Can astrology have a scientific basis?

[HydrogenBond]

Astrology is two things at once. It was early astronomy before telescopes and computers and was useful for predicting the positions of the planets and constellations. It also could predict the seasonal changes of the moon and the position of the sun. It also was able to predict some of the comets with reasonable accuracy. Not too bad for no-tech tools.

 

The affect of the planets on the personality is not based on physics. It more connected to mystical psychology. In other words, each visable constellation and planet was personified as a projection of a god or some divine critter. These had certain personalities and traits that are ideal human traits (beyond the limitations of human). The planets were also seen as gods and were projections of human ideal traits.. As such, if Mars (god of war) was dominate on a chart it would indicate something of a warring personality. If it happened to be in a constellations connected to a peaceful god or goddess, this would damp down the affects. If Mars was near Jupiter, then war would converge with wisdom, etc.. And if the two were in a peaceful constellation, you get war, wisdom,love. This may indicate someone who is rationally driven but peaceful.

 

The sun represents the conscious mind and the moon is the unconscious mind. These are the two dominant affects, with the rest of the planets telling something about the nature of conscious and unconscious motivations, strenghts and weaknesses.

 

Based on the positions of planets, sun and moon at birth, one would go through all the houses (constellation sectors) and see where the sun, moon and planets were and from that combine various inner and outer personality conjunctions and oppositions. If anyone ever had their horoscope done, sometimes the predictions about one's personality are somewhat accurate, somewhat flattering. But if one takes the suggestion, it can become what one shall try to be. The wise man rules the stars but the fool is rules by them. It is not carved into stone.

[LJP07]

I know that when Astrology first arrived, the people around who followed it believed that the Earth was the centre of the solar system and the sun and planets revolved around it. Obviously this has been proved incorrect so would this prove Astrology to be based on a lie? Thus making it pointless and like Tormod said " It's a superstition ".

 

The thread asked " Can astrology have a scientific basis? "

Well the answer has to be no considering the above statement.

[Dyothelite]

I know that when Astrology first arrived, the people around who followed it believed that the Earth was the centre of the solar system and the sun and planets revolved around it. Obviously this has been proved incorrect so would this prove Astrology to be based on a lie? Thus making it pointless and like Tormod said " It's a superstition ".

 

The thread asked " Can astrology have a scientific basis? "

Well the answer has to be no considering the above statement.

 

This is only partially true. The ancient astrologers mapped the time of year by the stars rather than the relative position to the Sun. This does not in anyway invalidate the science they used to map the relationship of the time of year and positions of the stars.

 

 

All the Zodiac signs are are the constellations along the Ecliptic, which is the path of the Sun through the stars. A Sun sign is the constellation the Sun is in in a given day throughout the year. In fact, early astrologers knew the sky so well that they knew what constellation the Sun was in the day. That is the scientific defintion of a Sun sign.

 

Picture the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the Sun Sign is the constellation directly behind the Sun that day, and because the Earth slowly revolves around the Sun that constellation changes slowly month to month.

 

The weird part is though that while they were using the stars to determine the day of the year..... over thousandss of years you need to accomadate for the motion of the solar system itself, and therefore the Zodiac Calendar actually changes one day every 70 years.... I can prove it too.

[hallenrm]

The thread asked " Can astrology have a scientific basis? "

Well the answer has to be no considering the above statement.

 

The thread did not pose the question "Did astrology had a scientific basis", :eek_big: :eek2: :hihi:

 

Also relevant is the question "Was there a Science, when astrology was invented?:D

 

I suggest that dear members ponder for a few seconds over the wording of the title of the thread before expressing their valued comments:)

[InfiniteNow]

I suggest that dear members ponder for a few seconds over the wording of the title of the thread before expressing their valued comments:)

 

Thread title: Can astrology have a scientific basis?

 

Yes. Absolutely. Even if JUST in psychology. :eek_big:

 

 

Cheers. :eek2:

[Dyothelite]

I've always had rouble with divination. I study things like Qabalah, Taort and evenm astrlogy, but I never attempt divination.

 

To me divination is the idea that if you know the structure of the system you can predetermine it outcomes. I just like stduying the system its itself.

 

What I think is valid is that all astrology was was an early attempt to define the posiition of the Earth and different times of year. What always remains constant is the poisition in the Earth's orbit on that day no matter what year. I think there is still something to be said about where the Earth was in relationship to the Sun when you were born. People do tend to mirror certain qualtities reflecteive of their birthdays. Regardless if the stars behind us have shifted a little.

 

As far as divination goes, if Tarot divination was real I'd do alot better at the casino I tell ya.

 

Did it have a scientific basis? Yes

Was it primitive science? Yes

Can it have a scientific basis today?....If people today update their knowledge of the scientific aspects of astrology, it can be seen it in real light of astronomy, but its value would be less about horoscopes and more about appreciating the cool *** motion that our solar system goes through.

 

All of the mystical sciences are archaic.....archaic but hardly invalid

[LJP07]

The thread did not pose the question "Did astrology had a scientific basis", B) :) :hihi:

 

Also relevant is the question "Was there a Science, when astrology was invented?:D

 

I suggest that dear members ponder for a few seconds over the wording of the title of the thread before expressing their valued comments:)

 

Firstly when I stated the above it was supposed to make reference to them and to today, maybe I should have re-phrased but my intentions were true.

 

Secondly, you ask if there was a science, well, that's a little complex to answer. Using the famous Scientific Method, they did actually complete some of the steps, example observation. As regards the physics of things, could anyone tell me a theory they proposed, if so then they do have a scientific basis.

 

However, the use of it today is for money-making, similar to Mediums.

[Dyothelite]

Firstly when I stated the above it was supposed to make reference to them and to today, maybe I should have re-phrased but my intentions were true.

 

Secondly, you ask if there was a science, well, that's a little complex to answer. Using the famous Scientific Method, they did actually complete some of the steps, example observation. As regards the physics of things, could anyone tell me a theory they proposed, if so then they do have a scientific basis.

 

However, the use of it today is for money-making, similar to Mediums.

 

Dude they were such adept astronomers that they knew the position of the Sun during the day (the basis of the Zodiac Calendar).

 

But yeah you're right its been perverted into divination and fortune telling.

[LJP07]

How is it possible to even partially distinguish between those that practice genuinely and those that use it as profit considering that either case may be true?

 

Anyway, what uses did they put to astrology, or is it only recent times that certain practices were put into action. And what proof is there that they used these methods of practicing?

[hallenrm]

How is it possible to even partially distinguish between those that practice genuinely and those that use it as profit considering that either case may be true?

 

Its the same, as you distinguish between a true scientist and a psuedo scientist. It depends on the reputation, which in turn depends on the success.:weather_snowing:

 

Anyway, what uses did they put to astrology, or is it only recent times that certain practices were put into action. And what proof is there that they used these methods of practicing?

 

The main use of astrology across the history of mankind is to mitigate the fears and curiosities of people about their future.

 

Any proof is as good or as bad as that for any history.

[LJP07]

Did they charge money for this service and was it exclusive to certain Nobles for example?

[kay-pee]

Reading this thread's title i decided that i must have a say o this topic.

Being an astronomer i can't existence of such science ,since i have an indian effect ,thus i know quite well about the indian astrology.

Here are some views frm astrology which supports that it do have a scientific basis-

*Astrology never considered pluto and plutinos mentionable and effective in any person's life,as they are too small and far away to be effective.

 

*If somebody say that where are those "rahu" and "ketu" then i will say that they are being described as shadows of moon and earth respectively in "shastras"

 

*Those who founded indian astrology were well known physicists,mathematicians and astronomers of that time who dared to challenge the concept of vedic science existing at that time in india.

 

For ex- Varahmihir ,the great indian mathematician ,is said to have predicted the death of prince exactly the same month he died. His manuscripts however destroyed by mongolic and colonial attacks still tell that astrology.along with palmistry and numerology have a core mathematical basis, to tell his proficiency he is considered to be the earliest one to solve the mystery and existence of "infinity" along with another indian mathematician "Bhaskara"

[LJP07]

Interesting post.

Also, as regards your first point, I didn't know Pluto was discovered at that time in Astrology? Your second statement actually didn't make much sense at all to me, could you please explain the meaning of such a sentence?

 

And what do you mean by " Solve the mystery of Infinity " ?

[kailas_knight]

Originally Posted by Tormod

...Astrology is not even pseudoscience. It is superstition

 

hi tormod ,

 

i strongly agree with u that astrology is a superstition....and the biggest belivers of astrology are indians..

 

astrology is based on the principle that whenever a child is born , some 126

(i'm not sure how many, but i think it's more than the number i've specified)

 

rays from different planets and stars in our solar system fall on that childs head and then his fate is decided ...

 

that's the most absurd and idiotic thing i've ever heard...

i mean , about 2 lakh babies are born in India alone , every day (true) ,

and combining it to the no of babies born in the rest of the world...the number is huge...

 

and these 126(not sure how many exact)rays are needed for every one of them ..... it would take years for a single ray from another planet to reach earth , and relate that to this 126 rays tht's needed for every baby born on earth on every day.....

 

then we understand tht it's the most absurd idea ever.....

 

please often tend to believe that astrology is true ,coz of coincedences..

 

i were to become the president of my country , then i would have definitly

banned such a misleading thing as astrology in my country....

[LJP07]

It's quite a ridiculous thing ( Astrology ), but one problem with your post. Even though the 126+ rays might seem to be a joke. The thread title " Can astrology have a scientific basis?" because we need to discover did it have a basis where it was scientific. Was your statement about the time when it was discovered?

[kay-pee]

Interesting post.

Also, as regards your first point, I didn't know Pluto was discovered at that time in Astrology? Your second statement actually didn't make much sense at all to me, could you please explain the meaning of such a sentence?

 

And what do you mean by " Solve the mystery of Infinity " ?

 

Solving infinity means he understood the nature of infinity in maths .

 

For pluto i say that outer planets uranus ,neptune and the pluto were said as varun,arun and yama respectively they are mentioned in manuscripts but aren't yet included in "kundlis"(google that) that's because they somehow believed that they are too far to get effective.

 

Why they believed in such a way ?

 

Well for "rahu" and "ketu" i say that they are included in kundlis and are called "chaaya grah" or shadow planets.

And amzingly the time period of shadows of earth and moon (that's rahu and ketu) have the same spped of reccession as mentioned in early scripts.

[kailas_knight]

since u r an astronomer please tell me if my 2 concepts are true.

 

they are listed below.. my email id is : [email protected]

 

concept 1

----------------

we live in a four dimensional universe.... Length , Breadth ,Height and Time..... ie, we live in a universe that has the dimension of time... A universe in the dimension of time has to have had a begining and also it'll have an end... it cant be infinite , because time is not infinite.... Time represents change in something....without time there is no change ,ie, a static universe... it had no starting , no change in state and never ends ...ie, an

infinite universe...

 

 

The most widely accepted theory about the origin of the universe is BIG BANG .... But i'm not a believer of BIG BANG....still , there are thousands of evidences like cosmic background Radiation to prove it's true...

 

A new theory has been developed ,it's called : EKPYROTIC theory of the origin of the universe...

 

 

The distance taken by a light or radiation to get to earth is measured in Light Year. EG: if a radiation reaches us from 200 light years away,,then it means that ,that light or radiation was emitted 200 years ago ,so the universe had to be there at the time that radiation was emitted....ie 200 yrs ago...actually the universe is much much old....

 

As i have said above we live in the dimension of time, so in this universe everything has a begining and everything will end...even this universe..

There are theories about parrallel universes and multiple universes.......

 

concept of infinite universe is applicable to a hyperdimensional or lower dimensional universe only .ie, a universe outside of time...

 

We cant imagine infinity coz , we wont know what's infinity coz, we age and we die...that's the simplest explaination...

 

{ if god exists then

God is our creator and so he is a hyper dimensional being ,ie, he is in a higher dimension.... God is outside of time ,so God always existed and will exist for ever.... But God can only build universes that is lower than his dimension ie , God can only build universes with lower no of dimensions than his own ......

there is also a formula for this...

 

if there are " n " elements then degrees of freedom is "n-1"...

 

EG : consider a+b+c=3 , here we can freely assume values for only any 2 variables

 

ie if a=2 and b=4 , then the value of the third variable has to be "-3"... ie

the value of the nth variable is automatically determined according to the values of the other "n-1" variables..

 

what i meant to say is that GOD can only create universes with lesser no of dimensions than his own. GOD cannot create an infinite universe inside the dimension of time.. if that universe has time, then it will end at some point in time.. His abilities are limited too.. }

 

No one can say that there is nothing past the extending universe..

but can only say that there is possibly a world with higher dimensions than our universe...which is beyond our wildest imaginations...According to STRING theory and SUPER STRING theory there are 10 dimensions....alltogether ,but the rest of the six dimensions are curled up into a microscopic ball that can't be detected, but it's present everywhere..

 

There is no such thing as absolute nothing ,there has to be something ,can anyone imagine a place with nothing , if anyone can imagine a place like that , it wouldn't be nothing coz, that place itself is something ...the BIG BANG theory says that time and space began with BIG BANG , then

if space began with BIG BANG, then before the BIG BANG where did that COSIMC ball responsible for the BIG BANG , stand ..it had to be contained in something ..COZ emptiness can't contain anything , so there had to be something..... So "nothing" doesn't exist by itself....

 

i also have a concept relating to split of zero theory

 

concept 2

-----------

 

in the split zero theory ..... it's explained that universe came from nothing ,ie it came from a singularity , which has a magnitude of zero....

 

since , " the stability of a thing is inversely proportional to it's proximity to zero" , absolute nothing is highly unstable.....and can't exist by itself ,but only as the sum of eual no of +ve and -ve things...

 

therefore the singularity with magnitude 0 cant exist by itself and splits in to

 

n +ve things and n -ve things...... but they are compartmentalized such that all +ve things are in one compartment and all -ve things in another. so that they wouldn't cancel each other out.....

 

the +ve compartment represents the +ve universe and -ve compartment represents -ve universe........

 

+ve universe contains matter , energy and time .. -ve universe contains

 

anti-matter , anti-energy(negative energy) , time- may be in the reverse direction......

 

the things in the +ve universe has the exact opposite properties of things in the -ve universe...

 

the peculiarity of 0 is tht it's a whole number, ie, it can represent

eual amounts of both +ve and negative things such that their sum total is nothing(0).

 

0 = [+ X ][- X]

 

but a contradiction is that if 0 = +x-x

 

then why not 2= +4-2and like that...

 

the law of conservation states that matter or energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be transformed from one form to another

 

and the sum total of all things in the universe =0.

 

perhaps this statement can be rephrased as te sum total of things in the positive and negative universes =0.

 

ie, [+X ]+ [-X]=0

 

so 0 the singularity splits into equal no of +ve and -ve things as it's highly unstable ..

 

so the contradiction why other magnitudes can't also seperate is irrelevant

coz,

a +ve magnitude x can't split into "x+n" +ve magnitude where n=1,2,...,k and "x-n" negative magnitudes ,n=1,2,....,k.

 

how can a +ve thing split into a +ve quantity more or less than it's own magnitude and a -ve magnitude ....

 

the above contradition is irrelevant as +ve and -ve things can't sub divide further...

 

another contradiction is that why dont we see things splitting up spontaneosly.....

 

th answer is that , acording to this theory +ve things are in +ve universe

and -ve things are in -ve universe....

 

so +ve and -ve things in the +ve and -ve universes cant split up further....

 

 

0 is neither +ve nor -ve.. it can represent the whole range of +ve and -ve things , in equal amounts of both +ve and -ve....

 

 

I remember reading about "white holes" , being derived from theory of relativity.. so that should support this theory.........

 

 

please send me you opinion at [email protected]

 

i'm looking forward to see read what u have to say....