My thread was closed before I could reply :(

[overlord]

People were saying that the article I posted was not astrology.

I would like to remind said people that astrologers always say alignments are significant, and have said this for 6000 years.

The original article criticizing the ABC criticised the fact that 'astrologers in Australia predicted the line-up'

That NASA article proves that astrologers are vindicated in looking for planetary line-ups as they do indeed have an effect, which is CONTRARY to what everyone on here was saying last week. Are you really so afraid of learning something new?

That is all.

[overlord]

Fair enough. :thumbsup:

However, I was only ever really talking about mundane astrology, NOT the more mystical horoscope astrology. It is not my fault that some people here labor under the delusions that mundane astrology is the same thing as horoscope astrology. Thus they talk about the rubbish in newspapers and compare that to long range weather forecasting, which is a modern form of astrology, and which DID predict the end of the drought in 2008. I do NOT defend horoscope astrology except to say that synchronicities may be caused which in some cases allows it to 'work'. It is clear that a distinction must be made. I am however talking about the scientific form of astrology as pertaining to alignments, which has been studied for 6000 years. Just because something has been studied for a long time does not mean it is wrong. Is the great pyramid built wrong since it's builders were also aware of long term planetary cycles which affected their weather? NOPE!


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not let petty pride get in the way of learning!

[renormalised]

NASA in no way, shape or form was vindicating anything done by or said in passing by any astrologer, whether today or 6000 years ago, by anything that was written about in that article. Despite what your self delusions might be telling you.

Arguing with you is a waste of time...not because you are right, but because you have no idea of what you're talking about, have no understanding of anything to do with astrophysics or astronomy in general (not astrology) and just can't have a sensible conversation or debate without devolving into fantastical nonsense that has no basis in any theory, fact or logically rigorous study of science.

The simple fact you are inherently confusing the terms astrology and astronomy is an indication you have little idea of what you're trying to convey.

Word of advice....leave the doing of science upto those people who are actually scientists. You are far from being one, despite your education (as you so claim). Go become an artist...it's probably something you could be good at.

[overlord]

Troll: Someone who rattles the chains so people become uncomfortable when they realize they are there.

Complainer: Someone who says what everyone else is secretly thinking, wishing and dreaming they had the guts to say.

I love to have a good debate! But I shall not respond to desultory criticism, only positive criticism. As far as definitions are concerned, I am very interested in the fact the article basically says that Venus has as much tidal effect as Jupiter. It was long suspected that Jupiter was responsible for the sunspot cycle. This research is actually not new. I have seen articles in the 60s which say much the same thing. The tradition goes all the way back to the Sumerians. It is however very obscure so I cannot at all blame everyone for thinking it's the same stuff as is read about in the newspaper regarding horoscopes. It isn't, it's FAR OLDER. But that's for people to decide I guess. As for this being 'astrophysics' rather than 'astrology' well it's all the same system really. Since this backs up astrology the astrologers are MORE THAN HAPPY to add it to their arsenal of evidence and the existence of this article will go VIRAL in their ranks since it is CONTRARY to what is taught.... the lie of the peasants that the old scientists were wizards.

Basically, The planets affect the sun, The Sun affects the Earth, changes the economy, etc. Mundane astrology in a nutshell... the existence of long cycles traditionally mapped by the stars as a clock.

NOT pseudoscience, merely 'difficult' science, ie: multivariable. It seems that pseudoscience is really hard to quantify multivariable science. That's the real definition.

[[1ponders]]

the original thread was closed and will remain closed. As will this one