Science versus Astrology

[Guest guest]

Dear All, The following is from:http://www.halexandria.org/dward330.htm=================================

 

Science versus Astrology

 

Basically, science’s rejection of astrology is based on ignorance. Science’s ignorance. When

the astronomer Edmond Halley asked Sir Isaac Newton (essentially the

“patron science of physicsâ€) how he could possibly believe in

astrology, Sir Isaac answered, “Because I have studied the matter, Sir. You have not.†And therein lies the crux of the matter. When Shakespeare made the comment of the “stars influencing our livesâ€, he too was mis- or un-informed. Astrology is about the planets of our solar system, not the stars!

And it is the geometries of these planets which somehow affects us. The

“somehow†may lead a critic to raise his hand, but before pursuing the

matter [put your hand down!] please note the geometrical relationships

of the planets as shown in A Book of Coincidence and demonstrated over and over in the Harmony of the Spheres. When

someone can explain the scientifically inexplicable geometrical

correlation among the planets -- and not dismiss it as some quirk or

nature -- then they can challenge the theory of astrology’s geometrical

influence. (But of course, if they do the

prerequisite, they will likely inadvertently find the means of

verifying the truth and validity of astrology. It’s a Catch 22 for the skeptics and a “win-win†for astrologers! Such is the fate of truth. Sigh.)

Another

example of the ignorance of mainstream science is the oft-quoted

astronomer’s notation of the Precession of the Equinoxes, and how this

somehow makes astrology invalid. In fact, on the

day this was being written, NPR’s “Star Date†had a brief, lucid

explanation about the sun entering Ophiuchus -- what astronomers like

to refer to as the 13th constellation of the Zodiac. In

turns out that in 1930 astronomers had decided that the allegedly

arbitrary division of the Zodiac into 12 equal segments of 30 degrees

each was not in keeping with actual sizes of the constellations. Scorpio, for example, spans a much smaller section of sky than say Pisces. While

the NPR report was well done and basically accurate, others have taken

the position that because of the slow rotation of the Earth’s axis on a

25,920 year cycle, this ensures that the portion of the sky that was in

Pisces four thousand years ago, is no longer the same portion of the

sky now. And thus the constellations are not the

same as in the days when astrology was born -- and what astrology calls

Scorpio is no longer related to the constellation of Scorpio.

This alleged fallacy of astrology is in fact astronomy’s miscue. Astrology

simply does not in any shape, form, or fashion base its results upon

the stars, the star backgrounds, or any of the constellations. These

are simply names, and Scorpio could have easily been called the sign of

“wild, sexy beast†(with those born in Leo, always having attached HRH

to their names). Scorpio, on the other hand, as a time of year -- when the days are rapidly growing shorter and the Sun approaching its winter solstice -- does count for something. An

Aries personality, for example, is one born on the first day of spring

-- what some think as the more appropriate initiation of the yearly

cycle (and thus those born under the sign often act the part of the

demanding infant). Meanwhile, Capricorn is in

the dead of winter and strongly encourages one to accept the boundaries

and limitations of survival in such times. And so it goes. On and on. An astrology based on one star, the Sun.

Thus

the only effect of the Precession of the Equinoxes on astrology is to

provide one point of evidence as to when astrology was first being

developed -- i.e. several thousand years ago, when the time of year now

allotted to Capricorn (following the winter solstice) was also the time

when the sun had as a background of stars, the constellation Capricorn. Otherwise, this slow movement of the earth’s axis has no effect on astrology whatsoever. And accordingly, the Precession is an ally of Astrology -- not an enemy.

Arthur Young <http://www.arthuryoung.com/astrocos.HTML> has had a few choice words about Astrology, and mainstream science’s inability to come to grips with it.

“Science has been the great venture of modern man, but I am deeply disappointed that it has stopped short of its goal. It has become political, adhering to a materialist dialectic. The

cult of calibration and measurement has dispensed with consideration of

first principles and produced tons of facts tied together with bits of

fragile string. The consistency and clarity, even of classical determinism, has been lost and its blundering prejudice retained. The stimulating challenge of ESP

is ignored and made ridiculous; even the nineteenth-century recognition

that perception was only partially based on sensation, and had

components of value and image carried over from earlier experience, is

set aside in obeisance to a reductionism based on a physics long since

obsolete. Science, in short, is a motley of

fragmented special disciplines, each encrusted with its own jargon and

incomprehensible to its fellows, rallying under a common policy of

objectivity -- valid enough as applied to method, but downright

misleading when applied as it is and without justification to require

that the world be exclusively objective and physical.â€

“But when it comes to constructing a cosmology based on the

nonmaterial, and I find that the discredited astrology, the divine

science of the ancients, is founded on the same vocabulary of elements

that is the basis for the measure formulae of physics, I am, like John

Dean [of Watergate fame], impelled to turn state's evidence and expose

the cover-up. But there is no court of inquiry to hear the evidence. It

is only when the cosmology I have set up, based on scientific evidence,

itself calls out for the importation of something of larger import than

the ingredients of science per se, that I turn to astrology.

 

 

“At this juncture I can no longer say as before, ‘Ignore the popular

usage of astrology, ignore its employment by fortune tellers; consider

only the remarkable vocabulary it uses.’ Why? Because

I find it not a relic of ancient custom, a temple built to an unknown

god, not even an occasional revelation such as inspired ancient

prophets or modern-day persons who have seen flying saucers -- it is an

ever-present influence as real as were the Greek gods to Ulysses. The arcs and transits of planets do precisely correlate to important events in my life.â€

“But

the notion of elements and their subdivision does not encompass the

other ingredient essential to astrology -- the gods as principles or

powers operating through the planets. This is

where, in answer to the charge that I’m snatching pieces of the temple

of astrology to serve my own purposes, I can cite my own inadequacy. The whole temple cannot be transported except it be taken in pieces. And the temple itself is not the ultimate; it too is an idol. But as an idol it is closer to life than the idol of science. That perhaps is my final plea. So I must take the gods and their correlation with the planets on faith. Let us see what this faith entails.

“I . That the solar system is an organon.

“II. That the organon is ‘a process machine’ having a number of distinct periodicities or rhythms.

“III. That said rhythms are indicated by the planets.

“IV. That the direction in which planets ‘point’ at any given time indicates, or creates, the zeitgeist of that time.

“V. That the pointing of the planets produces such zeitgeist because the directions are themselves different in quality.

“VI. That the planets, because of their difference of period, contribute to the different powers of persons.

“VII. That a person’s birth is an introduction into this organon. A birth is an enrollment, as it were, to ‘take a course in the universe.’ The birth establishes the central stance. The motion of the planets thereafter establishes the scenario.â€

Young’s essay <http://www.arthuryoung.com/valueofastrology.HTML>,

“On the Value of Astrology for a Science of Life†is particularly

noteworthy and includes the well-reasoned argument that the biological

rhythms of life are endogenous (i.e. not dependent upon known external

influences), and that the planets are influencing mundane (worldly)

events by other means -- perhaps geometrically, geometry being used

here as a verb and not a noun. Thus mainstream

science’s rejection of astrology is due to the inadequacies of

mainstream science in not knowing the manner of the physical influence.

Young

notes, for example, that the number of rings in a clam shell are based

on the new moons and not the high tides (which occur at both the new

and full moon). In general, the “study of

circadian (near to 24 hour) and other biological rhythms†have been

found to be endogenous (produced from within; originating from internal

causes). Young also claims science “does not include any first principles which predict or even accommodate life.†Again, mainstream science’s rejection of astrology is an admission of its own inadequacy.

Incidentally, Young invented and developed the world’s first helicopter. What has the guy who had his hand up, done? Hmmmm...?

 

^_IIabcdefghi^_IIabcdefghi^_IIabcdefghi=================================Love and regards,Sreenadh