUmischa swargAdapi garIyasi ||
______________________ http://shore.net/~holla
Brad Pettit
In article <324ADA...@cs.tamu.edu>, jos...@cs.tamu.edu wrote:
>>>>>> stuff deleted
>
> The reason for aggressiveness is in the genes and hormones,
> and you can give some prozac and mess the mars theory down
> the drain.
>
> If planets had anything to do with you, move yourself
> into another galaxy and think where the position of
> mars is in the constellation, and how it can affect you.
>
>>>>>> stuff deleted
>
> Thanks
> Joseph
Astrology doesn't state that Mars "causes" the effect, it states that
there is a correlation (which doesn't imply a causal relationship).
The furthest from the earth that a human being has ever been known to be
born is in an airplane while in the earth's atmosphere. So your second
argument has no substance.
As one recent book said, there is a 1.0 probability that other life exists
in the universe. However, the author also determined by the same reasoning
that the likelihood that this life is intelligent (as we refer to
intelligence, or self-awareness) is very small.
It is quite possible that our self awareness is a special gift. Can you
cite any study that indicates otherwise?
If this is a special occurrence, even if it's related to evolution, do you
believe that something (the planets) that has forever affected our
evolution ceased to do so in the past few hundred years? Or that the
effect is limited to what we see?
Have you ever calculated which has more gravitational influence on a child
at birth: A doctor standing in the delivery room, or the moon?
Have you ever become disoriented after moving to a new place? I recall
after growing up in Michigan, having spent 18 years with a large body of
water (Lake Huron) to the east, that, after moving to the West coast, my
internal compass took a long time to adapt to the change, even though I'm
still miles away from the ocean. And yet the moon has enough influence
that it moves the ocean.
I'd love it if somebody could "prove" astrology is wrong, however I have
seen too many coincidences in my life and the lives of others to stop
studying it. In fact, wouldn't it be great to be the person to prove it
wrong.
Does the possibility of something you can't explain scare you? Or maybe
astrology only applies to some people, while others are completely free
(or left out).
--Brad
Jyotishi
vs...@cornell.edu (vasanth S kothnur) wrote:
>In article <324ACB...@holli.com>, Joe Clyde <jcl...@holli.com> wrote:
>> Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
>>
>> As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
>> mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
>> a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
>> power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
>> significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
>> numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
>> average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
>> numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
>> thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
>> have ever been able to find.
>Your argument is something like this :
>The sun rises in the east everyday. I go to school everyday. Perfect
>correlation exists between the two. Therfore I go to school everyday
>because the sun rises in the east everyday..
>Try to recognise the difference between whats real research and whats junk.
>--vasanth
Vasanth,
Not taking sides here, but...
A good scientist would not overlook the sundays and saturdays when the
sun rises but the student does not <G>!!
jyotishi
Bill Hechler
Joe Clyde <jcl...@holli.com> wrote:
>Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
>
>As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
>mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
>a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
>power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
>significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
>numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
>average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
>numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
>thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
>have ever been able to find.
I don't think that Joe knows very much about statistics, or he would have
said "statistically significant correlation" rather than "a statistical
significance in the correlation;" and he would have specified the level of
significance (.95? .99?) as well. He also would not have claimed
irrefutability; the level of significance indicates the probability that the
results are due to chance. When doing multiple comparisons, it is quite
possible to get one of the comparisons to come out as "statistically
significant" without there being any cause-and-effect relationship. For
instance, if we compare 12 job/natal chart pairs, each at the 95% level of
significance, the probability that, even in the absence of any
cause-and-effect relationship, one of the pairs will appear to be correlated
is 1 - (.95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X
95) = .46. So, the slovenly or dishonest astrological statistician has about
a fifty-fifty chance of showing an illusion of astrological validity, even
without fudging or pre-selecting the data.
Brad Pettit
In article <52hhn0$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Bill Hechler
<hec...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I don't think that Joe knows very much about statistics, or he would have
> said "statistically significant correlation" rather than "a statistical
> significance in the correlation;" and he would have specified the level of
> significance (.95? .99?) as well. He also would not have claimed
> irrefutability; the level of significance indicates the probability that the
> results are due to chance. When doing multiple comparisons, it is quite
> possible to get one of the comparisons to come out as "statistically
> significant" without there being any cause-and-effect relationship. For
> instance, if we compare 12 job/natal chart pairs, each at the 95% level of
> significance, the probability that, even in the absence of any
> cause-and-effect relationship, one of the pairs will appear to be correlated
> is 1 - (.95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X .95 X
> 95) = .46.
> So, the slovenly or dishonest astrological statistician has about
> a fifty-fifty chance of showing an illusion of astrological validity, even
> without fudging or pre-selecting the data.
So, that would also indicate that the slovenly or dishonest anti-astrology
statistician has about a fifty-fifty chance of showing an illusion of
astrological INvalidity, even without fudging or pre-selecting the data
--Brad
Joseph Koothrappally
Brad Pettit wrote:
> Astrology doesn't state that Mars "causes" the effect, it states that
> there is a correlation (which doesn't imply a causal relationship).
i.e., time has an effect on people?
> The furthest from the earth that a human being has ever been known to be
> born is in an airplane while in the earth's atmosphere. So your second
> argument has no substance.
You think that creature had some extra planetary forces on him/her?
> As one recent book said, there is a 1.0 probability that other life exists
> in the universe. However, the author also determined by the same reasoning
> that the likelihood that this life is intelligent (as we refer to
> intelligence, or self-awareness) is very small.
Now they say it is there in Mars. Wonder how Mars will affect them.
> It is quite possible that our self awareness is a special gift. Can you
> cite any study that indicates otherwise?
Everything can be explained genetically and its environment
of significance, and nothing can be explained astrologically.
> Have you ever calculated which has more gravitational influence on a child
> at birth: A doctor standing in the delivery room, or the moon?
The doctor pulls one way, the mother pulls the other way. So what can
be your conclusion? All the three are pulled equally by all the planets.
> Have you ever become disoriented after moving to a new place? I recall
> after growing up in Michigan, having spent 18 years with a large body of
> water (Lake Huron) to the east, that, after moving to the West coast, my
> internal compass took a long time to adapt to the change, even though I'm
> still miles away from the ocean. And yet the moon has enough influence
> that it moves the ocean.
One becomes disoriented because he is new to an environment, and
not vice-versa.
> I'd love it if somebody could "prove" astrology is wrong, however I have
> seen too many coincidences in my life and the lives of others to stop
> studying it. In fact, wouldn't it be great to be the person to prove it
> wrong.
I say it would be great if someone could prove it right!
> Does the possibility of something you can't explain scare you?
Unless if the person in question goes in hiding when questioned
to prove it (Like the thread on Sai Baba).
> Or maybe
> astrology only applies to some people, while others are completely free
> (or left out).
That is why it is called a pseudo-science. Like the psychics.
Works for some who want to believe in it.
> --Brad
Regards
Joseph
Dr. Jai Maharaj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In the article <52hdq5$p...@beacon.worldlink.ca>,
of Fri, 27 Sep 1996 20:38:48 UTC,
jyot...@worldlink.ca (Jyotishi) wrote:
> vs...@cornell.edu (vasanth S kothnur) wrote:
>> ...The sun rises in the east everyday. I go to school
>> everyday. Perfect correlation exists between the two.
>> Therfore I go to school everyday because the sun rises
>> in the east everyday.. Try to recognise the difference
>> between whats real research and whats junk. -- vasanth
> Vasanth, Not taking sides here, but... A good
> scientist would not overlook the sundays and
> saturdays when the sun rises but the student does not
> <G>!! jyotishi
Quite so. And when one considers that "science" is
defined as "a branch of knowledge requiring systematic
study and method, especially one of those dealing with
substances, animal and vegetable life, and natural laws,"
one realizes that the most time-tested fields of
knowledge such as Jyotish meet the requirements of being
a science admirably.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer j...@mantra.com
%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:% Om Shanti %:%:%
<a href="mailto:j...@eskimo.com">Dr. Jai Maharaj</a>
PGP information:
ftp://ftp.prairienet.org/pub/providers/pgp/pgpfaq.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMkxpHelp/UA/8L65AQFdYgP/TATXfScVIwNDltnNl7OjzoYdyUQpOO0e
lZNlBIK6UwBqQa+hIuIrtDHwktCSRE1J5gohTec2cQ5/95FyYpbEr+K/xO9atyzG
rBcG76u4kbmT3eYCBEjfram3xtXrcZBBcNX8QGT3SWflpoxO+ShURTUoBaS+oWoj
Px5ITdHWSG8=
=3Avs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Schlyter
In article <52bvqc$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
SDuraybito <sdura...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why should anyone need scientific evidence of astrology? Either you
> believe it or you don't. Pretty simple, really.
However astrology DOES make verifyable statements (although
astrologers today are much more careful with "exact predictions" than
their peers in the past, for the very good reason that most past
predictions turned out to be wrong).
If some discipline makes verifyable statemeents, why not try to
verify them? After all it's much better to know than to merely
believe -- isn't it?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@home.ausys.se
vasanth S kothnur
> vs...@cornell.edu (vasanth S kothnur) wrote:
>
> >In article <324ACB...@holli.com>, Joe Clyde <jcl...@holli.com> wrote:
>
> >> Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
> >>
> >> As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
> >> mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
> >> a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
> >> power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
> >> significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
> >> numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
> >> average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
> >> numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
> >> thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
> >> have ever been able to find.
>
> >Your argument is something like this :
>
> >The sun rises in the east everyday. I go to school everyday. Perfect
> >correlation exists between the two. Therfore I go to school everyday
> >because the sun rises in the east everyday..
>
> >Try to recognise the difference between whats real research and whats junk.
>
> >--vasanth
>
> Vasanth,
>
> Not taking sides here, but...
>
> A good scientist would not overlook the sundays and saturdays when the
> sun rises but the student does not <G>!!
>
A good scientist goes to school on sundays and saturdays also ....
> jyotishi
Bill Hechler
BRAD: I've got a great deal for you. Send me $100,000 and I'll license
to you my method (patent pending) of predicting which side of a flipped
coin will land face up. The method is only 50% reliable, but according
to your posting, that's good enough for you.
BH
Debi
Joe Clyde <jcl...@holli.com> wrote:
>Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
At last, a wonderful discussion to particpate in! Most of the members
of my family have the genetic configuration that causes one to have a
bad temper. My father, my two brothers, my two nephews and my
daughter. My mother and I seem to be peacemakers and I only mention
us to show that it is not a large family.
Astrology believes that there is a correlation between Sun/Mars
conjunctions and volitility of temper. The six "colorful" members of
my eight member family all have this aspect in their charts. My
mother and I do not. Generally, and depending on orb, a close
Sun/Mars conjunction occurs once a year for about 8 days.
Is it possible that these tempers all happened genetically with
astrological signatures of their existence? Could one of the
statisticians participating in this discussion calculate the
probability of it happening accidentally? I eagerly await the
replies!
Debi
Debi
Joe Clyde <jcl...@holli.com> wrote:
>Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
>As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
>mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
>a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
>power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
>significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
>numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
>average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
>numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
>thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
>have ever been able to find.
At last, a wonderful discussion to particpate in! Most of the members
Edmond Wollmann
Debi wrote:
> Joe Clyde <jcl...@holli.com> wrote:
> >Actually Joseph, there is sci evidence.
> >As a A&M student also, I hate to point out that a fellow Aggie is
> >mistaken, but a study done at Indiana University in the late 80's showed
> >a statistical significance in the correlation between people in jobs of
> >power and the location of mars on their natal chart. Statistical
> >significance (in case your a liberal arts person and don't understand
> >numbers) is an irrefutable statistical difference between the mean
> >average and the studied correlation. There is no arguing with the
> >numbers. I might add in you defense, which is lacking of anything from
> >thought to evidence, that this was the only evidence that researchers
> >have ever been able to find.
> At last, a wonderful discussion to particpate in! Most of the members
> of my family have the genetic configuration that causes one to have a
> bad temper. My father, my two brothers, my two nephews and my
> daughter. My mother and I seem to be peacemakers and I only mention
> us to show that it is not a large family.
> Astrology believes that there is a correlation between Sun/Mars
> conjunctions and volitility of temper. The six "colorful" members of
> my eight member family all have this aspect in their charts. My
> mother and I do not. Generally, and depending on orb, a close
> Sun/Mars conjunction occurs once a year for about 8 days.
You will be interested in my upcoming article in Dell Horoscope Magazine
entitled "The Great Pyramids, DNA and The Elements" wherein I correlate
the DNA pattern with astrological pattern as THE CAUSE not the effect of
familial "relativity". In other words DNA is the REFLECTION of
astrological patterning-not the other way around because the physical is
a reflection of the spiritual.
> Is it possible that these tempers all happened genetically with
> astrological signatures of their existence?
The DNA is the astrological equivalant and signature. They "happen"
because of belief, which is then reflected through both the DNA and the
chart.
> Could one of the
> statisticians participating in this discussion calculate the
> probability of it happening accidentally? I eagerly await the
> replies!
Statistics will only be relevant in material momentums, it is belief that
creates DNA patterning and therefore physical effects-science therefore
only measures the APPARENT effects, because there is no such thing as
time. It is the effect of the focus of 3rd dimension and is itself an
effect. Therefore all "causes" and "effects" are all in "existance" now.
It is the exploration of beilief that physicality is all about. Science
will begin to wane as "the" truth and Physics will become metaphysics,
this is where the answers lie.
> Debi
"Think about it there must be higher love.....written in the stars
above-without it life is wasted time, look inside your heart I'll look
inside mine" Steve Winwood (May 12th birth)
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
SDuraybito
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
<< > Why should anyone need scientific evidence of astrology? Either you
> believe it or you don't. Pretty simple, really.
If astrology made no verifyable statements it would be that simple.
However astrology DOES make verifyable statements (although
astrologers today are much more careful with "exact predictions" than
their peers in the past, for the very good reason that most past
predictions turned out to be wrong).
If some discipline makes verifyable statemeents, why not try to
verify them? After all it's much better to know than to merely
believe -- isn't it? >>
No, astrology is not strictly verifiable. However, it has exhibited
"soft" correlations for thousands of years. As such, it cannot be relied
upon as a hard science, but it cannot be dismissed as nonsense either.
The best one can hope for is to utilize astrology as a tool to aid one in
the pathways of life. I don't think it's suitable or proper to attempt to
verify its effect or to discredit its non-effects. It remains a study.
Siegfried
"A lot of the problems in the world today stem from people not doing what
they should be doing..."
Brad Pettit
In article <52jj5u$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Bill Hechler
<hec...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> BRAD: I've got a great deal for you. Send me $100,000 and I'll license
> to you my method (patent pending) of predicting which side of a flipped
> coin will land face up. The method is only 50% reliable, but according
> to your posting, that's good enough for you.
>
> BH
>
Too late. I've already got a patented method that's 51% reliable. It's a
key component in the design of my perpetual motion machine.
--bp
Paul Schlyter
In article <52ov06$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
SDuraybito <sdura...@aol.com> wrote:
> pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
> << > Why should anyone need scientific evidence of astrology? Either you
> > believe it or you don't. Pretty simple, really.
>
> If astrology made no verifyable statements it would be that simple.
>
> However astrology DOES make verifyable statements (although
> astrologers today are much more careful with "exact predictions" than
> their peers in the past, for the very good reason that most past
> predictions turned out to be wrong).
>
> If some discipline makes verifyable statemeents, why not try to
> verify them? After all it's much better to know than to merely
> believe -- isn't it? >>
>
> No, astrology is not strictly verifiable. However, it has exhibited
> "soft" correlations for thousands of years. As such, it cannot be relied
> upon as a hard science, but it cannot be dismissed as nonsense either.
ones, fail to verify....
> The best one can hope for is to utilize astrology as a tool to aid one in
> the pathways of life. I don't think it's suitable or proper to attempt to
> verify its effect or to discredit its non-effects. It remains a study.
Hugh E. Jeffcoat
PAUL: What of your personal investigation do you have to offer
to back up your statement that there is no scientific evidence
for astrology ? How many horoscopes have you cast and applied
to their subjects' lives to back up your unjustified and
ignorent anti-astrology statements ? How many experiments have
you personally set up and persued to prove that astrology is
the terrible wrong you so vociferously scream about all the
time ? What do you have to offer that would disabuse us of the
real fact that the answers to all of these questions is NONE ?
You cloak yourself in the almost legitimate patina of a
supposedly official astronomy club, albeit amatueristic, spout
a knowledge of astronmy which is patently obviously mere
book-learning, and quote the authority and writings and
investigations of others also obviously much more knowledgeable
than yourself. Why don't you know what a marking star is ? Why
don't you know which marking stars the ancients and many modern
astrologers use ? You don't even know the answer to these two
questions. Pshaw !! (and fie !!) JEFF
PS: What's your birthdata ? MO DAY YR HR MIN PLACE: CITY
STATE AND/OR PROVINCE COUNTRY. Bet you're a CANCER !
Edmond Wollmann
Hugh E. Jeffcoat wrote:
> PAUL: What of your personal investigation do you have to offer
> to back up your statement that there is no scientific evidence
> for astrology ?
If you search Deja News service for "Challenge to Paul" by me, you will
see that he was sufficiently informed of the requirements for peer
reveiw, clearly and concisely. He could not take my challenge and tried
to reverse some silly challenge of retification that he does not
understand on me to take attention away from the fact that he had been
defeated and shown to be here pointlessly and without qualification.
Therefore, he has demonstrated not only obsession psychologically, but a
lack of honesty and integrity required for any proper discourse. Your
only alternative is to killfile him and go on to productive conversations
with others so inclined.
"So what are you gonna do about it?, you can't live life and you can't
leave it! Advice on religion you can't take it, you can't seem to believe
it. The Peacock is afraid to parade, you're under the thumb of the maid,
and you really can't give love in this condition-still you know that you
need it. They open and close you, and they talk like they know you, they
don't know you! They're friends and they're foes too! Troubled child
breakin like the waves at Malibu." Joni Mitchell "Troubled Child"
sta...@istar.ca
Yes, Paul, WHY should Ed Wollmann have to spend a great deal of time and
effort to rectify three or more birthcharts of YOUR children just to
satisfy YOU that astrology is not a fraud, or that Ed is not a fraud?
To imply that he is a fraud just because he likes to make his living from
counseling people and using astrology and psychology as his tools, and does
NOT want to waste his valuable time doing charts for YOU, is a rather
unreasonable and unfair thing to do. It reveals more about you and your
way of thinking than it does about Ed Wollmann or his professional practice.
By your logic, you should be challenging every minister of every religion
who gets paid by his church to counsel people, and challenge them to do some
free counseling on you and your family, or you will publicly post a message
on the World Wide Web which expresses your opinion that they are a fraud
because they get paid for a living and they won't do what YOU want, for
free, to prove to YOU that their religion is valid. Or maybe you could try
that on a few of your local medical doctors.
And I must ask you if you would have been calling Einstein a fraud if you
had been around in the days when he was just introducing his "unproven"
theories about relativity which showed how the old model of Newtonian
psychics, which men of "science" had become so attached to, was NOT valid in
every situation? Just because Einstein's theory was new and no one had
bothered to test it properly, does NOT mean that it wasn't valid. In
hindsight we can know now that it WAS valid, and it was valid BEFORE it was
proven to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists who maliciously and
stupidly persecuted the man who was telling the truth all along. In fact,
Newton had PART of the truth, and Einstein discoverd a larger part of the
same truth. Maybe someone else will discover an even larger part.
Why should anyone CARE whether YOU think astrology is valid or not? We all
can make up our own minds about it after looking at our own experiences with
it. Those of us who practice it are continually testing its validity by
casting actual horoscopes for real people and getting the feedback right
from the people involved. If astrology did not prove to be a consistently
useful tool in my own personal experience, I would not keep using it as a
tool. But it does work to MY satisfaction, and anything you say about
scientists making up statistical studies to prove or disprove astrology
really doesn't affect the astrology which works for me.
Sure there are a lot of hucksters and self-serving exploiters and even
outright frauds in the field of astrology. And there are such people in
almost any field, including medicine, psychology, religion and "science". I
don't automatically assume the whole field is a fraud just because I find
out about a few people who are misusing the tools of the trade.
And I don't expect doctors to always be right in their diagnosis, or every
psychiatrist to fully understand the psyche of his patients, or every
minister of every religion to be able to prove that his religion is
justified.
And I don't expect astronomers to have to prove that any given star is still
in existence, or that their field of study has served any practical purpose
yet, or that they have to be right about every theory they propose. And I
wouldn't think of calling their field of study a fraud because sometimes
they are dead-wrong about what they say and later have to revise their
theories. And I don't begrudge them getting paid for their time and talents
either, even though a lot of it comes from the public purse. I did wonder a
bit about the proposal I saw on TV about a big project designed to prove the
existence of "gravity waves", which would cost the U.S. taxpayers about four
billion dollars...
I do know that when a crisis like a large meteor heading towards
earth is looming in our future, I hope the astronomers will be able to put
all that time and money they spend on their studies to good use and be able
to PREDICT whether and when the meteor is likely to strike, in time for
something to be done about increasing our chances for survival.
Even though I know damn well that astronomers have been wrong about many
things in the past, when it comes to the "crunch" I would probably be
willing to put some faith in their predictions -- if only because there was
nowhere else to turn to for that kind of information I needed.
Maybe that's why some people turn to astrologers for answers -- because they
cannot get the information they need from any other source? Astrologers are
not infallible and neither are astronomers, so why don't we just let them be
who they are, and let people choose for themselves who they want to turn to
for information or advice, and whether it serves them well or not?
Michael Star
P.S. Has anyone read the booklet by Bart Bok, an astronomer who led a
campaign against astrology a few decades ago? In the first few pages of his
book, he makes the claim that the planets have absolutely no effect on
humans here on earth.
I thought to myself, "I wonder if this guy knows anything about how HIS OWN
EYES work? How the heck does he SEE a planet unless the light energy
reflected from it enters his eyeball and produces an EFFECT on the retina?
If he missed this OBVIOUS effect of the planets on himself, a guy who is a
professional planet OBSERVER, I wonder how much other stuff he misses?"
On Thu, 03 Oct 1996 0 wollmann said:
wo|Hugh E. Jeffcoat wrote:
wo|> PAUL: What of your personal investigation do you have to offer
wo|> to back up your statement that there is no scientific evidence
wo|> for astrology ?
wo|If you search Deja News service for "Challenge to Paul" by me, you
wo|will see that he was sufficiently informed of the requirements for
wo|peer reveiw, clearly and concisely. He could not take my challenge
wo|and tried to reverse some silly challenge of retification that he
wo|does not understand on me to take attention away from the fact that
wo|he had been defeated and shown to be here pointlessly and without
wo|qualification. Therefore, he has demonstrated not only obsession
wo|psychologically, but a lack of honesty and integrity required for
wo|any proper discourse. Your only alternative is to killfile him and
wo|go on to productive conversations with others so inclined.
wo|"So what are you gonna do about it?, you can't live life and you
wo|can't leave it! Advice on religion you can't take it, you can't
wo|seem to believe it. The Peacock is afraid to parade, you're under
wo|the thumb of the maid, and you really can't give love in this
wo|condition-still you know that you need it. They open and close you,
wo|and they talk like they know you, they don't know you! They're
wo|friends and they're foes too! Troubled child breakin like the waves
wo|at Malibu." Joni Mitchell "Troubled Child" --
wo|Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
wo|© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
wo|http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
wo|PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
wo|(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
sta...@istar.ca
STAR SIGNS Astrology E-Zine http://home.istar.ca/~starman |STAR MATES|
`[1;35;41mNet-Tamer V 1.05 - Test Drive
Paul Schlyter
In article <3253DF...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>> PAUL: What of your personal investigation do you have to offer
>> to back up your statement that there is no scientific evidence
>> for astrology ?
>
> If you search Deja News service for "Challenge to Paul" by me, you will
> see that he was sufficiently informed of the requirements for peer
> reveiw, clearly and concisely. He could not take my challenge
...because, as I remember it now, it was seriously flawed. If you
want to discuss this further, you can briefly repeat your
requirements (yes, I need to be refreshed since I don't remember the
details), and I'll explain why they were not acceptable.
If you require me to have done peer-reviewed astrological research of
my own (something I've never claimed to have done) to have the right
to participate here -- do you also require the same to other
participants here, including yourself?
> and tried to reverse some silly challenge of retification that he does
> not understand
You're fantasizing again, Ed! This was no "reverse challenge" -- I
challenged you because you boasted so much about being able to
routinely rectify birth times with great accuracy, although it soon
became obvious that you never bothered to check your claimed
accuracy. As opposed to a normal chart interpretation, a
rectification produces something that's much easier to verify: a
number giving the supposedly correct birth time. If the correct
birth time can be obtained in some other way, a simple comparison
will immediately reveal the accuracy of the rectification. This
was the basis for my challenge: start with the correct number,
deliberately introduce an error, and then see if you can get back
the correct number. I got quite disappointed at you because you
didn't even say "no" to this -- you merely stopped responding!
But at least this brought two good things:
1. you completely stopped talking about rectification
2. it was revealed that you're a fraud rather than a sincere
believer. Since you dared not be challenged, you cannot really
believe in your methods --thus you're into your a$trological
bu$ine$$ only for the money....
> on me to take attention away from the fact that he had been
> defeated and shown to be here pointlessly and without qualification.
Sorry, Ed, but it's only in your own fantasy that I've beed
"defeated". But of course this is consistent with your "Create
your own reality" philosophy. In reality you defeated yourself
by not even responding "Yes" or "no" to myc rectification
challenge but instead just run away, like a coward.
> Therefore, he has demonstrated not only obsession psychologically,
> but a lack of honesty and integrity required for any proper
> discourse.
You say I'm dishonest and without integrity -- this would imply that
I've been saying things that are not true. Could you please point
something out? No? Why not?
> Your only alternative is to killfile him and go on to productive
> conversations with others so inclined.
Yep -- that's the route you need to take in order to avoid my
challenges which obviously is too dangerous to your a$trological
bu$ine$$.... -- now who's the one lacking honesty and integrity?
Paul Schlyter
> Yes, Paul, WHY should Ed Wollmann have to spend a great deal of time and
> effort to rectify three or more birthcharts of YOUR children just to
> satisfy YOU that astrology is not a fraud, or that Ed is not a fraud?
To verify his claims of course! Note that this would not just be to
me personally but to everyone who participates here. If Ed Wollmann
accepted this challenge he would gain a lot in credibility -- if he
succeeded, that is.
One good reason for him to decline would of course be if he felt that
he would fail, and wanted to avoid that embarassment.
But one could at least expect that he replied "yes" or "no" to this --
he didn't even do THAT!!!
> To imply that he is a fraud just because he likes to make his living
> from counseling people and using astrology and psychology as his
> tools, and does NOT want to waste his valuable time doing charts for
> YOU, is a rather unreasonable and unfair thing to do. It reveals
> more about you and your way of thinking than it does about Ed
> Wollmann or his professional practice.
It would if that's what I did -- but I didn't do that. What I did
was this:
1. I offered him this challenge - he didn't even say "yes" or "no"
to the challenge. He just stopped responding and then killfiled me.
He also stopped posting anything about rectification. This strongly
indicates that he really didn't believe in the astrological capabilities
he claimed to have.
2. I make the very reasonable assumption that Ed didn't cease his
a$trological bu$ine$$ but is carrying it on. Since he does something
he doesn't really believe in, he's a fraud.
> By your logic, you should be challenging every minister of every
> religion who gets paid by his church to counsel people, and challenge
> them to do some free counseling on you and your family, or you will
> publicly post a message on the World Wide Web which expresses your
> opinion that they are a fraud because they get paid for a living
> and they won't do what YOU want, for free, to prove to YOU that
> their religion is valid. Or maybe you could try that on a few of
> your local medical doctors.
Your analogy is flawed because of two reasons:
1. Priests generally don't claim things that have been proved wrong.
2. Medical doctors even do things that have been proved effective
and beneficial.
> And I must ask you if you would have been calling Einstein a fraud if
> you had been around in the days when he was just introducing his
> "unproven" theories about relativity which showed how the old model
> of Newtonian psychics, which men of "science" had become so attached
> to, was NOT valid in every situation? Just because Einstein's theory
> was new and no one had bothered to test it properly,
"....no one yet had TIME to test it properly..." would be a more accurate
way to describe the situation. Remember that relativity then was
only a few years old. Astrologty on the other hand is 4000+ years
old.... go figure!
> does NOT mean that it wasn't valid. In hindsight we can know now
> that it WAS valid, and it was valid BEFORE it was proven to the
> satisfaction of skeptical scientists who maliciously and stupidly
> persecuted the man who was telling the truth all along. In fact,
> Newton had PART of the truth, and Einstein discoverd a larger part
> of the same truth. Maybe someone else will discover an even larger
> part.
They're working on it, and they've advanced somewhat. But you really
need to read up on your physics history....
> Why should anyone CARE whether YOU think astrology is valid or not?
My personal opinion is not important here ... a more important
question would be: "Why should anyone CARE whether astrology is valid
or not?" - got an answer to that one? <grin>
> We all can make up our own minds about it after looking at our own
> experiences with it. Those of us who practice it are continually
> testing its validity by casting actual horoscopes for real people
> and getting the feedback right from the people involved.
This is not the way to test the validity of astrology. Since you've
spent so much time with it you WANT it to be right, therefore you
tend to remember and over-emphasis when it happened to be right, and
to forget when it happened to be wrong. This is the well-known
"lottery effect", where only the winners are seen.
> If astrology did not prove to be a consistently useful tool in my
> own personal experience, I would not keep using it as a tool. But
> it does work to MY satisfaction, and anything you say about
> scientists making up statistical studies to prove or disprove
> astrology really doesn't affect the astrology which works for me.
Of course astrology is an excellent tool for self-deception. It's
probably addictive too! That's why it fails controlled tests, yet
it continue to please its customers.
> Sure there are a lot of hucksters and self-serving exploiters and
> even outright frauds in the field of astrology. And there are
> such people in almost any field, including medicine, psychology,
> religion and "science". I don't automatically assume the whole
> field is a fraud just because I find out about a few people who
> are misusing the tools of the trade.
It's a big big difference between frauds who misuse the tools of
the trade, and frauds in a trade which, as a whole, fails to deliver
what it promises!!!
> And I don't expect doctors to always be right in their diagnosis,
> or every psychiatrist to fully understand the psyche of his patients,
But you DO expect them to perform better than people who just guess
randomly, don't you? Why not require the same from astrology?
> or every minister of every religion to be able to prove that his
> religion is justified.
>
> And I don't expect astronomers to have to prove that any given
> star is still in existence, or that their field of study has served
> any practical purpose yet, or that they have to be right about
> every theory they propose. And I wouldn't think of calling their
> field of study a fraud because sometimes they are dead-wrong about
> what they say and later have to revise their theories.
The great thing here is that they DO revise their theories when
they're wrong. Why not request the same from astrology?
> And I don't begrudge them getting paid for their time and talents
> either, even though a lot of it comes from the public purse.
> I did wonder a bit about the proposal I saw on TV about a big
> project designed to prove the existence of "gravity waves", which
> would cost the U.S. taxpayers about four billion dollars...
>
> I do know that when a crisis like a large meteor heading towards
> earth is looming in our future, I hope the astronomers will be able
> to put all that time and money they spend on their studies to good
> use and be able to PREDICT whether and when the meteor is likely
> to strike, in time for something to be done about increasing our
> chances for survival.
>
> Even though I know damn well that astronomers have been wrong about
> many things in the past, when it comes to the "crunch" I would probably
> be willing to put some faith in their predictions -- if only because
> there was nowhere else to turn to for that kind of information I needed.
>
> Maybe that's why some people turn to astrologers for answers -- because
> they cannot get the information they need from any other source?
Probably, but then they're fooling themselves, since they won't be
able to get that information from astrology either.
> Astrologers are not infallible and neither are astronomers, so why
> don't we just let them be who they are, and let people choose for
> themselves who they want to turn to for information or advice,
> and whether it serves them well or not?
I'm not talking about occasional mistakes by practitioners in various
fields -- I'm talking about a whole field being based of premises
known to be wrong!!!! Arguing for astrology isn't much different
than arguing for e.g.a Flat Earth - both were OK in earlier times,
with the more limited knowledge then available. But people of today
ought to know better than to argue for things like these!!!
> Michael Star
>
> P.S. Has anyone read the booklet by Bart Bok, an astronomer who led a
> campaign against astrology a few decades ago? In the first few pages
> of his book, he makes the claim that the planets have absolutely no
> effect on humans here on earth.
>
> I thought to myself, "I wonder if this guy knows anything about how
> HIS OWN EYES work? How the heck does he SEE a planet unless the light
> energy reflected from it enters his eyeball and produces an EFFECT on
> the retina? If he missed this OBVIOUS effect of the planets on himself,
> a guy who is a professional planet OBSERVER, I wonder how much other
> stuff he misses?"
What's your point here? Apparently Bart Bok phrased himself badly in
this booklet (or you may remember badly what he actually wrote -- a
literal quote here might be helpful). Of course the photons from
the planets affect the retina in the eyes of anyone looking at it.
But I fail to see how this should imply that the position of that
very same planet, at the birth of an individual, should have profound
effects of the entire life of that individual!!!
Bruce Daniel Kettler
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <531cdi$r...@news.istar.ca>, <sta...@istar.ca> wrote:
<SNIP>
>It would if that's what I did -- but I didn't do that. What I did
>was this:
>1. I offered him this challenge - he didn't even say "yes" or "no"
>to the challenge. He just stopped responding and then killfiled me.
>He also stopped posting anything about rectification. This strongly
>indicates that he really didn't believe in the astrological capabilities
>he claimed to have.
>2. I make the very reasonable assumption that Ed didn't cease his
>a$trological bu$ine$$ but is carrying it on. Since he does something
>he doesn't really believe in, he's a fraud.
Let's skip the matter of is Ed Wollmann or is he not a fraud, or
whether astrology does or does not work.
Let me ask this question? Are you a consumer-rights activist?
What is your motivation, here, for taking so many hours over so
many years to disprove astrology, or defame its proponents?
I really believe that's more important than the other issues.
I wish to present a theory. I belive that Paul Schyler's
fanatical zeal, and obviously it is fanatical, has this basic
motive, and it's similar to that of those who practice "magic" as
trickery, rather than *REAL* magick. Paul is an amateur
astronomer, and for years astronomers have considered astrologers
to be stepping in their territory, in a way they don't like.
Year previous, astrology and astronomy worked hand-in-hand.
Kepler, a famous astronomer, was, in fact, and astrologer also.
Similarly, the magician, James Randi, absolutely *HATES* anyone
to bend spoons and say it was *real,* since he considers all
magic to be trickery, and cannot stand to be upstarted by *REAL
MAGICK* (note the "K"). Oh yes, these jokers are just so
infuriated by the "K" in magick. Yes, James Randi wants to have
it all, be the greatest, and be the "amazing" and when someone
comes along, or any number of people come along, and say, "I can
read minds, but *REALLY* not fake, that just makes poor Randi
sick, sicker than he had been.
The followers of Randi, not realizing they are just practicing a
religion, and are engaged in a holy war for Randi, go on behaving
like the duped one's they are.
So, we have Paul, and we all wonder, why, oh why, Paul do you
continue your unrelenting crusade? Are you trying to save us all
here, from what you consider "delusion."? Better, put, I'm sure
many moan, "oh, for god sakes, when is he going away"?
Yes, Paul, please find out, and tell us, why, or better yet, just
go away, and tell yourself. Hardly anyone finds you interesting,
and you are certainly not funny.
Perception -- http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc - Opening
-- -- then select - Doors
Creation-- -- Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena - That
-- -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| - Lead
Reality -- -- The Internet Fax Psychic Connection - Home
Bruce Daniel Kettler
sun...@iag.net wrote:
>My problem with P. Schlyter and other astrological naysayers is that they
>misuse their energies and the purpose of this group with relentless
>idle prattle designed to cause childish flamewars and meant to
>get everyone OFF the discussion of astrology. He is insulting,
>righteous, and certainly not funny, and he put himself in the position
>of having to be defensively pompous and obnoxious by the very rude
>insults he continuously heaps in his posts. It makes him seem to have
>nothing better to do with his time than read newsgroups which he claims
>to have no interest in, flaming people like a 5-year-old wishing
>for attention.
In other words, and correct me if I'm wrong, he's a "KOOK,"
right?
>When he uses his knowledge and talents well, he sometimes contributes
>an astronomical fact that helps clear up something and I actually
>occasionally learn something from such posts, but then Mr. Hyde shows
>up again spouting his prejudices and rude insults in flamewars he usually
>starts himself. One does wonder why some of the many people who laugh
>off astrology bother to waste our time posting their bile here, and I'm
>not just talking about Schlyter when I say this. It's too bad people like
>him don't follow netiquette codes of respectfulness in posting to Usenet.
Well, then, let's get him elected!
I mean, elected, KOOK OF THE MONTH, (KOTM) as he is one of the
MOST FANATICAL OF THE BUNCH.
See my other posting that starts, "KOTM Nomination ..." and place
a message there, and write "I second the nomination" and perhaps
just quote your writing above, and if he's been nominated twice
by others by the time you see the posts, then vote for him as per
the instructions in the posting, with e-mail to the appropriate
address for casting votes.
SDuraybito
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
2. it was revealed that you're a fraud rather than a sincere
believer. Since you dared not be challenged, you cannot really
believe in your methods --thus you're into your a$trological
bu$ine$$ only for the money....
Hmmm. Since you've accused the original poster of being a fraud, I'd like
to ask a couple of questions along these lines from a broader perspective.
Are you in favor of legislation that would criminalize the study of
astrology? What about legislation that would criminalize receiving
payment for astrological services?
Paul Schlyter
In article <53avbl$3...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Let's skip the matter of is Ed Wollmann or is he not a fraud, or
> whether astrology does or does not work.
>
> Let me ask this question? Are you a consumer-rights activist?
cheated. If they pay, they should get something that's worth what
they paid for. Do you have any problems with this? You shouldn't,
unless you're a fraud yourself who profit on gullible people.
> What is your motivation, here, for taking so many hours over so
> many years to disprove astrology, or defame its proponents?
>
> I really believe that's more important than the other issues.
Ed Wollmann or Jai Maharaj? Do you think it's perfectly ok that
people get cheated? Are you, perhaps, playing this game yourself?
> I wish to present a theory. I belive that Paul Schyler's
> fanatical zeal, and obviously it is fanatical, has this basic
> motive, and it's similar to that of those who practice "magic" as
> trickery, rather than *REAL* magick.
explanation, even if this explanation is unavailable to us.
> Paul is an amateur astronomer, and for years astronomers
> have considered astrologers to be stepping in their territory,
> in a way they don't like. Year previous, astrology and astronomy
> worked hand-in-hand.
Since then astronomy has evolved tremendeously, while astrology remains
very similar to what it was 500+ years ago. Ptolemy's "Tetrabiblos" is
still considered a good reference for astrologers -- no astronomer would
consider Ptolemy's "Almagest" a good reference!!!
> Kepler, a famous astronomer, was, in fact, and astrologer also.
Nowadays astronomers no longer need to prostitute themselves
like this....
> Similarly, the magician, James Randi, absolutely *HATES* anyone
> to bend spoons and say it was *real,* since he considers all
> magic to be trickery, and cannot stand to be upstarted by *REAL
> MAGICK* (note the "K").
> Oh yes, these jokers are just so infuriated by the "K" in
> magick. Yes, James Randi wants to have it all, be the greatest,
> and be the "amazing" and when someone comes along, or any number
> of people come along, and say, "I can read minds, but *REALLY*
> not fake, that just makes poor Randi sick, sicker than he had been.
>
> The followers of Randi, not realizing they are just practicing a
> religion, and are engaged in a holy war for Randi, go on behaving
> like the duped one's they are.
>
> So, we have Paul, and we all wonder, why, oh why, Paul do you
> continue your unrelenting crusade? Are you trying to save us all
> here, from what you consider "delusion."? Better, put, I'm sure
> many moan, "oh, for god sakes, when is he going away"?
>
> Yes, Paul, please find out, and tell us, why, or better yet, just
> go away, and tell yourself.
me go away - right? But I'm not going away....
> Hardly anyone finds you interesting, and you are certainly not funny.
I've received a lot of "hate mail" recently -- usually I just ignore
it. People obviously dislike that I tell the truth about astrology,
which says a lot about these preactitioners. Your post here is among
the better of this "hate mail" since you at least express an opinion.
Several "hate mail" writers don't even do that, they just use foul
language....
Finally: please learn to trim your quotes!!! Below you included 160
lines of quotes (which I've removed) without responding to anything
there!!!
Bruce Daniel Kettler
In <53dq07$4...@electra.saaf.se> pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
writes:
>In article <53avbl$3...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's skip the matter of is Ed Wollmann or is he not a fraud, or
>> whether astrology does or does not work.
>>
>> Let me ask this question? Are you a consumer-rights activist?
>
>I'm not organized, but I strongly feel that consumers should not get
>cheated. If they pay, they should get something that's worth what
>they paid for. Do you have any problems with this? You shouldn't,
>unless you're a fraud yourself who profit on gullible people.
No, frauds should be exposed, and I would only compliment you for doing
so. However, motivation for exposing it is important. Also, your
methods of determining a fraud should be sound, not based on USENET
discussion. As I understand, Randi has exposed *real* frauds, and for
that, I commend him.
>
>> What is your motivation, here, for taking so many hours over so
>> many years to disprove astrology, or defame its proponents?
>>
>> I really believe that's more important than the other issues.
>
>Why do you think this is more important than exposing frauds like
>Ed Wollmann or Jai Maharaj?
**WHY** is very, very important. Do you get some ego kick? Do you
feel honor bound to humanity to help them not get cheated? See, your
effectiveness, your choice of methods, over the long run, will be
determined by your motivation.
Do you think it's perfectly ok that
>people get cheated? Are you, perhaps, playing this game yourself?
You should not even ask that question. No, it's not ok, and I know
many, many blatant examples of people being cheated by so-called
astrologers, psychics, etc. It reminds me of the man and woman power
being wasted finding prostitutes to arrest, when all over the place
people are being robbed and beaten.
<snip>
Centuries, years, so we all make mistakes in our haste to write on
USENET. If I write "years," does that preclude the possibility of it
being centuries? Do you have some need to try to portray me as
ignorant?
>> So, we have Paul, and we all wonder, why, oh why, Paul do you
>> continue your unrelenting crusade? Are you trying to save us all
>> here, from what you consider "delusion."? Better, put, I'm sure
>> many moan, "oh, for god sakes, when is he going away"?
>>
>> Yes, Paul, please find out, and tell us, why, or better yet, just
>> go away, and tell yourself.
>
>You're not really interested in my response, since you'd rather see
>me go away - right? But I'm not going away....
Stay, by all means, stay. You are funny! Not in a way you would like,
however.
>> Hardly anyone finds you interesting, and you are certainly not
>>funny.
>I'm not here to be funny, so that's perfectly OK with me.
Well, you're not interesting, but you turn out funny, anyway.
>I've received a lot of "hate mail" recently -- usually I just ignore
>it. People obviously dislike that I tell the truth about astrology,
>which says a lot about these preactitioners. Your post here is among
>the better of this "hate mail" since you at least express an opinion.
>Several "hate mail" writers don't even do that, they just use foul
>language....
I don't believe in such "hate mail," but I would like to present a
theory about it. You have been around a long time, and have posted
much in alt.astrology about what you don't believe. Don't you think
that people have read enough, much more than enough, and are not
necessarily afraid of what you call "truth," but are tired of seeing it
again and again?
>Finally: please learn to trim your quotes!!! Below you included 160
>lines of quotes (which I've removed) without responding to anything
>there!!!
Yes, I, at times, forget. Thank you for reminding me.
Earl Curley
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <53avbl$3...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Let's skip the matter of is Ed Wollmann or is he not a fraud, or
> > whether astrology does or does not work.
> >
> > Let me ask this question? Are you a consumer-rights activist?
>
> I'm not organized, but I strongly feel that consumers should not get
> cheated. If they pay, they should get something that's worth what
> they paid for. Do you have any problems with this? You shouldn't,
> unless you're a fraud yourself who profit on gullible people.
We all feel that the comsumer should get their monies worth, but, your
approach is to discount anything and everything without even researching
or vetting what's the truth and what isn't. You take a shot-gun
approach to everything in these threads and it's no wonder you recieve
hate-mail. When you can't answer a simply question your first recourse
is to flame the poster as you did above.
> > What is your motivation, here, for taking so many hours over so
> > many years to disprove astrology, or defame its proponents?
> >
> > I really believe that's more important than the other issues.
>
> Why do you think this is more important than exposing frauds like
> Ed Wollmann or Jai Maharaj? Do you think it's perfectly ok that
> people get cheated? Are you, perhaps, playing this game yourself?
Prove your comments or keep them to yourself. Where on earth do get off
calling people frauds without a sound base or foundation to do so. Who
the hell appointed you God?
> > I wish to present a theory. I belive that Paul Schyler's
> > fanatical zeal, and obviously it is fanatical, has this basic
> > motive, and it's similar to that of those who practice "magic" as
> > trickery, rather than *REAL* magick.
>
> FYI: real magic(k) does not exist -- everything has a natural
> explanation, even if this explanation is unavailable to us.
Bull-dung. Prove your comments or admit that you can't. The above is
only your uneducated opinion which doesn't hold much water in these NGs.
> > Paul is an amateur astronomer, and for years astronomers
> > have considered astrologers to be stepping in their territory,
>
> For CENTURIES, not just for a few years.... learn your history!!!!
Bull-dung again. Astronomy originated from astrology. You're the one
who had better study history.
> > in a way they don't like. Year previous, astrology and astronomy
> > worked hand-in-hand.
>
> At that time astronomy and astrology were quite similar in worldviews/etc.
> Since then astronomy has evolved tremendeously, while astrology remains
> very similar to what it was 500+ years ago. Ptolemy's "Tetrabiblos" is
> still considered a good reference for astrologers -- no astronomer would
> consider Ptolemy's "Almagest" a good reference!!!
You're out-dated here as usual. It's rather interesting that many
"reputable" astronomers are now looking at the historical ramifications
of astrology to seek out new ways to compile astronomical events. Maybe
if you put your stupid ego aside and read these threads properly, you to
may learn something, but, I doubt that.
> > Kepler, a famous astronomer, was, in fact, and astrologer also.
>
> At that time astrology funded some astronomical research, yes.
> Nowadays astronomers no longer need to prostitute themselves
> like this....
Prositute? You're the one who's belittling your profession with your
uncalled for comments and uneducated remarks.
> You're not really interested in my response, since you'd rather see
> me go away - right? But I'm not going away....
The reason no one is interested in your responses is because you never
respond with an intellectual bend but with a personal one.
> > Hardly anyone finds you interesting, and you are certainly not funny.
>
> I'm not here to be funny, so that's perfectly OK with me.
Nor have you been funny. In fact you've been a pain in the ass with
your adamant stance that nothing exists.
> Finally: please learn to trim your quotes!!! Below you included 160
> lines of quotes (which I've removed) without responding to anything
> there!!!
>
> Paul Schlyter
Speak for yourself here. I was just disconnected from my server because
they have a ten minute disconnect and because I had to wade through tons
of your crap to come up with this final conclusion. You have no idea
what the hell you're talking about.
Karen Boelter
Getting back to the original basis of this thread: Scientific Evidence for
Astrology.
Some time back in Analog there was mention of a gentlemen employed by
RCA to forecast upper atmospheric disturbance affecting the Ionosphere.
RCA was big into Shortwave radio (this was pre-TV) for entertainment,
and communications and it was important to be able to predict how far and
how well the radio signal would travel and this in turn depended on
atmospheric disturbances in the Ionosphere.
Now this man was very, very good at what he did. (His accuracy was in
the upper ninety percentile (95%+)) There were two problems. 1. No
one could figure out how he was doing it. 2. He refused to divulge his
method.
Well TV came into vogue, radio declined and Shortwave also declined in
importance as a communications medium. Time passed and the man came
up for retirement and once he had retired he finally revealed his method.
Essentially he was casting a horoscope and based upon the planetary
positions he would make his atmospheric forecasts! Keep in mind this was
in the time that IBM thought the U.S. would not need more than 9 large
computers and that 20 could serve the needs of the entire world.
Calculators were room-size and most engineers used Log rythym charts
and slide rules.
No wonder he kept his methods a secret though. In that day and time if he
had explained his methods he would probably have been canned even if he
had been 100% correct.
Just thought you folks would like this bit of trivia.
Tirion
Jerry Watson
Tim Hill wrote:
>
> In article <325DAF...@earthlink.net>,
> Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Getting back to the original basis of this thread: Scientific Evidence
> for
> >Astrology.
> >
> > Some time back in Analog
>
> photoreactive polycheatal chlorides in the may issue.
It's been twenty years or so; jog my memory. Was this the
compound that, in pure form, would dissolve BEFORE
it was added to water?
jdw
Maverick
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Karen Boelter wrote:
> From: Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net>
>
> Getting back to the original basis of this thread: Scientific Evidence for
> Astrology.
Of course, the other planets affect earth. However, that is no evidence
that they affect the events of one's life.
digger
Karen Boelter writes:
>
>...Some time back in Analog there was mention of a gentlemen employed by
>the upper ninety percentile (95%+)) There were two problems. 1. No
>one could figure out how he was doing it. 2. He refused to divulge his
>
> Essentially he was casting a horoscope and based upon the planetary
>positions he would make his atmospheric forecasts! Keep in mind this
>was in the time that IBM thought the U.S. would not need more than 9
>large computers and that 20 could serve the needs of the entire world.
>Calculators were room-size and most engineers used Log rythym charts
Incredible! This was also back in the time when geophysicists and radio
engineers relied on riometers, and energetic-ion measurements, in order to
predict auroral activity and ionospheric conditions. No wonder
astrologists are so heavily relied upon today.
-- digger
Sean Foley
Paul Schlyter (pau...@electra.saaf.se) wrote:
[snipped]
: I'm not organized, but I strongly feel that consumers should not get
: cheated. If they pay, they should get something that's worth what
: they paid for. Do you have any problems with this? You shouldn't,
: unless you're a fraud yourself who profit on gullible people.
People do astrology for difference reasons, but I certainly don't
feel that it wrong from them to charge. Calculating a chart correctly
can take quite a few hours [I usually spend 2 hours on each] and
that isn't even WITH interpretation. I agree with you though, many
people try to attribute more to astrology than it can do.
It seems to be very useful as an introspective tool, but predictively
it seems to fall short. As for evidence, let us not forget Jung's
research in the area. He was as scientific as anyone else could be.
: FYI: real magic(k) does not exist -- everything has a natural
: explanation, even if this explanation is unavailable to us.
Prove it.. You can, can't you? You just state these things and
don't prove them. We don't even have instruments that can measure this.
That's like saying because we didn't have infrared cameras in 17th century
AD there isn't any infrared radiation!
I can't no more prove it than you can disprove it. But, rather your dogma
isn't religion, it's popular science. As if that made you better than us.
: For CENTURIES, not just for a few years.... learn your history!!!!
HAH.. Astrology was the original science, if anyone is stepping in anyones
territory it's Astronomy. Basically, a bunch of people whom couldn't
understand the psychological implications got pissed off and broke from
Astrology's ranks to become Astronomers. Astrologers never debated the
physical investigations of Astronomy, and think it is silly to think one
negates the other - they're different fields. Astronomy is concerned with
the physical traits of various planets, and stars - Astrology is concerned
with the psychological effects their position at birth has on the person
being born. How you can claim one negates the other is beyond me, unless
your intellects can make leaps of faith - I hardly call that being
scientific. The only way to invalidate astrology is by its own method, as
in any other science. People have failed to do this, and that's why there
are still Astrologers.
Astrology began at least 20,000 years back, and was the original science
of the. As if a fledgling science like Astronomy [300 years or so]
or so] could negate all the knowledge gained in that time.
: > in a way they don't like. Year previous, astrology and astronomy
: > worked hand-in-hand.
:
: At that time astronomy and astrology were quite similar in worldviews/etc.
: Since then astronomy has evolved tremendeously, while astrology remains
: very similar to what it was 500+ years ago. Ptolemy's "Tetrabiblos" is
: still considered a good reference for astrologers -- no astronomer would
: consider Ptolemy's "Almagest" a good reference!!!
Astrology was THE ONLY science of the stars until the 17th century, and
even then, there were only a few Astronomers. Astrology is an evolving
science as well - techniques have changed drastically in that time. From
a horoscopic point of view, no, things haven't changed much. Astrology
has always calculated planet positions and meanings from the earths point
of reference because that's where we are when we're born! There is no need
to change this either - even though we now know our planets orbit the sun...
they still seem to move in relation to the earth and that is what we're
basing calculations on.
: > Kepler, a famous astronomer, was, in fact, and astrologer also.
:
: At that time astrology funded some astronomical research, yes.
: Nowadays astronomers no longer need to prostitute themselves
: like this....
I actually have interest in both. I don't have reason to be an
astro-militant. I study both sciences equally.
[snipped a bit that had nothing to do with the conversation]
: I've received a lot of "hate mail" recently -- usually I just ignore
: it. People obviously dislike that I tell the truth about astrology,
: which says a lot about these preactitioners. Your post here is among
: the better of this "hate mail" since you at least express an opinion.
: Several "hate mail" writers don't even do that, they just use foul
: language....
:
I don't dislike you. I dislike the fact that your claims are unfounded.
Have you ever done a horoscope? If you haven't, then why not? Or is popular
science your religion? Just because you're an astronomer doesn't mean that
you know ANYTHING at all about astrology. You should base your opinion
on astrology on the research YOU have done, and not what someone has said.
Evaluate things for yourself and you'll know the truth. Your opinion is
that of someone whom has never done any honest research on your own. Why
shouldn't I flame you? Why shouldn't anyone else? You're talking out of
your ass.
Where are your test cases? Your subjects? Your theories and conclusions?
There are none - you just babble on and on about nothing. Let us remember
that there is a vast difference between the popular conception of astrology
[newspaper horoscopes] and natal chart work[which most astrologers worth
their salt do].
- Sean
Earl Curley
Well let's take this thread into another form. First of all planetary
activities do alter and affect the earth. It's scientically known that
during full moon phases tides world-wide are affected. There's also a
vast amount of research going on trying to decipher whether full moon
phases do in fact enhance earthquake activity world-wide. Whether it be
just a coincidence or not (i.e. the 6.5 earthquake which recently shook
the Middle East and the West-Coast off of Vancouver Island) there seems
to be a higher rate of large earthquakes comparible to the normal
shakings we all experience.
With that in mind, we all know that approximately 90% of our body is
water. If gravitational pull is responsible for higher tides then
assuredly there has to be some affect on our bodies during certain moon
phases. Taking this a step further, if more than one planet aligns
itself with those moon phases and cause a stronger gravitational pull
then again we have to conclude that it also would and does affect the
human body. If one is knowledgeable about the different plantary
alignments and is able to project those alignments then one also must
admit that certain projections can be made about the consequences of
human behavior.
Although I personally am not totally convinced that birthing astrology
is precise I do contend that astrological insight during the course of
existance can and does establish a path to an end result.
New York Theosophical Society
Earl Curley (psy...@globalserve.net) wrote:
: Maverick wrote:
: >
: > On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Karen Boelter wrote:
: > > From: Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net>
: > that they affect the events of one's life.
: Well let's take this thread into another form. First of all planetary
: activities do alter and affect the earth. It's scientically known that
: during full moon phases tides world-wide are affected. There's also a
It's scientifically known that the tides are CAUSED by the
gravitational effect of the moon relative to the Earth and Sun.
: With that in mind, we all know that approximately 90% of our body is
: water. If gravitational pull is responsible for higher tides then
: assuredly there has to be some affect on our bodies during certain moon
: phases.
Water has some interesting properties, but being effected by
gravity in a way different than other liquids is NOT one of them. Also,
consider the magnitude of the tides compared with that of the ocean, and
then take that ratio in your own body. Now take into account all the
other gravitational influences in your life, and you will see that the
moon has about the same level of effect on your body as, say, a person
whispering to you from across from a crowded stadium of cheering fans
during a sporting event.
: Taking this a step further, if more than one planet aligns
: itself with those moon phases and cause a stronger gravitational pull
: then again we have to conclude that it also would and does affect the
: human body.
The gravitational effects of the other planets are trivial,
even when compared to the moon.
Even assuming that astrology is valid, given proper
interpretation, it is still not clear whether it is causal or
correlative. It is, however, almost certain that if it is causal, gravity
is NOT the causal mechanism.
Bart Lidofsky
Joseph Raquepas
In article <325F05...@globalserve.net>,
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
________________Bunch of Bullshit ommitted_____________________________
>Earl Curley
Do the numbers!!!
The force on a human body due to the moon is
F= G*Mmoon*Mbody/(d^2)
Where G= 6.7 *10^(-11) m^2/( s^2 kg)
Mmoon= mass of moon = 7.35*10^22 kg
d= distance to moon = 384,400,000 m
Mbody=mass of human body= body_weight/9.8 kg
Suppose I weight 65 kg then the force from the moon is
F= 2.2*10 ^(-4)=.00022 kg*m/s^2 which is almost nothing.
This turns out to be about
0.0000034 % of the gravitational force due to the Earth which
is probably undetectable to most biological systems.
Joe
Gilbert Lafortune
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>1. I offered him this challenge - he didn't even say "yes" or "no"
>to the challenge. He just stopped responding and then killfiled me.
>He also stopped posting anything about rectification. This strongly
>indicates that he really didn't believe in the astrological capabilities
>he claimed to have.
Not too fast Paul! I do agree that on a human level it did looked as
if he couldn't take your challenge. But an authentic scientific mind
wouldn't =jump= to such or any conclusion with so few data. Maybe he
was not interested in your challenge simply because it came from you.
Ever heard of the "experimenter interference phenomena" ? Don't you
think you are an obvious interference in this case ? This being said,
I must admit that your idea of testing rectification's reliability by
intentionally altering known-as-exact birth times was a good one,
except for one or two little problems : known-as-exact birth times are
rare or simply hard to define, and it would be quite difficult for an
astrologer to make a rectification (which always requires a great deal
of intimacy and truthfulness with the client) with someone either not
knowing his/her birth time was altered, or knowing it (which is more
probable, or at least less complicated) but then no more objective.
But your premature conclusion at least >strongly indicates that<,
after all, you are more human (and subjective) than that "pure
authentic infallible scientific mind" you pretend to be all the time.
I do admire your logical mind though, but I will never be able to take
you seriously as long as you wont admit that believing so deeply like
you do that all astrology is a fraud is as much "unscientific" than
believing in it or in anything else for that matter.
Once more, not too fast Paul. Don't jump to the conclusion that I am
one more of these astrology "believers". I do study and use astrology
since almost 25 years now, as a symbolic archetypal language
describing universal significant dynamics with are part of the cosmic
reality we human beings are living in, but I don't believe more in it
than one may believe in a language. Alike I came to believe in the
usefulness of the English and French (mine) languages out of sheer
study and utilization, I came to believe in astrology's usefulness
out of sheer opened mind study and utilization, and not out of any
scientific evidence. You see, I don't believe like you do that
scientific evidences are necessary for a phenomena to be part of this
reality. Some phenomena can and should be approached through the
scientific lens, but this universe is made of quite a lot more than
what can be seen through that sole lens. Astrology (at least some of
it) is a very different kind of lens. Not scientific at all, I do
admit that. But a very useful one, sometimes and for some (not you).
Not too fast ! :) I am probably not talking of the astrology you
wrongly think all or any astrology is. There are many forms of
astrology, and I will at least agree with you that many of these forms
are an absolute farce. It is because I am sharing at least that
conviction with you that I am daring to write to you today. And I do
think you are making a good job of denouncing some of the farces that
can be found in this news group . Unfortunately, as long as you
refuse to open your mind beyond your scientific evidences needs
limits, you end up having to deal solely with the farces, missing all
of what authentic astrology could bring to you.
Of course, you don't care. But once and for all, not too fast !
I wont try to convince you. You see, I happen to be kind of at war
against any kind of predictive events-oriented astrology, and
especially the commercial ones. In fact, I am at war against most of
what you probably think astrology is solely. Authentic astrology is
known and understood by very few, and is something else. But don't
bother to ask me to define it for you. I do intend to talk of it in
this newsgroup (in which I am a newcomer), but it wont be with you.
This being said, I will of course welcome any honest and sincere
comment you could dare and care to make as long as you can respect my
own rights to care about aspects of this reality that are simply
unaccessible to exclusively scientific oriented mind like your's.
Amicalement ! Gilbert le Québécois (bsc math/physicist, computer
science teacher, and amateur humanistic astrologer)
Earl Curley
Sure, and I suppose you'll try to convince the world the there are not
higher tides during a full moon phase. You had better recalculate your
findings because you also made a mathematical error. I also suppose you
failed mathematics in that elementary school of yours.
Shez
In article <xanJyTAO...@richsoft.demon.co.uk>,
"Michael.S.E.Richards" <Obi...@richsoft.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <53occo$4...@amanda.dorsai.org>, New York Theosophical Society
><ny...@dorsai.org> writes
>I'm a hypocrite, but it comes from having a Catholic mother :-)
>
>As a GCSE Astronomy candidate, I think you know what my views on this
>entire subject are. It rhymes with what you stick oars in. Not water.
>
>Bye, and MTFBWYA. Blessed be.
>
many moons ago when I first learned to read the Tarot, I thought that it
was the cards I was reading,
it did not take me long to realise, that the cards had nothing to do
with it, they only acted as a focus for my mind.
I read now without cards, and have done so for years, I wonder if
Astrology, which I have never studied, might be the same, if it is an
object of focus for the mind rather than a system based on old
Astrological symbols,
If this were the case, then Astrology would be perfectly valid,
because if there focus object is in the stars, the end result is valid ,
What they see is only focused through the stars, the real power is in
their minds. Food for thought at least.
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Boelter
A friend of mine was an astronomy major at the University and was given
the task of writing a program to keep a telescope aimed at several of the
planets (not all at the same time) for long viewing sessions.
After much work he managed to write a program that accomplished the
job with about 1/3 the program size of previous efforts by the staff of the
observatory thus conserving processor time and other resources.
His professor nearly lost it when he revealed exactly what his methods
had been. Previous programs had attempted to use the fact that all the
planets orbit using ellipses which evidently begins to use some fairly
heavy duty math. His program hearkened back to a simpler time and used
epicenters. No, he did not beleive that the planets moved about as wheels
within wheels upon wheels, but as he said, as long as it keeps the telescope
pointed the right way who cares how it is done?
However when someone finally looked at the code they were horrified and
the program was tossed in favor of one that mimiced (albeit more poorly)
'reality' and used proper ellipses.
Tirion
Alex Kashko
In article <53occo$4...@amanda.dorsai.org>
ny...@dorsai.org "New York Theosophical Society" writes:
>Earl Curley (psy...@globalserve.net) wrote:
>: Maverick wrote:
>: >
>: > On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Karen Boelter wrote:
>: > > From: Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net>
>: > Of course, the other planets affect earth. However, that is no evidence
>: > that they affect the events of one's life.
>
>: Well let's take this thread into another form. First of all planetary
>: activities do alter and affect the earth. It's scientically known that
>: during full moon phases tides world-wide are affected. There's also a
>
> It's scientifically known that the tides are CAUSED by the
>gravitational effect of the moon relative to the Earth and Sun.
>
>: With that in mind, we all know that approximately 90% of our body is
>: water. If gravitational pull is responsible for higher tides then
>: assuredly there has to be some affect on our bodies during certain moon
>: phases.
>
> Water has some interesting properties, but being effected by
>gravity in a way different than other liquids is NOT one of them. Also,
>consider the magnitude of the tides compared with that of the ocean, and
>then take that ratio in your own body. Now take into account all the
>other gravitational influences in your life, and you will see that the
>moon has about the same level of effect on your body as, say, a person
>whispering to you from across from a crowded stadium of cheering fans
>during a sporting event.
On the other hand sea water is not pure water it is more like a colloid
in some ways. This means the response of seawater to gravity and
electromagnetic radiation may be very different from that of pure water.
The argeument about the small magnitude of the effect is valid as long
as you assume the bodie's response to such a small effect, which will manifest
as a constant ( long ish duration) signal on top of noise, is small. It is
possible that the effect of gravitation at certain life points is to trigger a
very large response. I personally don't think this is the case but I also
cannot rule out the possibility.
>
>: Taking this a step further, if more than one planet aligns
>: itself with those moon phases and cause a stronger gravitational pull
>: then again we have to conclude that it also would and does affect the
>: human body.
>
> The gravitational effects of the other planets are trivial,
>even when compared to the moon.
Again, the agggregate may have a greater effect than the sum of its
parts.
>
> Even assuming that astrology is valid, given proper
>interpretation, it is still not clear whether it is causal or
>correlative. It is, however, almost certain that if it is causal, gravity
>is NOT the causal mechanism.
I agree with you, especially the "almost". I am not sure astrology is
valid since so many cultures have developed different forms of astrology.
Chinese Astrology and Indian astrology differ, I believe, from each other
almost as much as from Western astrology. The Gauquelin approach seems to be
a better method of establishing celestial influence but also tends, as I recall
to invalidate much of Western Astrology.
On the other hand the power of suggestion is very great. Like economic
theories Astrology tends to work because people believe it does rather than
because of any grounding in external reality - even the law of supply and
demand is based on a largely self fulfilling assumption that everyone has their
price.
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>
>
--
Alex Kashko: http://members.tripod.com/~Kashko/writer.htm
Free Instant Downline: http://www.wwln.com/fido/386327744.html
Life Plus Nutrition: Easy Proven Ground Floor Opportunity. No selling
http://members.tripod.com/~Kashko/wplus2.htm (Life Plus ID#333-000)
Ann
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Karen Boelter wrote:
> > From: Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Astrology.
> <snippage>
>
> that they affect the events of one's life.
>
Ah, but there is and you can see it for yourself. Find out when the
Mercury Retrograde periods are going to be. Then observe, Observe,
OBSERVE. Record your observations. You will find that the incidents
electrical and mechnical failure escalate, that communications go
awry and folks are more edgy -- significantly more edgy. The xerox
machine breaks down, the faq doesn't go through, the fed ex is late,
the car battery gives out, the TV reception is sporadic, your date is
late or on the wrong day, misunderstanding occurs because what one
said is not what the other heard.
Your observations if honest will show a marked increase in these activities
during the Mercury Retro 3-week period. So observe each of the retro
periods for a year and you will notice a distinct pattern.
The next retrograde period is December 24 through January 13, then
April 15 through May 9. Check it out.
Mitakuye oyasin,
Ann
Wizard
I would think, too, that you're both making the assumption that the force
given out by the planets which would be the cause and motive force behind
astrology is gravity (And, BTW, the world's leading expert on interstellar
gravity [a Britton, I forget his name, but he is also one of the top
astronomers in England and has published many well-respected books about
gravity] thinks that the gravity of the planets has an effect on the sun
which, in turn, is projected onto the earth, giving one possible
explanation for how astrology works). I have yet to see that such is
necessarily the case.
Wizard
Michael.S.E.Richards
>Earl Curley (psy...@globalserve.net) wrote:
>: Maverick wrote:
>: >
>: > On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Karen Boelter wrote:
>: > > From: Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net>
>: > that they affect the events of one's life.
>
>: activities do alter and affect the earth. It's scientically known that
>: during full moon phases tides world-wide are affected. There's also a
>
> It's scientifically known that the tides are CAUSED by the
>gravitational effect of the moon relative to the Earth and Sun.
>
>: With that in mind, we all know that approximately 90% of our body is
>: water. If gravitational pull is responsible for higher tides then
>: assuredly there has to be some affect on our bodies during certain moon
>: phases.
>
> Water has some interesting properties, but being effected by
>gravity in a way different than other liquids is NOT one of them. Also,
>consider the magnitude of the tides compared with that of the ocean, and
>then take that ratio in your own body. Now take into account all the
>other gravitational influences in your life, and you will see that the
>moon has about the same level of effect on your body as, say, a person
>whispering to you from across from a crowded stadium of cheering fans
>during a sporting event.
>
>: itself with those moon phases and cause a stronger gravitational pull
>: then again we have to conclude that it also would and does affect the
>: human body.
>
> The gravitational effects of the other planets are trivial,
>even when compared to the moon.
>
>interpretation, it is still not clear whether it is causal or
>correlative. It is, however, almost certain that if it is causal, gravity
>is NOT the causal mechanism.
>
>
You people scare me. And I thought my mum was bad enough. Okay, so maybe
I'm a hypocrite, but it comes from having a Catholic mother :-)
As a GCSE Astronomy candidate, I think you know what my views on this
entire subject are. It rhymes with what you stick oars in. Not water.
Bye, and MTFBWYA. Blessed be.
--
Michael.S.E.Richards - Demon Rabbit Slayer of Vexorg
Obi...@richsoft.demon.co.uk
WWW : http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2280/
Aged 16
An' it harm none, do as ye will.
"Circular doorknobs are inherently easier to sabotage with vaseline"
("Treatise on Doorknobs", Michael.S.E.Richards - 1996)
Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:in...@turnpike.com
Paul Schlyter
In article <53brb8$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
SDuraybito <sdura...@aol.com> wrote:
> pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
> 2. it was revealed that you're a fraud rather than a sincere
> believer. Since you dared not be challenged, you cannot really
> believe in your methods --thus you're into your a$trological
> bu$ine$$ only for the money....
>
> Hmmm. Since you've accused the original poster of being a fraud, I'd
> like to ask a couple of questions along these lines from a broader
> perspective.
> Are you in favor of legislation that would criminalize the study of
> astrology?
be put in jail for reading Greek mythology?
> What about legislation that would criminalize receiving payment for
> astrological services?
continue their scams...
Gilbert Lafortune
Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Now this man was very, very good at what he did. (His accuracy was in
>the upper ninety percentile (95%+) )
[...]
> Essentially he was casting a horoscope and based upon the planetary
>positions he would make his atmospheric forecasts!
Do you know that gentleman's name ? Was his method published ?
Gilbert le Québécois
sta...@istar.ca
On 1996-10-14 gilb...@sprynet.com(GilbertLafortune) said:
gi Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net> wrote:
gi > Now this man was very, very good at what he did. (His accuracy
gi >was in the upper ninety percentile (95%+) )
gi [...]
gi > Essentially he was casting a horoscope and based upon the
gi >planetary positions he would make his atmospheric forecasts!
gi Do you know that gentleman's name ? Was his method published ?
gi Gilbert le Québécois
I believe the man's last name was Nelson, aand he worked for either General
Electric or Marconi as an engineer.
sta...@istar.ca
STAR SIGNS Astrology Zine (weekly) http://home.istar.ca/~starman
`[1;37;45mNet-Tamer V 1.06X - Test Drive
david ryan
In article <53ojf7$m...@netra.montana.edu>, Joseph Raquepas
<imsg...@math.montana.edu> writes
>In article <325F05...@globalserve.net>,
>Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>________________Bunch of Bullshit ommitted_____________________________
>>Earl Curley
>
>
>Do the numbers!!!
>
>The force on a human body due to the moon is
>
>F= G*Mmoon*Mbody/(d^2)
>
>Where G= 6.7 *10^(-11) m^2/( s^2 kg)
> Mmoon= mass of moon = 7.35*10^22 kg
> d= distance to moon = 384,400,000 m
> Mbody=mass of human body= body_weight/9.8 kg
>
>
>Suppose I weight 65 kg then the force from the moon is
>
>F= 2.2*10 ^(-4)=.00022 kg*m/s^2 which is almost nothing.
>
>This turns out to be about
>
>0.0000034 % of the gravitational force due to the Earth which
>is probably undetectable to most biological systems.
>
>
>Joe
>
>
>
but what about observable effects of the full moon on behaviour, more
murders, more violence, more madness, more dogs howling, more fish
caught, better plant growth, more agitation and movement in people, more
bleeding, more accidents etc.
This posting sounds behind the apparent logic to be saying the moon and
the planets are so far off, how could they possibly affect us?
Yet if we look at the solar system we find ourselves very much under the
control of the sun as we go around it, while the sun is very much under
the control of the centre of the galaxy (some 30,000 light years away I
believe) as we rotate around that.
And our local group of galaxies under the control of a greater centre as
they in turn rotate. These are unimaginable distances but the effects
are there.
It constantly amazes me how astronomers, who should know better, make
out they know a lot when we know hardly anything about the universe we
live in, they rule out observed effects going back millenia, and yet
cannot even tell us if there are other planets, other life systems, and
fondly imagine they have the handle on all the forces at work in the
universe.
We have hardly started the journey yet and need to learn a little
humility.
It is laughable to see 'scientists' popping up to announce their
wonderful advances upon previous superstitions, some of the ancient
greek philosophers, mathematicians, had worked out the earth goes around
the sun, 2,300 and more years ago.
The real problem is that the present narrow confines of science and
scientists are
corrupted by the huge grants available - especially where they have
military applications - and the fatally compromised
followers have to buy in to a whole theology in order to get their
grants.
Look at the huge gravy train that was and is star wars, this is where
paranoia leads, true science is love of knowledge for its own sake and
that above all this requires some humility.
David Ryan |Phone 011-44-181 874 8218 (from US)
Kozmik Horoscopes | Fax 011-44-181-825 1025
134 Elsenham Street |UK: 0181+number other (int code+44+181+number
London SW18 5NP |email:k...@kdmdr.demon.co.uk
UK |http://www.demon.co.uk/kdm/hscope.html
L. Frederick File
In article <++8NrtAMY...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> Shez <sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> writes:
<text deleted>
.>many moons ago when I first learned to read the Tarot, I
.>thought that it>was the cards I was reading,
.> it did not take me long to realise, that the cards had nothing to do
.>with it, they only acted as a focus for my mind.
.>I read now without cards, and have done so for years, I wonder if
.>Astrology, which I have never studied, might be the same, if it is an
.>object of focus for the mind rather than a system based on old
.>Astrological symbols,
.>
.>If this were the case, then Astrology would be perfectly valid,
.>because if there focus object is in the stars, the end result is valid ,
.>What they see is only focused through the stars, the real power is in
.>their minds. Food for thought at least.
.>
No it would still be invalid because that is not what astrology claims. It
claims a relationship between an individual's chart and the individual's life.
In the process you describe any chart could be used (or even the same chart
for all) since the real analysis is just what the individual astrologer sees
in the individual client and the chart is just a prop, like the tarot cards.
lff
L. Frederick File
In article <326182...@earthlink.net> Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net> writes:
.>A friend of mine was an astronomy major at the University and was given
.>the task of writing a program to keep a telescope aimed at several of the
.>planets (not all at the same time) for long viewing sessions.
.
.> After much work he managed to write a program that accomplished the
.>job with about 1/3 the program size of previous efforts by the staff of the
.>observatory thus conserving processor time and other resources.
.
.> His professor nearly lost it when he revealed exactly what his methods
.>had been. Previous programs had attempted to use the fact that all the
.>planets orbit using ellipses which evidently begins to use some fairly
.>heavy duty math. His program hearkened back to a simpler time and used
.>epicenters. No, he did not beleive that the planets moved about as wheels
.>within wheels upon wheels, but as he said, as long as it keeps the telescope
.>pointed the right way who cares how it is done?
.> However when someone finally looked at the code they were horrified and
.>the program was tossed in favor of one that mimiced (albeit more poorly)
.>'reality' and used proper ellipses.
.
So what we have is a mythical astronomer friend, who writes a mythical program
at a mythical university with an astounded mythical professor and a mythical
someone who is horrified and tosses the program.
Could we have few facts so that we might be able to check a little of this or
are you just personalizing an urban legend?
lff
L. Frederick File
>I would think, too, that you're both making the assumption that the force
>given out by the planets which would be the cause and motive force behind
>astrology is gravity (And, BTW, the world's leading expert on interstellar
>gravity [a Britton, I forget his name, but he is also one of the top
>astronomers in England and has published many well-respected books about
>gravity] thinks that the gravity of the planets has an effect on the sun
>which, in turn, is projected onto the earth, giving one possible
>explanation for how astrology works). I have yet to see that such is
>necessarily the case.
A wizard who is so prescient that he remembers details of a gravitational
theory but is unable to provide the name of the source? Why should we trust
your memory on the theory if you can't even remember the astronmer's name so
that we might check things out?
lff
Joseph Raquepas
In article <326150...@globalserve.net>,
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Sure, and I suppose you'll try to convince the world the there are not
>higher tides during a full moon phase. You had better recalculate your
>findings because you also made a mathematical error. I also suppose you
>failed mathematics in that elementary school of yours.
>
>Earl Curley
No dumb ass think about it. Or don't they teach you to think in
that junior high school of yours. Gravitaional force between two
objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between them. Of course the
lunar gravity causes tidal effects! However the mass of the oceans is a
hell of a lot greater than that of a human body. Which was my intended
point, and even though I did make a calculation error my point is still
valid, you fuck stick.
Joe
Joseph Raquepas
In article <jIdvkAA5...@kdmdr.demon.co.uk>,
david ryan <k...@kdmdr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>This may indeed be true about the gravitational effects of the moon,
>but what about observable effects of the full moon on behaviour, more
>murders, more violence, more madness, more dogs howling, more fish
>caught, better plant growth, more agitation and movement in people, more
>bleeding, more accidents etc.
This is only anecdotal evidence. Go to your police department and
ask to see the stats on such things.
Joe
L. Frederick File
A few studies have shown a relationship between phase of the moon and
homicides, mental hospital committments etc. However, numerous attempts to
replicate the results have failed to show the relationships. Following are a
number of such studies:
Pokorny, A.D. "Moon Phases, Suicide and Homicide" American
Journal of Psychiatry 121 (1964)
Pokorny, A.D., and Jachimczyk, Joseph. "The Questionable
Relationship Between Homicides and the Lunar Cycle." American
Journal of Psychiatry 131 (1974)
Lester, D.; Brockopp, G.W.; and Priebe, K. "Association Between
a Full Moon and Completed Suicide." Psychological Reports 25
(1969)
Pokorny, A.D. "Moon Phases and Mental Hospital Admissions."
Journal of Psychiatric Nursing 6 (1968)
Blackman, S. and Catalina, D. "The Moon and the Emergency
Room." Perceptual and Motor Skills 37 (1973)
Walters, E.; Markley, R.P.; and Tiffany, D.W. "Lunacy: A
Type I Error?" Journal of Abnormal Psychology 84(1975)
Bauer, S.F., and Hornick, E.J. "Lunar Effect on Mental Ill-
ness: The Relationship of Moon Phase to Psychiatric Emerg-
encies." American Journal of Psychiatry 125 (1968).
Lilienfeld, D.M. "Lunar Effect on Mental Illness." American
Journal of Psyciatry 125 (1969)
Weiskott, G.N. "Moon Phases and Telephone Counseling Calls"
Psychological Reports 35 (1974)
Shapiro, J.L.; Streiner, D.L.; Gary, A.L.; Williams, N.L.;
and Soble, C. "The Moon and Mental Illness: A Failure
to Confirm the Transylvania Effect." Perceptual and Motor
Skills 30 (1970)
Campbell, D.E., and Beets, J.L. "Lunacy and the Moon."
Psychological Bulletin 86(1978)
(More on Request)
lff
L. Frederick File
In article <53sc6o$h...@juliana.sprynet.com> gilb...@sprynet.com (Gilbert Lafortune) writes:
>pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>>FYI: real magic(k) does not exist -- everything has a natural
>>explanation, even if this explanation is unavailable to us.
>Yes indeed. And maybe you will one day find out by yourself some
>natural explanation of astrology. But in order to do that you will
>have to extent quite a lot your actual conception of what is a
><natural explanation<. You must agree that notwithstanding its
>obvious great contributions, there are strong evidences that science
>has failed to explain most of Reality, and which, btw, is only really
>relevant at the subjective level, and at which level astrology works
>only . Only because of that I do admit astrology is more prone to be
>abused of, used wrongly and/or used fraudulently than science is,
>But it is also more likely to be really and directly useful at the
>subjective level where people live at.
Actually there is nothing left to explain about astrology. All the supposed
effects can be easily explained using contemporary human psychology.
lff
JAKE
>
>The force on a human body due to the moon is
>
>F= G*Mmoon*Mbody/(d^2)
>
>Where G= 6.7 *10^(-11) m^2/( s^2 kg)
> Mmoon= mass of moon = 7.35*10^22 kg
> d= distance to moon = 384,400,000 m
> Mbody=mass of human body= body_weight/9.8 kg
>
>
>Suppose I weight 65 kg then the force from the moon is
>
>F= 2.2*10 ^(-4)=.00022 kg*m/s^2 which is almost nothing.
>
>This turns out to be about
>
>0.0000034 % of the gravitational force due to the Earth which
>is probably undetectable to most biological systems.
>
>
>Joe
--
JAKE Road Bouncers MCC/Road Bouncers Virtual MCC
The meaning of life is to survive, at any cost.
(Disclaimers, we dont need no stinking disclaimers!)
JAKE
>Ah, but there is and you can see it for yourself. Find out when the
>Mercury Retrograde periods are going to be. Then observe, Observe,
>OBSERVE. Record your observations. You will find that the incidents
>electrical and mechnical failure escalate, that communications go
>awry and folks are more edgy -- significantly more edgy. The xerox
>machine breaks down, the faq doesn't go through, the fed ex is late,
>the car battery gives out, the TV reception is sporadic, your date is
>late or on the wrong day, misunderstanding occurs because what one
>said is not what the other heard.
>
>Your observations if honest will show a marked increase in these activities
>during the Mercury Retro 3-week period. So observe each of the retro
>periods for a year and you will notice a distinct pattern.
>
>The next retrograde period is December 24 through January 13, then
>April 15 through May 9. Check it out.
>
>Mitakuye oyasin,
> Ann
>
flux?
Gilbert Lafortune
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <53brb8$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>SDuraybito <sdura...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you in favor of legislation that would criminalize the study of
>> astrology?
>
>Of course not! Why should study of star lore be illegal? Why should one
>be put in jail for reading Greek mythology?
Freedom of thought ! Yes
>> What about legislation that would criminalize receiving payment for
>> astrological services?
>
>I wouldn't mind that at all. Otherwise these frauds will be able to
>continue their scams...
And a limited freedom of action ! Yes
Those two are very important social values.
I am happy we share them. :)
Fortunately both also apply to Judges.
They may think was they want of astrology,
they may condemn a particular astrologer for obvious fraud,
but they would need a lot more than your arguments to condemn it all.
Back to this thread matter.
You wrote somewhere "Why should anyone need scientific evidence of
astrology?". Of course we could all smell your background "a priori":
"since it is all a fraud...". But don't forget that, in scientific
terms, it IS still an "a priori".
To answer your question though, I would say : hopefully, no authentic
astrologers. Authentic astrology needs no more scientific evidence
than music needs of its inspiring potential. That is unfortunate that
many good brains are loosing their precious time trying to prove to
people like you something that can't anyway be proved in scientific
terms simply because what make it works is beyond scientific reach
(science limiting itself to the objectivable level of reality).
Somewhere else you also wrote :
> If astrology made no verifyable statements it would be that simple.
>
> However astrology DOES make verifyable statements (although
Yes. There is a problem there. Personally I cannot accept that kind
of statements. I do believe that when an astrologer does make such a
statement (verifiable in scientific terms) he is out of line.
Authentic astrology talks at a level where it is simply impossible to
understand it in scientific terms, as does listening to music .
Someone stating to you that this or that musical play would be loved
by and good for you is certainly not making a scientifically
verifiable statement, and many are well paid for doing that kind of
counselling.
Of course there are good and bad musicians, and nobody agree on which
are the gods and which are the bads. In the meantime Music IS, as IS
Astrology.
Amicalement ! Gilbert le Québécois Humanistic amateur astrologer
Lester John Ness
: Karen Boelter writes:
: >
: >...Some time back in Analog ....
: > Essentially he was casting a horoscope and based upon the planetary
Analog is not necessarily a reliable source : it promoted L. Ron
Hubbard early in his career as cult-leader.
--
Lester Ness ln...@indiana.edu
Paul Schlyter
In article <325DAF...@earthlink.net>,
Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Getting back to the original basis of this thread: Scientific Evidence for
> Astrology.
>
> RCA to forecast upper atmospheric disturbance affecting the Ionosphere.
> RCA was big into Shortwave radio (this was pre-TV) for entertainment,
> and communications and it was important to be able to predict how far and
> how well the radio signal would travel and this in turn depended on
> atmospheric disturbances in the Ionosphere.
>
> Now this man was very, very good at what he did. (His accuracy was in
> the upper ninety percentile (95%+)) There were two problems. 1. No
> one could figure out how he was doing it. 2. He refused to divulge his
> method.
>
> Well TV came into vogue, radio declined and Shortwave also declined in
> importance as a communications medium. Time passed and the man came
> up for retirement and once he had retired he finally revealed his method.
>
> Essentially he was casting a horoscope and based upon the planetary
> in the time that IBM thought the U.S. would not need more than 9 large
> computers and that 20 could serve the needs of the entire world.
> Calculators were room-size and most engineers used Log rythym charts
> and slide rules.
>
> No wonder he kept his methods a secret though. In that day and time
> if he had explained his methods he would probably have been canned even
> if he had been 100% correct.
>
> Just thought you folks would like this bit of trivia.
Well if these methods aren't secret anymore, and if they really are
95% accurate as you claim, why not reveal the method, e.g. in the
form of a computer program that takes the planetary positions as
input parameters and produces relevant parameters as output? Even if
SW radio isn't as important anymore for commercial radio, there are
many people worldwide who would LOVE accurate predictions of SW radio
conditions. I'm of course referring to ham radio operators -- they
could also verify the accuracy of this method (they would most certainly
do it if they were given a computer program implementing this algorithm).
So why not reveal the method in enough detail to make it possible to
implement it as a computer program? The method must have been quite simple
if it could be run on the "dinosaur" computers of that time....
pete stapleton
imsg...@math.montana.edu (Joseph Raquepas) wrote:
>No dumb ass think about it. Or don't they teach you to think in
>that junior high school of yours. Gravitaional force between two
>objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely
>proportional to the square of the distance between them. Of course the
>lunar gravity causes tidal effects! However the mass of the oceans is a
>hell of a lot greater than that of a human body. Which was my intended
>point, and even though I did make a calculation error my point is still
>valid, you fuck stick.
>Joe
Pete Stapleton comments: So the human body does not have the mass of all the
water in the Earth's Oceans. This is an amazing finding. Have you published
this? If not, I suggest you keep it secret a litte longe or the "scientists"
will find out and they will of course automatically deny it's truth since they
didn't think of it themselves. It is always like that when an astrologer tells
them something they don't know about.
However, what you could publish is the vast amount of data which you must have
that shows any astrologer ever saying "GRAVITY" has anything to do with
Astrological causation. Gravity being responsible for the birth astrological
imprint was a favorite strawman of the wanna be comic who used to appear on the
Johnny Carson show. What made him so funny is that he also said he was a
"scientist" who would know about these things. He didn't know of any astrologer
who had ever sadi gravity had any thing to do with the brith astrological
imprint either. But then what do you expect from a guy who is now spending vast
sum of money trying to get in touch with ET.
You keep that foul language coming - it appears you are emulating the SWEDISH
AMATEUR ASTRONOMICAL SOCIEITY'S "scietnific logic" language very well.
Pete
Charter Member and Chairmain of R.O.S.A
(Registry of Sidereal Astrologers)
Founder and Chairman of S.R.A
(Sidereal Research Association)
paul fletcher
> > No wonder he kept his methods a secret though. In
>
>
>
real research instead of being a kook-skeptic?
Or can't you understand what is going on here on alt-astrology? People are getting results.
You can't see it. And don't swear at me in private e-mail any more. My children don't
appreciate reading your profanities.
paul fletcher
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <53avbl$3...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
How could you tell the truth about astrology when you say on alt.astrology that you don't do
research? Opinions can't count. You are like the scientist who measures a Picasso painting
with a level and says the eyes don't match so it can't be art. Astrology is a valuable art. It's
easy to close your eyes to reality however. If you were a sceptic you would investigate
Randi. Randi lied to me when he said there was no such thing as soap operas when he was
a kid. How stupid does he think people are? How stupid do you think people are?
Racine125
Greetings from Mambo Racine Sans But. In addition to being a priestess of
the Vodou, I hold a Master of Science Degree, so I think I am qualified to
say a word on this topic, if you have the patience.
Your calculations on the gravitational force exerted on a human body by
the moon are quite correct, however it is not at all clear of this would
be "negligible". More importantly, the effect of lunar LIGHT on living
things has been documented in fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and
mammals including humans. To take the most obvious example, the human
menstrual cycle is 28 days, the same length as the lunar cycle. In less
earth-alienated cultures, women fully expect to ovulate at the full moon
and menstruate at the new moon. In fact, some peoples even build roof
openings in the women's sleeping quarters to enable them to remain attuned
to the lunar cycle.
Having said that, I must qualify that this is not "scientific evidence for
astrology" per se, merely phenomena that indicate the importance of lunar
light-mediated cycles in living systems.
James J. Rohacik
:
,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
Followup-To: alt.astrology,alt.religion.shamanism,alt.paranormal,alt.pagan.magic
k,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
References: <53occo$4...@amanda.dorsai.org> <845215...@galdr.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Illinois State University
Distribution:
In alt.paranormal Alex Kashko <wp...@galdr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <53occo$4...@amanda.dorsai.org>
: ny...@dorsai.org "New York Theosophical Society" writes:
:
: >Earl Curley (psy...@globalserve.net) wrote:
: >: Maverick wrote:
: >: >
: >: > On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Karen Boelter wrote:
: >: > > From: Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net>
: >: > Of course, the other planets affect earth. However, that is no evidenc
e
: >: > that they affect the events of one's life.
: >
: >: Well let's take this thread into another form. First of all planetary
: >: activities do alter and affect the earth. It's scientically known that
: >: during full moon phases tides world-wide are affected. There's also a
: >
: > It's scientifically known that the tides are CAUSED by the
: >gravitational effect of the moon relative to the Earth and Sun.
: >
: >: With that in mind, we all know that approximately 90% of our body is
: >: water. If gravitational pull is responsible for higher tides then
: >: assuredly there has to be some affect on our bodies during certain moon
: >: phases.
: >
: > Water has some interesting properties, but being effected by
: >gravity in a way different than other liquids is NOT one of them. Also,
: >consider the magnitude of the tides compared with that of the ocean, and
: >then take that ratio in your own body. Now take into account all the
: >other gravitational influences in your life, and you will see that the
: >moon has about the same level of effect on your body as, say, a person
: >whispering to you from across from a crowded stadium of cheering fans
: >during a sporting event.
:
:
: On the other hand sea water is not pure water it is more like a colloid
: in some ways. This means the response of seawater to gravity and
: electromagnetic radiation may be very different from that of pure water.
:
: The argeument about the small magnitude of the effect is valid as long
: as you assume the bodie's response to such a small effect, which will manifest
: as a constant ( long ish duration) signal on top of noise, is small. It is
: possible that the effect of gravitation at certain life points is to trigger a
: very large response. I personally don't think this is the case but I also
: cannot rule out the possibility.
:
:
:
: >
: >: Taking this a step further, if more than one planet aligns
: >: itself with those moon phases and cause a stronger gravitational pull
: >: then again we have to conclude that it also would and does affect the
: >: human body.
: >
: > The gravitational effects of the other planets are trivial,
: >even when compared to the moon.
:
: Again, the agggregate may have a greater effect than the sum of its
: parts.
:
:
: >
: > Even assuming that astrology is valid, given proper
: >interpretation, it is still not clear whether it is causal or
: >correlative. It is, however, almost certain that if it is causal, gravity
: >is NOT the causal mechanism.
:
: I agree with you, especially the "almost". I am not sure astrology is
: valid since so many cultures have developed different forms of astrology.
: Chinese Astrology and Indian astrology differ, I believe, from each other
: almost as much as from Western astrology. The Gauquelin approach seems to be
: a better method of establishing celestial influence but also tends, as I recal
l
: to invalidate much of Western Astrology.
:
: On the other hand the power of suggestion is very great. Like economic
: theories Astrology tends to work because people believe it does rather than
: because of any grounding in external reality - even the law of supply and
: demand is based on a largely self fulfilling assumption that everyone has thei
r
: price.
:
:
:
:
:
: >
: > Bart Lidofsky
: >
: >
:
: --
: Alex Kashko: http://members.tripod.com/~Kashko/writer.htm
: Free Instant Downline: http://www.wwln.com/fido/386327744.html
: Life Plus Nutrition: Easy Proven Ground Floor Opportunity. No selling
: http://members.tripod.com/~Kashko/wplus2.htm (Life Plus ID#333-000)
:
:
what? you are way out of your league homeboy! if i was you, i'd
be quiet. i'm sure you'd like me to do the same. i will under
one condition: that you stop trying to impress people with fifty
cent words...
James J. Rohacik
,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
Followup-To: alt.astrology,alt.religion.shamanism,alt.paranormal,alt.pagan.magic
k,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
References: <3253DF...@mail.sdsu.edu> <325F05...@globalserve.net> <53ojf
7$m...@netra.montana.edu> <326150...@globalserve.net> <53tm5i$3...@netra.monta
Organization: Illinois State University
Distribution:
In alt.paranormal Joseph Raquepas <imsg...@math.montana.edu> wrote:
: In article <326150...@globalserve.net>,
: Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
:
: >Sure, and I suppose you'll try to convince the world the there are not
: >higher tides during a full moon phase. You had better recalculate your
: >findings because you also made a mathematical error. I also suppose you
: >failed mathematics in that elementary school of yours.
: >
: >Earl Curley
:
: No dumb ass think about it. Or don't they teach you to think in
: that junior high school of yours. Gravitaional force between two
: objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely
: proportional to the square of the distance between them. Of course the
: lunar gravity causes tidal effects! However the mass of the oceans is a
: hell of a lot greater than that of a human body. Which was my intended
: point, and even though I did make a calculation error my point is still
: valid, you fuck stick.
:
: Joe
:
yeeeeehhhhaaa! right on Joe! i didn't bother even looking at
your calcs to see if an error was made (hence my previous followup)
and i really am suprised earl found it. either way, you gave him
exactly what he deserved! right on! the dude can't take criticism
worth a *&@! and undeniably, he did miss your point...
James J. Rohacik
,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
Followup-To: alt.astrology,alt.religion.shamanism,alt.paranormal,alt.pagan.magic
k,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
References: <3253DF...@mail.sdsu.edu> <325F05...@globalserve.net> <53ojf
7$m...@netra.montana.edu> <326150...@globalserve.net> <53tm5i$3...@netra.monta
na.edu> <540o8m$t...@tweety.sna.com>
Organization: Illinois State University
Distribution:
In alt.paranormal pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote:
: imsg...@math.montana.edu (Joseph Raquepas) wrote:
:
:
:
: >No dumb ass think about it. Or don't they teach you to think in
: >that junior high school of yours. Gravitaional force between two
: >objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely
: >proportional to the square of the distance between them. Of course the
: >lunar gravity causes tidal effects! However the mass of the oceans is a
: >hell of a lot greater than that of a human body. Which was my intended
: >point, and even though I did make a calculation error my point is still
: >valid, you fuck stick.
:
: >Joe
:
: Pete Stapleton comments: So the human body does not have the mass of all the
: water in the Earth's Oceans. This is an amazing finding. Have you published
: this? If not, I suggest you keep it secret a litte longe or the "scientists"
: will find out and they will of course automatically deny it's truth since they
: didn't think of it themselves. It is always like that when an astrologer tel
ls
: them something they don't know about.
:
: However, what you could publish is the vast amount of data which you must have
: that shows any astrologer ever saying "GRAVITY" has anything to do with
: Astrological causation. Gravity being responsible for the birth astrological
: imprint was a favorite strawman of the wanna be comic who used to appear on th
e
: Johnny Carson show. What made him so funny is that he also said he was a
: "scientist" who would know about these things. He didn't know of any astrolog
er
: who had ever sadi gravity had any thing to do with the brith astrological
: imprint either. But then what do you expect from a guy who is now spending va
st
: sum of money trying to get in touch with ET.
:
: You keep that foul language coming - it appears you are emulating the SWEDISH
: AMATEUR ASTRONOMICAL SOCIEITY'S "scietnific logic" language very well.
:
: Pete
:
: Charter Member and Chairmain of R.O.S.A
: (Registry of Sidereal Astrologers)
:
: Founder and Chairman of S.R.A
: (Sidereal Research Association)
:
:
shut-up.
James J. Rohacik
,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
Followup-To: alt.astrology,alt.religion.shamanism,alt.paranormal,alt.pagan.magic
k,alt.religion.wicca,alt.pagan,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.paranet.psi
References: <3253DF...@mail.sdsu.edu> <325DAF...@earthlink.net> <Pine.HP
P.3.95.961011013...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu> <325F052E.7928@glob
alserve.net> <53ojf7$m...@netra.montana.edu> <326150...@globalserve.net>
Organization: Illinois State University
Distribution:
In alt.paranormal Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
: Joseph Raquepas wrote:
: >
: > In article <325F05...@globalserve.net>,
: > Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
: > ________________Bunch of Bullshit ommitted_____________________________
: > >Earl Curley
: >
: > Do the numbers!!!
: >
: > The force on a human body due to the moon is
: >
: > F= G*Mmoon*Mbody/(d^2)
: >
: > Where G= 6.7 *10^(-11) m^2/( s^2 kg)
: > Mmoon= mass of moon = 7.35*10^22 kg
: > d= distance to moon = 384,400,000 m
: > Mbody=mass of human body= body_weight/9.8 kg
: >
: > Suppose I weight 65 kg then the force from the moon is
: >
: > F= 2.2*10 ^(-4)=.00022 kg*m/s^2 which is almost nothing.
: >
: > This turns out to be about
: >
: > 0.0000034 % of the gravitational force due to the Earth which
: > is probably undetectable to most biological systems.
: >
: > Joe
:
:
: Sure, and I suppose you'll try to convince the world the there are not
: higher tides during a full moon phase. You had better recalculate your
: findings because you also made a mathematical error. I also suppose you
: failed mathematics in that elementary school of yours.
:
: Earl Curley
: psy...@globalserve.net
: http://www.webdesign.ca
there you go again earl. just because someone disagrees with you,
you've gotta try and bring em down. hey earl, what was the error
he made. give it to us all in detail. i suppose you're an expert
in quantum mechanics too, eh...
Gilbert Lafortune
Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>A friend of mine was an astronomy major at the University and was given
>the task of writing a program to keep a telescope aimed at several of the
>planets (not all at the same time) for long viewing sessions.
> After much work he managed to write a program that accomplished the
>job with about 1/3 the program size of previous efforts by the staff of the
>observatory thus conserving processor time and other resources.
> His professor nearly lost it when he revealed exactly what his methods
>had been. Previous programs had attempted to use the fact that all the
>planets orbit using ellipses which evidently begins to use some fairly
>heavy duty math. His program hearkened back to a simpler time and used
>epicenters. No, he did not beleive that the planets moved about as wheels
>within wheels upon wheels, but as he said, as long as it keeps the telescope
>pointed the right way who cares how it is done?
> However when someone finally looked at the code they were horrified and
>the program was tossed in favor of one that mimiced (albeit more poorly)
>'reality' and used proper ellipses.
>Tirion
Thanks for sharing that interesting anecdote Tirion. :)
Even amongst scientists emotion often takes prerogative over reason.
GIlbert le Québécois
Marcel Duchamp
Joseph Raquepas wrote:
> Gravitaional force between two
> objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely
> proportional to the square of the distance between them.
You are citing Newtonian physics. It's close but not correct. The idea
of gravity as a "force" is also somewhat dated.
No one really knows what gravity is. Perhaps it's magick.
Since there isn't a clear notion of what gravity is, it's subject to
misbehave.
Ooops.
I'm
floating
I
can
b
a
r
e
l
y
r
e
a
c
h
t
h
e
k
e
y
...end of transmission...
Carrie
>
>
> : FYI: real magic(k) does not exist -- everything has a natural
> : explanation, even if this explanation is unavailable to us.
have to get this point cleared up. How are you defining "real magic" Are
you saying that magic are events brought about from methods that work outside
the natural world? If so, I'd have to agree with you as well as most
wiccans.
However, Real Magic does exist, it's a part of nature and uses the
forces of nature to bring things about. Many consider this unnatural for
there is no rational explanation at hand. But, as I recently discovered this
is true of many things used in the world of science and people consider quite
rational to use. For example, ether (credited for revolutionizing medicine)
has been used for years as an anesthesia. Still, no one knows how it works.
No rational explanation at hand, but no one calls it magic. But, why not.
Why isn't it magic? Because science has given it validity? However, if
magic is simply using nature to bring about a result, for example using a
substance that we have no idea works to render a person unconscience during
surgery, then magic and science really all that far apart. Whatever the
label, it's really all the same. So, to say there's no such thing as magic
because there are natural explanations really isn't valid since no one is
arguing that there isn't a natural explanation as far as I can see.
What is being argued, however, is what is considered a reasonable
explanation. In that case all I can do is quote my 9th grade science
teacher "Science is never certain. Some things are more certain than others,
but in the end science knows nothing." What we end up relying on is what
works. Ether works so we use it. And, from what I've seen of astrology, and
yes I admit I draw natal charts to get a better understanding of human
personality, it works. And, just to let you and anyone else who might think
so, I'm not a fraud, a quack, hypocrate, or whacko. I've just found
something that works.
Glen Quarnstrom
pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton) wrote:
>However, what you could publish is the vast amount of data which you must have
>that shows any astrologer ever saying "GRAVITY" has anything to do with
>Astrological causation. Gravity being responsible for the birth astrological
>imprint was a favorite strawman of the wanna be comic who used to appear on the
>Johnny Carson show. What made him so funny is that he also said he was a
>"scientist" who would know about these things. He didn't know of any astrologer
>who had ever sadi gravity had any thing to do with the brith astrological
>imprint either. But then what do you expect from a guy who is now spending vast
>sum of money trying to get in touch with ET.
Astrology is bullshit. Get used to it.
>Charter Member and Chairmain of R.O.S.A
>(Registry of Sidereal Astrologers)
>Founder and Chairman of S.R.A
>(Sidereal Research Association)
Hahahah! That's funny. Pseudo-scientific organizations supposedly
validating superstition. That's just *too* cool!
Your thinking is as messed up as the spelling in your tirade.
Paul Schlyter
In article <Dz5GD...@rci.ripco.com>, Sean Foley <sfo...@ripco.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter (pau...@electra.saaf.se) wrote:
> [snipped]
> : I'm not organized, but I strongly feel that consumers should not get
> : cheated. If they pay, they should get something that's worth what
> : they paid for. Do you have any problems with this? You shouldn't,
> : unless you're a fraud yourself who profit on gullible people.
>
> People do astrology for difference reasons, but I certainly don't
> feel that it wrong from them to charge. Calculating a chart correctly
> can take quite a few hours [I usually spend 2 hours on each] and
> that isn't even WITH interpretation.
You must use computation methods that are HORRIBLY out of date! How
do you manage to spend 2 hours just computing one single chart? Do
you compute the planetary positions from the fundamental theories
directly, using hand computation, or what? Get a computer and a
decent program (e.g. Walter Pullen's freeware program "Astrolog".
There's no need to pay for something you can get for free, is it?),
then it'll take only a second or so to compute a chart!!!
> I agree with you though, many people try to attribute more to
> astrology than it can do.
Thanks.
> It seems to be very useful as an introspective tool, but predictively
> it seems to fall short.
Of course -- anything that produces random statements can be useful
as an introspective tool: your brain is fed with these statements,
contemplates them, then accepts some and rejects some. The
contemplation part is the useful part. Astrology can here be
replaced by any other such random statement generator - for instance
the I Ching, or "fortune cookies".
> As for evidence, let us not forget Jung's research in the area.
> He was as scientific as anyone else could be.
I'm not well oriented in Jung's works, but I suppose he offers many
plausible explanations why people may find e.g. astrology useful.
He was a pshychologist, wasn't he?
>: FYI: real magic(k) does not exist -- everything has a natural
>: explanation, even if this explanation is unavailable to us.
>
> Prove it.. You can, can't you?
You're right -- I can't. Neither can I prove, with 100% certainity,
that the Earth is not flat or even that I myself really exists.....
> You just state these things and don't prove them. We don't even have
> instruments that can measure this.
This is really a matter of semantics. What is "magic" really? Is it
just some natural processes of which we have no knowledge? If so,
was e.g. radio and TV "magic" some 500 years ago and earlier?
> That's like saying because we didn't have infrared cameras in 17th
> century AD there isn't any infrared radiation!
But we did have skin, with heat sensitive nerves, back then. IR
radiation can be sensed like heat.
> I can't no more prove it than you can disprove it.
So why do you claim magic exists if you cannot prove it? :-)
> But, rather your dogma isn't religion, it's popular science. As if
> that made you better than us.
>
>: For CENTURIES, not just for a few years.... learn your history!!!!
>
> HAH.. Astrology was the original science,
I agree with you -- way back then astrology was the closest thing to
science one could find. But things do change. Real science evolve
with additional knowledge. Contemporary astrology do the opposite:
it rejects much knowledge to enable itself to still cling to age-old
beliefs. This is why contemporary astrology is a superstition even
though ancient astrology could, with some justification, be labelled
"science".
> if anyone is stepping in anyones territory it's Astronomy.
I beg your pardon? Do you want to claim that astronomy should not be
allowed to expand our knowledge about the Universe, or what?
> Basically, a bunch of people whom couldn't understand the psychological
> implications got pissed off and broke from Astrology's ranks to become
> Astronomers.
Quite a biased point of view -- they weren't "pissed off", instead they
were sensible enough to realize that one had to abandon old false beliefs
in order to make any progress in our understanding of the Universe.
Also note that the "psychological implications" of astrology is of quite
recent origin. Ancient astrology didn't dabble very much with psychology,
it assumed that astrology could predict actual physical events in our
everyday lives (such as accidents, illnesses, etc). Only when these
original claims by astrology were finally and thoroughly disproved did
the astrologers escape into psychology and mystiscism.
> Astrologers never debated the physical investigations of Astronomy, and
> think it is silly to think one negates the other - they're different
> fields.
That's why they split. Since they're different fields your earlier claim
that astronomy "stepped on the territory of" astrology is not valid.
> Astronomy is concerned with the physical traits of various planets,
> and stars - Astrology is concerned with the psychological effects their
> position at birth has on the person being born.
Astrology is concerned with maintaining an old belief system, without
making any real progress. First, do you know if the moment if birth
really is that important? Do you even care?
> How you can claim one negates the other is beyond me, unless
> your intellects can make leaps of faith - I hardly call that being
> scientific.
Earlier claims of the causes of astrological effects (first gravity, later
electromagnetism) has been proved false. But of cause astrology makes
an infinity of claims, and always invokes "mystical forces" whenever
suitable -- in that way astrology can avoid being disproved, at least
in the eyes of its believers -- but I hardly call that being scientific.
> The only way to invalidate astrology is by its own method, as
> in any other science.
Would you also claim that the only way of proving the Earth is not
flat is by using the methods of Flat-Earth freaks? I think not....
Likewise proving astrology wrong can be done with other methods. The
most obvious method is to test the claims by astrology - if these
claims regularly fail then astrology has been proved wrong.
Astrology can "defend" itself against these tests by trying to avoid
making any claims (and many contemporary astrologers seem to follow
that route). Of course if you never make any claims you'll never be
wrong -- but you'll never be right either since you'll have nothing
to say really....
> People have failed to do this, and that's why there are still Astrologers.
There are also still flat-Earth believers -- does this imply that mankind
has failed to prove that the Earth is not flat?
The reason we still have astrology followers is that the message of
astrology is enticing: it promises some "link" between the celestial
and the individual. It's really the same reason that we have religious
people -- religion promises a "link" between the individual and the
heavenly. And many (most?) people will prefer a pleasant lie to the
harsh truth.
> Astrology began at least 20,000 years back,
Could you supply some reference supporting that claim? You claim
even more than Jai Mirage does -- he only claims astrology is some
8000 years old. The commonly accepted figure is otherwise some
4000 years.
> and was the original science of the.
Of the WHAT ?????
> As if a fledgling science like Astronomy [300 years or so] or so]
> could negate all the knowledge gained in that time.
Astronomy never negated all of this knowledge -- it accepted and
assimilated the knowledge that made sense, and abandoned what did
not make sense. Thus whatever facts there were in ancient astrology
lives on today - in astronomy. COntemporary astrology is merely
the superstition part of ancient astrology.
> : > in a way they don't like. Year previous, astrology and astronomy
> : > worked hand-in-hand.
> :
> : At that time astronomy and astrology were quite similar in worldviews/etc.
> : Since then astronomy has evolved tremendeously, while astrology remains
> : very similar to what it was 500+ years ago. Ptolemy's "Tetrabiblos" is
> : still considered a good reference for astrologers -- no astronomer would
> : consider Ptolemy's "Almagest" a good reference!!!
>
> Astrology was THE ONLY science of the stars until the 17th century,
Science, as we know it today, hardly existed at all at that time...
> and even then, there were only a few Astronomers.
Of course ... back then there were much fwere people, and almost all
of them were peasants. Anything else that's new?
> Astrology is an evolving science as well - techniques have changed
> drastically in that time.
Techniques may have changed, sure (the ancient greeks had no digital
computers for instance) -- but the contents are pretty much the same.
> From a horoscopic point of view, no, things haven't changed much. Astrology
> has always calculated planet positions and meanings from the earths point
> of reference because that's where we are when we're born! There is no need
> to change this either - even though we now know our planets orbit the sun...
> they still seem to move in relation to the earth and that is what we're
> basing calculations on.
More importantly is that your basic assumptions (of the importance of the
moment of birth, of the "nature" of the planets, signes, etc) remains
virtually unchanged, except in some minor details.
Your argument that "techniques have changed" is just plain stupid.
An example: suppose some writer did write a lot of garbage books that
somehow managed to sell. Suppose he first used a pen, later changed
to a typewriter, and still later bought a fancy computer with a word
processor program full of "bells and whistles" (i.e. features). Also
suppose he wrote very similar stuff all the time, but that each
change in techniques enabled him to produce his garbage literature
twice as fast as before, i.e. to publish twice as many books per yera
as before. Would that be important changes to him as a writer and to
the literature he produced?
> : > Kepler, a famous astronomer, was, in fact, and astrologer also.
> :
> : At that time astrology funded some astronomical research, yes.
> : Nowadays astronomers no longer need to prostitute themselves
> : like this....
>
> I actually have interest in both. I don't have reason to be an
> astro-militant.
What does "astro" refer to in "astro-militant"? Astronomy or astrology?
> I study both sciences equally.
What BOTH sciences? There is one science and one superstition. If
astrology really was a science it would look very very different from
the way it looks today....
> [snipped a bit that had nothing to do with the conversation]
>
> : I've received a lot of "hate mail" recently -- usually I just ignore
> : it. People obviously dislike that I tell the truth about astrology,
> : which says a lot about these preactitioners. Your post here is among
> : the better of this "hate mail" since you at least express an opinion.
> : Several "hate mail" writers don't even do that, they just use foul
> : language....
>
> I don't dislike you. I dislike the fact that your claims are unfounded.
They're not unfounded -- check the long reference list below.
> Have you ever done a horoscope?
Yes. It was fun, but it did fit my real person quite badly...
> If you haven't, then why not?
N/A
> Or is popular science your religion?
No -- popular science is far too often hopelessly inaccurate. People
treating science as a religion will fare the same fate as astrologers:
they'll be left behind by our ever-increasing and evolving knowledge.
> Just because you're an astronomer doesn't mean that you know ANYTHING
> at all about astrology.
Of course not - did I ever claim that? To know astrology of course means
one must study it -- why do you take for granted I haven't done that?
> You should base your opinion on astrology on the research YOU have done,
> and not what someone has said.
Why do you require me to act in isolation? Co-operation is ubiqutous in
any scientific field today. If everyone would, as you require, be forced
to investigate everything from scratch themselves and never use the results
of anyone else, then mankind wouldn't have reached very far...
<SARCASM MODE ON>
Do you ever claim the Earth is not flat? If so, where's your own research
about this? Did YOU PERSONALLY do the best you could to travel to the edge
of the Earth and watch that huge abyss there? If you ever saw THAT, all
your talk about the Earth not being flat would be silenced, I'm positive!
<SARCASM MODE OFF>
> Evaluate things for yourself and you'll know the truth.
That's what I've done....
> Your opinion is that of someone whom has never done any honest research
> on your own.
You shouldn't claim this since you don't know what I've done.....
> Why shouldn't I flame you? Why shouldn't anyone else? You're talking out
> of your ass.
You're talking like my 5-year old daughter....
> Where are your test cases? Your subjects? Your theories and conclusions?
Again, why do you require me to re-invent the wheel yet another time?
Instead consult the long reference list below -- there you'll find
test cases, subjects, theories, and conclusiong.
> There are none - you just babble on and on about nothing.
Wrong -- see below!
> Let us remember that there is a vast difference between the popular
> conception of astrology [newspaper horoscopes] and natal chart work
> [which most astrologers worth their salt do].
Of course -- did I ever claim anything else?
And here's that reference list - enjoy!
--------------------------begin inserted file---------------------------------
A while back, somebody was lamenting the fact the scientists just
don't take astrology seriously, so they never do any studies to find
out if it works.
Aside from the fact that nothing is keeping the astrologers from doing
such studies, I posted a reply stating that plenty of research had
been done, and the results were negative.
References were then requested.
Most of these references are "second hand" in that I haven't read the
actual papers, only summaries in other books and magazine articles.
If I have misrepresented either the protocol or results of any of the
following, feel free to correct me.
I have not included references on the Gauquelin mars effect, which has
been covered by other threads in far greater detail.
Here are the references I've collected so far -- in no particular
order:
Gauquelin, M.
Zodiac and Personality: An Empirical Study
Skeptical Inquirer, 6:3, 57
1982
Compiled personality profiles from biographies of 2000 sports figures,
actors, scientists, and writers. Compared these profiles with
personality traits associated with the sign of the sun, moon, and
ascendant according to eight astrology texts. No correlation was
found using either the sidereal or tropical zodiac.
Press, N., Michelsen, N.F., Russel, L., Shannon, J., Stark, M.
The New Yourk Suicide Study
Journal of Geocosmic Research, 2, 23-47
1978
Examined records of suicides in NYC from 1969 to 1973. Selected all
suicides who were born in NYC and for which birth data was available.
This resulted in 311 suicide cases. For each of these, a control
subject was randomly chosen who was born in the same borough and
year. The suicides and matching controls were divide into three
groups according to year of suicide.
A computer program was used to test 100,000 different astrological
factors in each of the 622 birth charts for significance between
suicide and control groups. None of the factors consistently
correlated with the suicide cases.
Culver, R.
Sun Sign Sunset
Pachert
1979
Van Deusen, E.
Astrogenetics
Doubleday
1976
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 147
1977
The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign
and over 60 occupations. The results of all three were negative -- no
correlation was found between occupation and sun sign.
Dean G., Mather, A.
Recent Advances in Natal Astrology
p113
The Astrological Association
1977
Silverman, B., Witmer, M.
Astrological Indicators of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 87, 89
1974
Per Dalen,
Season of Birth
American Elsevier Publishing
1975
Pellegrini, R.,
The Astrological Theory of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 85, 21
1973
The above 4 references all found no correlation between sun sign and
personality traits as measured by standardized psychological tests,
mostly the California Personality Inventory (CPI). However, Pellegrini
found a slight correlation between the CPI femininity index and season
of birth.
Illingworth, D., Syme, G.
Birthday and Femininity
Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 153
1977
Tyson, G.
Astrology or Season of Birth: A 'Split-Sphere' Test
Journal of Psychology, 95, 285
1977
These two studies found no correlation between sun sign and
personality traits measured by the CPI, including the femininity
index.
Mayes, B., Klugh, H.
Birthdate Psychology: A Look at Some New Data
Journal of Psychology 99, 27
1978
Compiled natal charts and results of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory and the Leary Interpersonal Check List for 196 subjects.
Compared 13 personality traits with sun signs, signs and houses of the
moon and 8 planets, and with five planetary aspects. No correlations
were found.
Mayo, J., White, O., Eysenck, H.
An Empirical Study of the Relation between Astrology Factors and
Personality
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 105, 229
1979
Jackson, M.
Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Date of Birth: A Southern Hemisphere
Study
Journal of Psychology, 101, 197
1979
These two studies found correlations between astrological factors and
the Introversion/Extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality
Inventory.
Veno, A., Pammunt, P.
Astrological Factors and Personality: a Southern Hemisphere
Replication
Journal of Psychology, 101, 73
1979
Failed to duplicate the correlation found above.
Pawlik, K., Buse, L.,
Self-attribution as a Differential Psychological Moderating Variable
Zeitschrift fur Sozilpsychologie, 10, 54
1979
Showed that the correlation above could be explained by the fact that
some of the subjects knew what the expected results would be for their
astrological signs.
Eysenck, H.,
Astrology: Science or Superstition?
Encounter, Dec 1979, p85
Jackson, M., Fiebert, M. S.
Introversion-Extroversion and Astrology
Journal of Psychology, 105, 155
1980
Saklofske, D., Kelly, I., McKerracher, D.
An Empirical Study of Personality and Astrological Factors
Journal of Psychology, 110, 275
1982
These three studies found no correlation between astrological factors
(sun and planetary) and personality, including the
introversion/extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astrology: True or False, p215
Prometheus
1988
A double blind test of astrologer John McCall was organized at the
University of Virginia by Charles Tolvert and Philip Ianna. McCall
claimed an 80 percent success rate in choosing the correct natal
horoscope for a subject from three false ones. Twenty-eight subjects
were chosen according to McCalls requirements (naturally born
caucasians). McCall had 7 successes out of 28 trials, exactly the
number predicted by chance.
Silverman, Bernie I.,
Contemporary Astronomy by J. Pasachoff, cf p437
W. B. Saunders
1977
Kop, P., Heuts, B.
Journal of Interdisciplenary Cycle Research 5, 19
1974
The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate
and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of
Amsterdam, respectively.
John McGervey
Physicist
Case Western Reserve University
Found that the sun signs of 6,000 politicians and 10,000 scientists
were randomly distributed.
Shawn Carlson
A Double-blind Test of Astrology
Nature, 318, 419
1985
116 adults filled out California Personality Index surveys and
provided natal data. One set of natal data and the results of three
personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal
data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data
and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same
subject as the natal data.
The San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic
Research recommended the 28 astrologers who took part. They approved
the procedure in advance and predicted that they would select the
correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.
Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34 per cent
of the time. This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3
trails producing a correct choice.
Horoscopes were prepared by professional astrologers for 83 subjects.
Each subject was given three charts, one of which belonged to the
subject. In 28 of 83 trials the subject chose the correct chart.
This is the success rate expected for random chance.
Dean, Geoffrey
(trying to find reference)
Astrological readings were done for a groups of subjects. The content
of some of the readings were reversed (changed phrases describing the
subject to their opposites).
Subjects reported that both the reversed and normal readings applied
95 per cent of the time.
Gauquelin, M.
L'Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Experimentale
Dauphin Press
1955
Found no correlation between occupation and the zodiac signs
containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon at the
time of birth.
Gauquelin, M.
The Cosmic Clocks, p84
Henry Regnery Co.
1967
Found random distribution of the house containing Saturn for
successful individuals, and the house containing Mars for murderers.
Barth, J., Bennet, J.
Leonardo 7, 235
1974
Found no correlation between occupation, medical problems, height,
longevity, and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, and
Jupiter at the time of birth.
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 85
1977
Pretty much the same study and results as the previous reference.
Additionally, no correlation was found between occupation, medical
problems, etc. and angular separation (along the ecliptic) of planet
pairs at time of birth.
Dean, G.
Does Astrology Need to be True? Part 1: A Look at the Real Thing
Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 166
1987
Astrologers prepared horoscopes for subjects correct natal data.
Reversed charts were then constructed from the correct charts by
retaining the sun sign, but reversing all of the planetary aspects.
Half of the subjects were given correct charts, the other half were
given reversed charts. There was no correlation between the perceived
accuracy of the charts and whether the subject was given a correct or
reversed chart.
Dwyer T.
Unpublished word described in Dean, 1987.
Horoscopes were prepared for correct natal data and for a birth date 5
years and 6 months before the correct date, with the correct sun sign
retained. Thirty subjects were given the correct and incorrect
charts. Half of the subjects picked the correct chart, half chose the
incorrect chart.
From: lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Astrology References
A couple more, one negative and one positive:
McGrew, John H., McFall, Richard M.
A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 75-83
1990
Abstract--Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match
23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4
male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on
the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs,
and test profiles from the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank
and the Cattell 16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no
better than chance or than a nonastrologer control subject at
matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was
independent of astrologers' confidence ratings for their predicted
matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's
predictions.
Marbell, Neil Z., Novak, Angela R., Heal, Laird W., Fleming, Land D.,
Burton, Jeannine Marie
Self Selection of Astrologically Derived Personality Descriptions:
An Empirical Test of the Relationship Between Astrology and Psychology
NCGR Journal, Winter 1986-87, 29-44
Abstract--Twenty-four female subjects were asked to recognize as
true or untrue complex personality characteristics describing themselves
and to select one of three personality profiles as their own; personality
information had been derived by "blinded" astrologers from natal charts
representing the moment of birth. Three different experiments varied as
to the complexity of the astrologically derived personality characteristics,
method of test material administration, and subjects' knowledge of the
astrological basis for personality information. Overall results for the
three experiments evaluated using cumulative binomial distribution were
significantly non-random, with p<.001 for 15 valid trials and p<.01
for all 24 trials including nine found non-eligible for inclusion. These
results supported the validity of astrology's capability to generate
unique personality descriptors that subjects affirm by selection as
representative of their own personalities.
[Comment on this last one: This is in an astrology publication (the journal
of the National Council for Geocosmic Research) and the description of
the methodology is a bit vague in places, as are the reasons why some of
the subjects were disqualified. The article is followed, however, by
letters from various people praising the methodology--including the
late CSICOP Fellow George Abell and Allan Teger, Boston University
professor and former program director for social and developmental psychology
for the National Science Foundation. These letters all date from the late
seventies. There's also a letter from Paul Kurtz in support of Marbell's
application for NSF money for an astrological study, but you can't tell from
the letter whether Kurtz saw the details of these particular experiments.]
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: gib...@crisium.geop.ubc.ca (Brad Gibson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.astrology
>I'm afraid that many of the studies are in journals devoted to astrological
>research, which your university library (or public library) would only
>have if it were unusually progressive. There are scattered studies in
>various scholarly journals (e.g., in journals devoted to psychological
>research);
... stuff deleted ...
You might like to try the following references:
(1) Carlson, S. "A Double Blind Test of Astrology", Nature, 318, 419 (1985)
-- the above is a "must-read"
(2) Carlson, S. "Astrology", Experimentia, 44, 290 (1988)
(3) Kelly, I. "Astrology and Science: A Critical Examination", Psychological
Reports, 44, 1231 (1979)
For more references, please refer to "Astrology: True or False" by Culver &
Ianna (1988, Prometheus Books). Also, more scientific references can be
found in "Mercury" magazince (a publication of the Astronomical Society
of the Pacific).
Brad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad K. Gibson INTERNET: gib...@geop.ubc.ca
Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy BITNET: user...@ubcmtsg.bitnet
#129-2219 Main Mall
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------end inserted file---------------------------------
Joseph Raquepas
In article <326541...@monmouth.com>,
Marcel Duchamp <ma...@Monmouth.com> wrote:
>Joseph Raquepas wrote:
>
>You are citing Newtonian physics. It's close but not correct. The idea
>of gravity as a "force" is also somewhat dated.
Yes, you are some what correct. But on a local scale ie motion of
planets ect. it behaves like the force which Newton described.
For example when you are discussing the effect of the moon on tides
the description is very accurate and any more modern theories do not
add any accuracy. My original point was that this
analogy between tides caused by lunar gravity and effects on the fluid
in the human body is subject to pitfalls.
>No one really knows what gravity is. Perhaps it's magick.
General relativity says that gravity is due to a curvature in space-
time. There is a great deal of experimental evidence that agrees with
this theory. Infact a recent Nobel prize in physics was awarded to
a couple of guys for such an experiment. There is also the theory
that gravity is caused by particles known as gravitons. However
gravitons have yet to be detected.
Joe
Paul Schlyter
In article <53qagl$q...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
Gilbert Lafortune <gilb...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
> >1. I offered him this challenge - he didn't even say "yes" or "no"
> >to the challenge. He just stopped responding and then killfiled me.
> >He also stopped posting anything about rectification. This strongly
> >indicates that he really didn't believe in the astrological capabilities
> >he claimed to have.
>
> Not too fast Paul! I do agree that on a human level it did looked as
> if he couldn't take your challenge. But an authentic scientific mind
> wouldn't =jump= to such or any conclusion with so few data. Maybe he
> was not interested in your challenge simply because it came from you.
If this was the case, why didn't he go on bragging about his rectification
abilities, just like he did before the challenge?
> Ever heard of the "experimenter interference phenomena" ? Don't you
> think you are an obvious interference in this case ?
Of course - the very idea of testing beliefs is an obvious interference
to many faithful believers...
> This being said, I must admit that your idea of testing rectification's
> reliability by intentionally altering known-as-exact birth times was
> a good one, except for one or two little problems : known-as-exact
> birth times are rare or simply hard to define,
I know, so you must pick one of the few birth times known to be
accurate for such an experiment. Since I happened to know such birth
times, I offered my challenge. Btw I wouldn't require agreement to
the minute to consider the recitification a success -- if Ed had
successfully rectified both birth times to within five minutes after
I had introduced intentional errors of up to several hours in either
direction, I would have considered that a very good result.
> and it would be quite difficult for an astrologer to make a
> rectification (which always requires a great deal of intimacy and
> truthfulness with the client) with someone either not knowing his/her
> birth time was altered, or knowing it (which is more probable, or at
> least less complicated) but then no more objective.
There is one additional problem with my challenge that you never
adressed: trust and honesty. Suppose Ed had accepted my challenge
and that he failed miserably -- then he could (and probably would
have) accused me of giving me fake data, and I could not prove that
he was wrong. On the other hand, suppse Ed had succeeded -- the I
could have claimed that he did obtain the correct birth times from
someone else in a.a (I have given this information to perhaps 2 or 3
participants in this newsgroup, about 2 years ago) -- and Ed could not
have proved this was the case.
HAving said this, it would still be a very good idea of a sincere
astrologer to occasionally test his perceived abilities in this, by
having a friend he trusts take a birth time known to be accurate but
unknown to the astrologer, have the friend deliberately introduce
errors, try to rectify the correct birth time, and then compare
with the actual birth time. THIS would be objective evidence of
the accuracy of this method.
> But your premature conclusion at least >strongly indicates that<,
> after all, you are more human (and subjective) than that "pure
> authentic infallible scientific mind" you pretend to be all the time.
> I do admire your logical mind though, but I will never be able to take
> you seriously as long as you wont admit that believing so deeply like
> you do that all astrology is a fraud is as much "unscientific" than
> believing in it or in anything else for that matter.
I never claimed "all astrology is a fraud" -- after all there are
many sincere believers out there. These are no frauds, they are
merely superstitious. The frauds are those who do NOT believe in it
but anyway exploits it commercially, like Ed Wollmann very likely does.
> Once more, not too fast Paul. Don't jump to the conclusion that I am
> one more of these astrology "believers".
I don't -- if you were, you would not have admitted that the basic
idea of my rectification challenge was good. The "believers" frown at
any kind of testing....
> I do study and use astrology since almost 25 years now, as a symbolic
> archetypal language describing universal significant dynamics with
Perfectly ok....
> are part of the cosmic reality we human beings are living in,
Not so fast! Our reality are not "cosmic" but merely local, at least
in a truly cosmic perspective. We know very little about the
circumstances on e.g. the other side of our own galaxy....
(this is another common fallacy of astrologers: far far too often
they consider our universe to consist of our own drarf star, the SUn,
and the planets, but little else...)
> but I don't believe more in it than one may believe in a language.
> Alike I came to believe in the usefulness of the English and
> French (mine) languages out of sheer study and utilization, I came
> to believe in astrology's usefulness out of sheer opened mind study
> and utilization, and not out of any scientific evidence.
Ok, you use astrology to communicate information. Then please tell
me, what does astrology do that e.g. English cannot do?
> You see, I don't believe like you do that scientific evidences are
> necessary for a phenomena to be part of this reality.
Not so fast! Earlier you said you used astrology merely as a
language, but here you jump the conclusion that it is a reality! An
English sentence does not automatically become true just because
someone pronounces it. Likewise an astrological statement does not
automatically become true just because an astrologer believes he
finds it in a chart'.
> Some phenomena can and should be approached through the scientific
> lens, but this universe is made of quite a lot more than what can
> be seen through that sole lens. Astrology (at least some of
> it) is a very different kind of lens. Not scientific at all, I do
> admit that. But a very useful one, sometimes and for some (not you).
>
> Not too fast ! :) I am probably not talking of the astrology you
> wrongly think all or any astrology is. There are many forms of
> astrology, and I will at least agree with you that many of these forms
> are an absolute farce. It is because I am sharing at least that
> conviction with you that I am daring to write to you today. And I do
> think you are making a good job of denouncing some of the farces that
> can be found in this news group . Unfortunately, as long as you
> refuse to open your mind beyond your scientific evidences needs
> limits, you end up having to deal solely with the farces, missing all
> of what authentic astrology could bring to you.
>
> Of course, you don't care. But once and for all, not too fast !
> I wont try to convince you. You see, I happen to be kind of at war
> against any kind of predictive events-oriented astrology, and
> especially the commercial ones.
Well, here we are in agreement. But if you remove those versions
of astrology, what's left? Myths and fairy-tales, that's about it.
If one treats it like literature, one can of course enjoy it like
any good novel. But astrology believers usually claim that astrology
is NOT literature, but fact....
> In fact, I am at war against most of
> what you probably think astrology is solely. Authentic astrology is
> known and understood by very few, and is something else. But don't
> bother to ask me to define it for you. I do intend to talk of it in
> this newsgroup (in which I am a newcomer), but it wont be with you.
Why not?
> This being said, I will of course welcome any honest and sincere
> comment you could dare and care to make as long as you can respect my
> own rights to care about aspects of this reality that are simply
> unaccessible to exclusively scientific oriented mind like your's.
Paul Schlyter
In article <53rsb7$4...@animal.intex.net>, Ann <grai...@intex.net> wrote:
> Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Karen Boelter wrote:
>>> From: Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> Getting back to the original basis of this thread: Scientific Evidence for
>>> Astrology.
>> <snippage>
>>
>> Of course, the other planets affect earth. However, that is no evidence
>> that they affect the events of one's life.
>>
>
> Ah, but there is and you can see it for yourself. Find out when the
> Mercury Retrograde periods are going to be. Then observe, Observe,
> OBSERVE. Record your observations.
There's one practical difficulty: Mercury is kind'a hard to observe
when retrogade: it's close to the Sun, and its crescent phase makes
it faint.
> You will find that the incidents
> electrical and mechnical failure escalate, that communications go
> awry and folks are more edgy -- significantly more edgy. The xerox
> machine breaks down, the faq doesn't go through, the fed ex is late,
> the car battery gives out, the TV reception is sporadic, your date is
> late or on the wrong day, misunderstanding occurs because what one
> said is not what the other heard.
>
> Your observations if honest will show a marked increase in these activities
> during the Mercury Retro 3-week period. So observe each of the retro
> periods for a year and you will notice a distinct pattern.
And what if someone actually does this and reaches a different
conclusion than you? Will you accuse them of being liars and
dishoest people?
My experience is that I've never bothered at all by retrogade
Mercury. Only astrologers are -- this effect is probably
psychological: they're nervous about it, and this nervousness make
them goof it up more often.
Paul Schlyter
In article <326150...@globalserve.net>,
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>Joseph Raquepas wrote:
>>
>> In article <325F05...@globalserve.net>,
>> Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> wrote:
>> ________________Bunch of Bullshit ommitted_____________________________
>> >Earl Curley
>>
>> Do the numbers!!!
>>
>> The force on a human body due to the moon is
>>
>> F= G*Mmoon*Mbody/(d^2)
>>
>> Where G= 6.7 *10^(-11) m^2/( s^2 kg)
>> Mmoon= mass of moon = 7.35*10^22 kg
>> d= distance to moon = 384,400,000 m
>> Mbody=mass of human body= body_weight/9.8 kg
>>
>> Suppose I weight 65 kg then the force from the moon is
>>
>> F= 2.2*10 ^(-4)=.00022 kg*m/s^2 which is almost nothing.
>>
>> This turns out to be about
>>
>> 0.0000034 % of the gravitational force due to the Earth which
>> is probably undetectable to most biological systems.
>>
>> Joe
>
>
>Sure, and I suppose you'll try to convince the world the there are not
>higher tides during a full moon phase. You had better recalculate your
>findings because you also made a mathematical error. I also suppose you
>failed mathematics in that elementary school of yours.
Why didn't you also mention the fact that the tidal force on the baby
from the doctor delivering the baby is many times stronger than the
todal force from the Sun and Moon combined, on the baby ???
Jason Elliott
Friend I used to be into Astrology big time working out my friends
personalities etc thru Astrology however I now realise Astrology is the
Occult and is false and deceptive and potentially dangerous too I have
nothing to do with it I judge people on face value
Steve
What do you want "Scientific" evidence for?
If five people are all born within a few seconds of each other at very
nearly the same place, astrology does not claim they will have the same
name or live the same life only that their lives will have synchronized
patterns.
Knowing your life's patterns can be very helpful in your life. period.
L. Frederick File
In article <5420ui$f...@juliana.sprynet.com> gilb...@sprynet.com (Gilbert Lafortune) writes:
.>Karen Boelter <nera...@earthlink.net> wrote:
.
.>
<myth deleted>
>>Tirion
>Thanks for sharing that interesting anecdote Tirion. :)
>Even amongst scientists emotion often takes prerogative over reason.
>GIlbert le Québécois
Another demonstration of perhaps the saddest tendency of all astrological
investigation - the acceptance of rumor as fact.
lff
Hugh E. Jeffcoat
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
PAUL: Why are you persueing arguments about "todal" forces ? Is this
some new fangled origin-of-the-universe theory your role models, the
SCIENTISTS, have entered in the good-old-boy publish-no-matter-how
outrageous-so-you-can-get-the-grant-this-year ?? Well, if you are
trying to discuss tidal forces, you would know that they are not why
astrology works either. The force we astrologers (not you wannabes)
have discovered is the astrological force. You would have to deal
with it in order to know even if it works at all. Just talking about
it and useing the word as if you KNEW what it was, as we all know that
you do not, ain't gonna cut it. You gotta USE it !! And we all know
you ain't gonna do that !! Your buddies at the SWEEDISH DIRTY EMAIL
SOCIETY wouldn't approve, now would they ?? JEFF
Richard Townsend
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Michael.S.E.Richards wrote:
> In article <53occo$4...@amanda.dorsai.org>, New York Theosophical Society
> <ny...@dorsai.org> writes
> >Earl Curley (psy...@globalserve.net) wrote:
> >: Maverick wrote:
<snip>
...massive thread on influence of gravity on water and ppl
SKIP TO THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS IF YOU WANT THE STAGGERING RESULT AND NOT
THE BORING PROOFS...
What most of the people in favour of the gravitational influence of
planets on people is that the tides are not a result of *just* a
gravitational field. What is needed is a NON-UNIFORM gravitational field.
It is only because there is a difference in the moons gravitational field
between the side of the earth near the moon and the other side that ocean
tides exist. Such non-uniform gravitational fields are known as tidal
fields, and they produce tidal forces.
Now, for an object of size S, the amount by which the gravitational
pull of a planetary body a distance D away changes from one side of the
object to the other is given by
Fractional Change = 2 * S / D
We can use this little formula (I do hope the maths doesn't scare you!) to
work out this fractional change for a human in relation to the fractional
change for the earth. Taking the the diameter of the earth to be approx
13600km, and the height of a tall human to be 2m, we find that
Frac. Change for human
---------------------- = 0.000000147 (approx)
Frac. change for earth
Now, assuming that the average tide is 20m high, a measure of this
fractional change for the earth is 10m/13600km=0.000000735. Thus, the
fractional change in a human due to the tidal force of the moon is given by,
for a human 2m tall, 0.00000000000173m.
If all of this maths has baffled you, I can summarise with this: the
change in the dimensions of the human body caused by the tidal force of
the moon is 0.00000000000173m, more or less. This is smaller than the
size of an atom. Thus, the moon causes the human body do change in size
by less than the diameter of an atom. To put this in perspective, the
body contains approx. 300000000000000000000000000 atoms.
What this is telling me is that the moon (or even less other planets) can
have *NO* effects whatsoever on the workings of the human body.
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Richard Townsend | |
| Department of Psychics and Astrology | "Old pond, |
| University College London | frog jumps in - |
| Gower Street | plop" |
| London WC1E 6BT | |
| Work: (0171) 419 3410 | Basho |
| Home: (0171) 284 0888 Ext 8037 | |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
paul fletcher
Gilbert Lafortune wrote:
>
(Paul Schlyter) wrote:
> >SDuraybito <sdura...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you in favor of legislation that would criminalize the study of
> >> astrology?
Dear Gilbert:
Are you blind? Don't you read the posts on predictions I have done? If you are so scientific
then you explain how predictions are done. I do them routinely and successfully in my
practice. If it's not scientific then you explain what it really is. As for astronomers discussing
astrology it's like a paint manufacturer talking about Rembrandt. Get your own newsgroup.
Like alt.drivel.
JAKE
In article <3266f...@news.accutek.com>, "Hugh E. Jeffcoat"
<jef...@accutek.com> writes
>
snip previous<
>PAUL: Why are you persueing arguments about "todal" forces ? Is this
>some new fangled origin-of-the-universe theory your role models, the
>SCIENTISTS, have entered in the good-old-boy publish-no-matter-how
>outrageous-so-you-can-get-the-grant-this-year ?? Well, if you are
>trying to discuss tidal forces, you would know that they are not why
>astrology works either. The force we astrologers (not you wannabes)
>have discovered is the astrological force. You would have to deal
>with it in order to know even if it works at all. Just talking about
>it and useing the word as if you KNEW what it was, as we all know that
>you do not, ain't gonna cut it. You gotta USE it !! And we all know
>you ain't gonna do that !! Your buddies at the SWEEDISH DIRTY EMAIL
>SOCIETY wouldn't approve, now would they ?? JEFF
>
how can they use it if they dont know what is?????
--
JAKE Road Bouncers MCC/Road Bouncers Virtual MCC
The meaning of life is to survive, at any cost.
(Disclaimers, we dont need no stinking disclaimers!)
JAKE
This is getting out of hand, moderator!moderator! Either you belive in
Astrology or you dont ( never mind those of you who cannot make up your
minds ) Those who dont, have a bit of trouble understanding the effect
of the planetary masses on our lives because they see the effects as so
small as to be nearly unmeasurable, those who do, belive that the minute
effect of planetary position make small but significant alteraions to (I
assume) the pathways that make up our personality in the brain.
I have to make a point I think may be relevant (but I could be wrong(:)
If astrology is the study of the effect of planetary influence on us,
why has noone done a study of the effects of radio signal strenght or
even which songs were broadcast at the time of our birth, these would be
a much more powerful influence than the gravitional effect and would
give us some better birth signs i.e. Virgin (fm/am), Capital, BBC1-2-3-4
etc I am a Radio mercury myself, 'cos thats my nearest (I think)
transmitter, is this theory any less likely than Astrology? if you think
so then try to disprove it and I will give you plenty of
conterarguements for. (roll on a unified field theory!) (:
Bogdan Krusinski
JAKE wrote:
>
> This is getting out of hand, moderator!moderator! Either you belive in
> Astrology or you dont ( never mind those of you who cannot make up your
> minds )
I don't believe in astrology, but it doesn't change the fact that
planetary movements have great effect on our lives. I practise astrology
for less than 3 years, but transits and progressions have the same
strong effect before I've heard about astrology as after on me or any
other man or woman whose horoscope I've interpreted.
Bogdan Krusinski
Paul Schlyter
In article <53sc6o$h...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>>explanation, even if this explanation is unavailable to us.
>
> natural explanation of astrology.
I already have: the natural explanation of astrology is quite simple:
it's due to wishful thinking in humans, combined with a desire to feel
some link with the heavens. Some people get religious because of this,
while others turn to astrology. Obviously both fullfill some needs in
many humans. But there is a third way to "feel a link to the heavens"
where there's no need to resort to fantasies: one can follow what
happens in the real sky, with whatever instruments one has available:
a small telescope, binoculars, or even the naked eye. Unfortunately
modern society, with it's ever-present light pollution, robs a major
part of mankind of this experience.
> But in order to do that you will have to extent quite a lot your
> actual conception of what is a <natural explanation<. You must agree
> that notwithstanding its obvious great contributions, there are strong
> evidences that science has failed to explain most of Reality,
Of course, and any decent scientist will readily admit this.
One thing that laypeople often fail to realize is this: the most
important purpose of science is not to state what we know, but perhaps
to state what we do NOT know, i.e. to define the current limits of
our knowledge. Only this will help us to distinguish knowledge
from speculation.
> and which, btw, is only really relevant at the subjective level,
> and at which level astrology works only.
Agreed -- astrology is about fantasies, not about reality.
> Only because of that I do admit astrology is more prone to be
> abused of, used wrongly and/or used fraudulently than science is,
> But it is also more likely to be really and directly useful at the
> subjective level where people live at.
In particular astrology is much more enticing than "dry" science.
This is because most people prefer a pleasant lie to the harsh truth.
Jim Rogers
Steve wrote:
>
> What do you want "Scientific" evidence for?
>
> If five people are all born within a few seconds of each other at very
> nearly the same place, astrology does not claim they will have the same
> name or live the same life only that their lives will have synchronized
> patterns.
And how do you define these "synchonized patterns" sufficiently to tell
whether it really occurs? If you *can*, the door is opened to
"scientific evidence."
> Knowing your life's patterns can be very helpful in your life. period.
Apprehending the real world without make-believe can be even more
helpful.
Jim
Kris Campbell
In article <3267694A...@mercury.ci.uw.edu.pl>, Bogdan Krusinski
<bog...@mercury.ci.uw.edu.pl> wrote:
> I don't believe in astrology, but it doesn't change the fact that
> planetary movements have great effect on our lives. I practise astrology
> for less than 3 years, but transits and progressions have the same
> strong effect before I've heard about astrology as after on me or any
> other man or woman whose horoscope I've interpreted.
>
> Bogdan Krusinski
lemme get this straight...you don't believe in astrology, but you practice
astrology, believe it has a "strong" effect on people and you interepret
horoscopes. huh?
kristine
Kent Yanagihashi
I am new here, but found this topic very enlightening. I would like to
add some thoughts though. I hope I am not interrupting anything or
stepping on toes.
Previously:
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <53qagl$q...@juliana.sprynet.com>,
>Gilbert Lafortune <gilb...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> Not too fast Paul! I do agree that on a human level it did looked as
>> are part of the cosmic reality we human beings are living in,
What, may I ask, are you basing 'Reality' on? Our limited five senses?
We already know that our five senses are limited, geared for only
expressing three dimensions of space. Mathematically, we have proved the
existance of at least eleven spatical dimensions. Our kids are taught to
do four and five dimensional mathematics in differential equations
(Calculus), so why are we limiting our 'reality' to only three dimensions
measurable by our limited five senses? Is God limited thus too?
>Not so fast! Our reality are not "cosmic" but merely local. at least
>in a truly cosmic perspective. We know very little about the
>circumstances on e.g. the other side of our own galaxy....
>
>(this is another common fallacy of astrologers: far far too often
>they consider our universe to consist of our own dwarf star, the SUn,
>and the planets but little else...)
On 'cosmic' and 'local' levels: Astrology, as I see it, is a discription
of basic tendencies or personalities. Why basic? Because it is based
upon a limited number of objects in a limited space. Readings, charts,
etc. would be more accurate if all objects were related to the entire
universe. This being incomprehensible of course, likewise complete
personality comprehension is impossible. However, this does not mean a
basic 'pattern' cannot be complied. We know, scientifically (Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle) that we cannot know where exactally an electron is,
wiether it is in it's probable electron shell or the otherside of the
world, but we can mix two chemicals with assurance that the reaction will
be the same as it was the last hundred times. We can rely and trust
science even though Chaos Theory states that nothing is knowable,
everything is just probable. So if we can put our trust on science, being
that it works in it's limit frame, why can't we trust Astrology within
it's limited frame? Science seems to work, likewise Astrology seems to
work from my observations so far.
ps. The Sun is not a dwarf star, but a small middle-class star(1M
class). Dwarf stars are usually the diameter of the planet Earth.
>> but I don't believe more in it than one may believe in a language.
>> Alike I came to believe in the usefulness of the English and
>> French (mine) languages out of sheer study and utilization, I came
>> to believe in astrology's usefulness out of sheer opened mind study
>> and utilization, and not out of any scientific evidence.
>
>Ok, you use astrology to communicate information. Then please tell
>me, what does astrology do that e.g. English cannot do?
>
>> You see, I don't believe like you do that scientific evidences are
>> necessary for a phenomena to be part of this reality.
>
I agree. Scienfific evidences are only base on the five senses. It's
foolish to assume that that is all there is.
>Not so fast! Earlier you said you used astrology merely as a
>language, but here you jump the conclusion that it is a reality! An
>English sentence does not automatically become true just because
>someone pronounces it. Likewise an astrological statement does not
>automatically become true just because an astrologer believes he
>finds it in a chart'.
This is a fascinating concept. Reality like a language. One can say our
preceptions are like a language in as it is a representation. Just words,
or objects, in our minds uses to interact. In language we use words to
interact with each other, in our preception of reality, we use objects to
interact with our enviroment. Fascinating concept, but a tangent nonethe
less.
About things 'automatically becoming true', Quantum Physicist Wheeler
pointed out that Quarks and other Quantum particals were first predicted
to exist, then discovered. Prehaps they were created by the mere act of
trying to 'discover' them? This has to do with the Participatory
Universe theory, which we'll save for another day.
>> Some phenomena can and should be approached through the scientific
>> lens, but this universe is made of quite a lot more than what can
>> be seen through that sole lens. Astrology (at least some of
>> it) is a very different kind of lens. Not scientific at all, I do
>> admit that. But a very useful one, sometimes and for some (not you).
>>
Yes, keep an openmind. Remember from which you are basing your own
observations. Science is all faith, so to deny other faith is hypocrital.
I base me belief in Astrology in the knowledge (faith) that the Universe
and everything in it is all One Thing. I arrived at this
conclusion through my readings in Quantum mechanics, Chaos Theory, Zen,
Taosim, Relativity, as well as religions and philosphies. I believe the
Observer and Observe, the Seeker and the Seeked, God and Man, the Universe
and Me are the same (just different aspects) and effect each other as
such. Taosim states (via the Ying/Yang symbol) that sometimes it is
easier to go the opposite direction to find what you want. This is
Astrology for me. To find out about the self, I look outside myself
because I influence the enviroment and vise-versa. Why this so called
indirect path? It is a easier path to follow, unbarred by preconcieved
ideas of the self, the different faces I put on to others and myself. I
avoid the conscious so I can precieve the subconscious without warpage.
How this works: The planet, the universe all affect me, for they are a
part of me (and I them). I precieve these minute forces (when measured in
our limited senses and few numbered dimensions) subconsciously and they
effect me. This is my personal theory. I'll hold it until a more
reasonable theory arrives (the 'it-is-all-nonsense' theory doesn't explain
why my chart describes me so well, why my friends'charts describe each one
of them, etc.' especially since we spent alot of time 'finding' ourselves
before looking at Astrology).
Any comments? -ky
pete stapleton
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>I already have: the natural explanation of astrology is quite simple:
>it's due to wishful thinking in humans, combined with a desire to feel
>some link with the heavens. Some people get religious because of this,
>
>This is because most people prefer a pleasant lie to the harsh truth.
>Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Pete Stapleton asks again WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ZERO ARIES?
YOU CANNOT COMMENT ABOUT ASTROLOGY BECAUSE YOU
DON'T KNOW ANY ASTROLOGY. IT IS ALSO TRUE YOU CANNOT
COMMENT ABOUT ASTRONOMY - SINCE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW
THE SOURCE OF ZERO ARIES - THE FIDUCIARY USED BY
EVERY ASTRONOMER EVERY DAY.
WHY DO YOU POST ON ALT.ASTROLOGY? TAKE YOUR SMOKE
BLOWING BACK TO AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS - ALTHOUGH THEY
HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THEY DON'T WANT YOU EITHER.
OUT SPOT
PETE STAPLETON
ishtar
>
> What this is telling me is that the moon (or even less other planets) can
> have *NO* effects whatsoever on the workings of the human body.
>
Am I correct in assuming from the foregoing that you know and understand
completely how the human body works?
Bill
Mike Hammond
Jason Elliott (egz...@iol.ie) wrote:
: Friend I used to be into Astrology big time working out my friends
: Occult and is false and deceptive and potentially dangerous too I have
: nothing to do with it I judge people on face value
The occult? What is wrong with the occult? The word simply means "hidden
knowledge". As far as it being false, deceptive, and potentially
dangerous, so is just about anything else dependent on subjective truths.
Christianity is one example, and I don't see the masses giving that up any
time soon.
Frankly, just about anything can be false, deceptive, and potentially
dangerous. The next question is, just what were you comparing astrology
to, that, in your opinion, wasn't false, deceptive, and potentially
dangerous?
--
Cardinal Fang mham...@access.digex.net
****************************************************************
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and
have a tremendous impact on history." - Vice President Dan Quayle