NASA just threw their weight behind astrology:

[overlord (Charles)]

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Well I hate to say I told ya so but I was lampooned on here so here is an article backing up some of what i was saying:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Full PDF. Essential reading for all real scientists!

ABSTRACT:
A solar storm is a storm of ions and electrons from the Sun. Large solar storms are usually preceded by solar flares, phenomena that can be characterized quantitatively from Earth. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight largest known solar flares were observed to start when one or more tide-producing planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) were either nearly above the event positions (<10° longitude) or at the opposing side of the Sun. The probability for this to happen at random is 0.039 percent. This supports the hypothesis that the force or momentum balance (between the solar atmospheric pressure, the gravity field, and magnetic field) on plasma in the looping magnetic field lines in solar corona could be disturbed by tides, resulting in magnetic field reconnection, solar flares, and solar storms. Separately, from the daily position data of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, an 11-year planet alignment cycle is observed to approximately match the sunspot cycle. This observation supports the hypothesis that the resonance and beat between the solar tide cycle and nontidal solar activity cycle influences the sunspot cycle and its varying magnitudes. The above relations between the unpredictable solar flares and the predictable solar tidal effects could be used and further developed to forecast the dangerous space weather and therefore reduce its destructive power against the humans in space and satellites controlling mobile phones and global positioning satellite (GPS) systems.

The science of 10,000 years appears to be somewhat vindicated.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Not once, anywhere, in that article does it mention the word "astrology".

The subject terms even reference solar flares, solar activities and the sunspot cycle. Not astrology.

If the article or findings had /anything/ to do with astrology, it would have at least been mentioned in a footnote or a conclusion. Not once was the word or the pseudoscience mentioned.

Science has been vindicated, not astrology.

H

[asimov (John)]

As Humayun said.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Chucky, you seem to be slightly confused about terminology.
Almost everything you support that you title 'Astrology' is actually just Astrophysics.

Don't confuse the two. One is real and the other belongs down the Rabbit hole with Alice.

[Rob_K]

Yep, planets influence solar storms, therefore 1/12 of the world's humans will find love today, or be run over by a vegetable truck, or....



Cheers -

[CraigS]

Methinks we're about to witness the age-old art of 'cherry-picking' from mainstream science, as a means of justifying pseudoscience.

One of these days we might see pseudoscience stand on half a leg.

Hang on a sec … Monty Python took care of that in that 'Black-knight' scene, didn't they ?

Cheers

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

One of these days we might see pseudoscience stand on half a leg.

Hang on a sec … Monty Python took care of that in that 'Black-knight' scene, didn't they ?

Cheers

Come over here and I'll bite you on the ankle

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Sorry does not prove astrology is valid as stated previously didn't even mention the word

Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets

The above statement from the title is about the effect of physics not the position of the planets in starsigns

[koputai (Jason)]

Don't encourage him by arguing, just let moronic threads die.

Cheers,
Jason.

[plmedcraft (Paul)]

People, waste no more time on this.
However...
If you are reading because it is fun then visit his homepage...

Paul 4 more days before my 25" SDM arrives Medcraft

[CraigS]

I'd like to be fair to Chucky ...

Here is our Science Forum list of pseudoscience distinctions (ie: ways we use to detect pseudoscientific behaviours):

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Cherry-picking of science data to justify the pseudoscientifc belief.
(4) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");
(5) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review' and announcements made in mainstream media, before journal publication.
(6) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data, which may be used to disprove the theory.

I'd love to see this thread run without any of these behaviours displayed …
(Actually, it would be a first for a topic like this).
Take care, Overlord ..

I'm outta here !

Cheers

[Kal (Andrew)]

Lets clear this up, because language and words change meaning over time. Using the dictionary definition of astrology you get:

astrology [əˈstrɒlədʒɪ]n
1. (Spirituality, New Age, Astrology & Self-help / Astrology) the study of the motions and relative positions of the planets, sun, and moon, interpreted in terms of human characteristics and activities
2. (Astronomy) the primitive study of celestial bodies, which formed the basis of astronomy[from Old French astrologie, from Latin astrologia, from Greek, from astrologos (originally: astronomer); see astro-, -logy]

Now it is apparent that the definition of astrology under number 2, which relates to astronomy, was a term from the past. It is not relevant in modern language because it has been replaced by the word astronomy.

Chucky, I think you need to understand that scientific study of planet positions and gravitational effects falls under astronomy or astrophysics in modern language, with the word astrology being defferred to the stuff you read in magazines, ie "venus is in your starsign and you will find luck"

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Quite apart from all the valid comments above about the comic ascertions in the original post, I note that the article is not a refereed publication, it is a Technical Memorandum. NASA explains that a "TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. [contains] Scientific and technical findings that are preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, working papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis." Specifically it tells the careful reader that "This report is a formal draft or working paper, intended to solicit comments and ideas from a technical peer group. This report contains preliminary findings, subject to revision as analysis proceeds."

So quite apart from the fact that the NASA publication does not address the issue Chuck claims it vindicates, there is no claim on the part of NASA that this is the final word on the issues it does address. Given that this TM is dated 2007 I'd be interested to know whether it has ever been published.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I'd like to be fair to Chucky ...

Here is our Science Forum list of pseudoscience distinctions (ie: ways we use to detect pseudoscientific behaviours):

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Cherry-picking of science data to justify the pseudoscientifc belief.
(4) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science. (Eg: the peer review process being a "boys club");
(5) No evidence of ever having gone through 'Peer Review' and announcements made in mainstream media, before journal publication.
(6) Fudged tests or data: No signs of data, which may be used to disprove the theory.

I'd love to see this thread run without any of these behaviours displayed …
(Actually, it would be a first for a topic like this).
Take care, Overlord ..

I'm outta here !

Cheers

Craig, you'd have a better chance of seeing the Enterprise flying backwards through time at Warp 9, whilst Leonard Nimoy recited all his lines backwards in Cantonese and Bill Shatner make it to the top of the hit parade

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Hi,

C'mon everyone, our legs are being pulled a bit, surely. Isn't there space for that?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

Hi,

C'mon everyone, our legs are being pulled, surely. Isn't there space for that?

Cheers

They're not though, Charles is serious.

[TrevorW]

Chucky you still haven't answered my questions about sagittarians

"My stars said today I was going to meet a beautiful woman fall madly in love and have the best you know what ever", then I came home to reality.

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Chucky you still haven't answered my questions about sagittarians

"My stars said today I was going to meet a beautiful woman fall madly in love and have the best you know what ever", then I came home to reality.

Ooooooohhhhhhhhh

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by overlord

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Well I hate to say I told ya so but I was lampooned on here so here is an article backing up some of what i was saying:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Full PDF. Essential reading for all real scientists!



The science of 10,000 years appears to be somewhat vindicated.

This hasn't backed you up in any way, shape or form. Apart from not even being a journal article (it's a technical memorandum...but I doubt you'd understand anyway) and being 4 years old, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the hocus pocus you profess to believe in. All you have done is shown everyone here just how much the lack of your understanding of what science actually is, is evident in everything you've said or written. Plus, your obvious tenuous hold on what constitutes reality is also clearly posited in what you've written, especially in previous posts. It's quite fine to believe in fairies, but please, don't expect anyone else here to do so.

You leave yourself open to being lampooned simply because of the nonsense you claim to be real science. No one else is responsible for that, but yourself.

[sjastro]

Full PDF. Essential reading for all real scientists!

Why should fake scientists be left in the dark?