Can astrology have a scientific basis?

[InfiniteNow]

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...

Thousands? I must be living under a rock in an dark illiterate cave if that's true. What are four such pieces of evidence to get me started? :hyper:

 

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

This just replaces old problems with new ones. It's based on unproven assumptions, and is akin to building a structure in sand. The foundation is not solid enough to hold it with any confidence.

 

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 ......

:)

Well, since you are presenting this in the Astronomy and Cosmology section, you MUST provide evidence for the claim.

 

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.

:computerkick:

You added that last part. The law states that, within a closed system, energy cannot be destroyed nor created. It can only change forms. You were half right, so good try. :confused:

 

I remember reading about "white holes" , being specified in the theory of relativity.. so that should support this theory.........

Show us where. Perhaps the original publication? I think that you may be victim to a false memory, but want to ensure I am not missing something. So, either quote where in the work this is specified, or retract. I won't negrep you this time because you are still learning, however, please treat this as sufficient warning for future posts.

 

 

Cheers. :confused:

[kailas_knight]

hi InfiniteNow , you wanted proof about white holes you got it.....

 

as i have said before white holes are mathematically possible and runs backward in time.....as i said in my split 0 article..... the concept of white hole is indeed been derived from relativity...

 

 

The Einstein-Rosen Bridge

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

 

zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/EinsteinRosenBridge.pdf

 

i'm sorry that i couldn't give the URL as hyperlink , i tried it but didn't work... a message appeared saying that i need to do at least 10 postings

before i could submitt links....

 

 

checkout the link above to know if the information i have typed below is fake or not ... i took a small portion of it from the link.....white hole is indeed derived from relativity and runs back in time as i said in my post before,thereby supporting my article..

 

proof

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

 

 

The complete Schwarzschild geometry consists of a black hole, a white hole, and two Universes connected at their horizons by a wormhole. The name "black hole" was invented in 1968 by John Archibald Wheeler. Before Wheeler, these objects were often referred to as ‘black stars’7 or ‘frozen stars’. It was Austrian Ludwig Flamm who had realised that Schwarzschild's solution (called the Schwarzschild Metric) to Einstein's equations actually describes a wormhole connecting two regions of flat space-time; two universes, or two parts of the same universe. A white hole (from the negative square root solution inside the horizon) is a black

hole running backwards in time. Just as black holes swallow things irretrievably, so white holes spit them out. However white holes cannot exist, since they violate the second law of thermodynamics8.General Relativity is time symmetric. It does not know about the second law of

thermodynamics, and it does not know about which way cause and effect go.

However we do. The negative square root solution outside the horizon represents another Universe. The wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

[kay-pee]

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....

 

Well,i am not a pure supporter of astrology,

 

I say that it has a possibility of being true (very less) but it is having that.

Without ahving any core knowledge of a subject u can't find shortcomings in it,saying it idotic is perfectly baseless and being overconfident.

 

Saying it supersttion i am in support of u,but it has been made a superstition

over a period of thousands of years,with rise of vedic age and caste system in india brahamans (priestly class) wanted to make their good earnings ,yes they had those "shastras" and manuscripts unfolded .through them they were able to gain but they were not enough competent as earlier sages were thus

they began to alter the laws of "jyotish" to instill fear in the masses of superstitious masses of the dreadful results of planet positions ,they did this to make their selfish ends meet and they got large sums of money from frightened people.

 

Since the existence of the planets and jyotish has been mentioned in manuscripts of the time which was centuries before the coming of vedic age.

thus logically we conclude that astrology could have a scientific basis.

[hallenrm]

Welcome Kay-pee and kailas_knight, let me first introduce myself, I am an year old Hypographer, who initiated this thread, like you two I am also Indian. But, from your last few posts, I get a feeling that ypu have perhaps muunderstood the thread. If you go back and read a few more pages of this thread, you will know that I was never in doubt that astrology in its origin could have ever measured up to the stand of science, as we understand it today. So I used the word can rather than could, meaning thereby that there might be a possibility that in future we might be able to scientifically conclude that it is possible to predict the future course of events in a persons life on the basis of the time and place his/her birth took place, just like alchemy led to the development of modern chemistry. Alchemy as you may know was an occult practice, that had nothing to do with the science of that time. :hyper:

[kay-pee]

Hello,

 

I too have the same view for astrology as u are having, i just wanted kailas_knight that it have the other possibility too and saying it as idiotic is only making baseless comments.

 

Well kailas i think this is not the neccesary place for u to discuss eistein-rosen bridge,better if u start a new thread to prevent any misunderstanding and for better discussion.

[Dyothelite]

I think before skepticism can be taken seriously the skeptic has to be able to define what the "Sun Signs" of the Zodiac calendar actually are scientifically. If you don't have a solid scientific understanding of Astrology you can't attempt to criticize it without being a pure skeptic with no proof.

[Buffy]

I think before skepticism can be taken seriously the skeptic has to be able to define what the "Sun Signs" of the Zodiac calendar actually are scientifically.

Fair enough. So what are they, scientifically? I've never seen any sort of definition...

 

Reasonably skeptical,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

Right on... I didn't wanna repost this, but the Sun Sign is the constellation that the Sun is in on a given day. Before they knew the universe was heliocentric they mapped the course of the year by the stars. The problem is that the stars along the ecliptic slowly shift (the solar system rotates relative to them) and you have to correct the Zodiac calendar one day every 70 years. The calendar in use today is about 2000 years old. I posted this a couple pages back with the proper dates. I used the program Starry Night to verify the data.

 

See my post on page 4.

 

If anyone would like I can send them an actual picture (computer generated of course) of the stars on the day they were born as well.

[Buffy]

So is there any scientific aspect of Astrology other than this mapping to the constellations that are named after the Astrological signs?

 

That seems merely definitional, and I don't know of anyone who would be skeptical that these signs were named and thereafter used by some for divination or whatever--the whatever of course being what I and many others consider to be "Astrology."

 

The changing position of these constellations relative to the earth is quite well understood, and is entirely uncontroversial.

 

Is there more to it to be skeptical about?

 

Where's the sushi,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

So is there any scientific aspect of Astrology other than this mapping to the constellations that are named after the Astrological signs?

 

That seems merely definitional, and I don't know of anyone who would be skeptical that these signs were named and thereafter used by some for divination or whatever--the whatever of course being what I and many others consider to be "Astrology."

 

The changing position of these constellations relative to the earth is quite well understood, and is entirely uncontroversial.

 

Is there more to it to be skeptical about?

 

Where's the sushi,

Buffy

 

Truly however, as I study these concepts I am reminded of the perversion of the concepts. Astrology is legitimate ancient astronomy.... complete science, however, using it to tell the future is like saying we can predict the outcome of the system if we know its motion, and in particle physics trying to predict the future of a particle that is moving shows us that we never truly can predict the future without changing it.

 

Most astronomers never give astrology credit because they never take the time to learn the science, and most astrologers misunderstand astrology because they never tried to learn the science.

 

The answer to this thread is..... Yes astrology has a scientific basis, but without that scientific basis astrology becomes invalid.

 

Think of it this way.... in a geocentric view, they mapped the calendar with the stars behind the Sun and Planets.... in a heliocentric view we map the same calendar but do it relative to the Sun instead. Either way, the time of year you were born always remains constant. What should be incorporated into astrology is not the Sun's relationship to the stars, but the Earth's relationship to the Sun.

 

Like everyone always says "I resemble the traits of my birth sign", well what they should be saying is they resemble the traits of their birthday and the time of year, because the birth (star) sign slowly changes over centuries.

 

The sad part is astronomers dismissed astrology without checking the science and astrologers never bothered to update their study with real science..... in my eyes both parties lose out.

[Spiked Blood]

Astrology is superstitious hogwash. We are who we are because of genetics. And we are shaped by our enviroment. We have no relation to objects in the sky.

[Dyothelite]

Astrology is superstitious hogwash. We are who we are because of genetics. And we are shaped by our enviroment. We have no relation to objects in the sky.

 

That doesnt disprove the scientific basis for the existence of astrology only the reaffirmation that it has become perverted

[Buffy]

Most astronomers never give astrology credit because they never take the time to learn the science, and most astrologers misunderstand astrology because they never tried to learn the science.

I know quite a few professional astronomers. None of them would "never give astrology credit!" I'm not sure why you are saying this: really its widely recognized that to the extent that historical "astrologers" were spending a tremendous amount of time on what we now call astronomy is greatly appreciated by today's scientists, and they give great honor to "astrologers" like Tycho Brahe, without whom we would know much less.

 

What they do in some cases have an aversion to is the "prognostication" part of Astrology, which it sounds like you think is a legitimate opinion.

 

I'm simply concerned here that you're creating a conflict where there is none.

 

OTOH, current Astrologers get very angry when they are told "there is no scientific basis for your prognostications," but since they so far have been unable to provide any scientific justification or verification of their predictions, they are simply unscientific by definition. This again, is not "controversial."

 

Is there something I'm missing here? Or do you have a completely different sampling of Astronomers than I do?

 

Wishing upon a star,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

My point is simply this......

As you watch us post..... become aware of the "scientists" that claim astrology is "bogus".... and the astrologers that claim "truth".... and question for yourself if either party even remotely understands the opposition's viewpoint.

 

this would be better in the Religion vs. Religion thread.

 

I am an Aquarius.....turns out science says I'm a Capricorn....

[Tormod]

I am an Aquarius.....turns out science says I'm a Capricorn....

 

I thought this topic could be interesting, but it has become an "astrology is a science" vs "astrology is not a science" thread. Dyo's viewpoints are not well documented and as such I fail to see that you have any real claim to astrology being a science.

 

I agree with the view that astrology was once a "science", but let's not forget that it was *not* based on the principles of the scientific method. It was rather based on quasi-empirical lore (it rains in fall, and Planet X is often in Constellation Y at this time, and it rained exceptionally hard last time that happened, thus in the future we can assume the same will happen).

 

That astrology was a precursor to the science of astronomy is beyond doubt but it does not make modern astrology any more scientific. However, astrology is "real" in the sense that a lot of people practise it and a lot of people believe in it. I that sense it is more a religion than a science, and indeed there are elements of astrology in every religion I am aware of (the star of Bethlehem is a case in point in Christianity).

 

I would argue that historically, the *role* astrology played in a society is more interesting than the actual *effect* of planets and constellations (as they are non-provable). The actions made by people due to astrological predictions, which in many cases have been the basis of historical events, is worthy of study. But this is history and sociology (or perhaps anthropology), not astrology.

[Buffy]

As you watch us post..... become aware of the "scientists" that claim astrology is "bogus".... and the astrologers that claim "truth".... and question for yourself if either party even remotely understands the opposition's viewpoint.

You've got to be a lot more rigorous in your definition though. Right now for example I'm trying to be as open as possible, giving you the opportunity to propose how at least some part of Astrology can be considered scientific. You *have* pointed out the astronomical observation part, but as I've said, that's uncontroversial because it is "the Astronomy part of Astrology."

 

You first need to define "Astrology" more completely. Right now, its easy to make broad statements and *avoid* any scientific scrutiny if its definition is vague, and unfortunately, I've asked you a couple of times and you seem to avoid answering, thus raising skepticism rather than minimizing it as your intent seems to be in your earlier post.

 

I have no problem dismissing unsupported claims that some theory is "bogus" so I'm more than happy to listen here. But you need to realize that its exactly this sort of avoidance of solid definitions--required by any sort of scientific consdieration--that raises alarm bells.

this would be better in the Religion vs. Religion thread.

So are you saying its not scientific? That thread is about competing *beliefs*, not competing scientific theories. You may be right, but without that definition of what Astrology is, we're going in circles here.

 

Can't shoot it if ya can't see it,

Buffy

[Dyothelite]

I think it is important to first define the scientific aspects of Astrology:

 

Ecilptic: The path of the Sun and planets through the sky (geocentric), or the arangement of stars along the plane of the Earth rotation relative to the Sun and Planets.

 

Sun Sign: The constellation that the Sun rises and sets in on a given day of the year.

 

Zodiac Calendar: the procession of the arrangements of the Stars on the plane of the ecliptic relative to the Earth's rotation... in other words the stars behind the Sun during the course of a year. The Sun slowly passes through 13 signs, and the Moon and Planets travel through 21 different signs

 

 

Astrological Age: The constellation that the sign rises and sets on the Vernal Equinox. This remains constant for a period of about 2000 years as the Solar System slowly rotates relative to the stars around it. In other words the Sun Sign on the Vernal Equinox slowly changes over the course of thousands of years.

 

The Sun was in the constellation of Pisces for the first time in 50 BCE. It will be in Aquarius (formally) in the year 2600 CE (ish). This means that someone born on the Vernal Equinox in 50 BCE was a Pisces, but in 2600 CE on that same day the Sun will be in Aquarius and thus their Sun Sign is also Aquarius.

 

Unless this data is incorporated into current Astrology the entire school of thought is undermined, but it is still true that the Zodiac Calendar in use today was scientifically valid 2000 years ago (ish).

 

As far as divination goes, how can you give horoscopes based on the stars if your astronomical data is 2000 years outdated? You can't. But there have been attempts to correct it. Sidereal Astrology was a recent attempt (1944).

 

I was gonna give Wikipedia refeences here but I am ashamed at how inaccurate the articles are.

 

Here's some decent ones:

Real Sun Sign Calendar

 

Real Solar Zodiac: Sun Signs Dates - © Dr Shepherd Simpson

 

Astrological Age

 

Movement of the Vernal Equinox Point - © Dr Shepherd Simpson

 

An Astrological Age - © Dr Shepherd Simpson