Spiritual Portal
Dec 11, 2018 01:25 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Steve Hydonus' music on CD Baby!
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Links Staff List Login Register  

Astrology and Astronomy


Recent Items

Views: 12
Comments (0)
By: tides2dust

Views: 11
Comments (1)
By: tides2dust

Views: 27
Comments (2)
By: tides2dust

Views: 22
Comments (2)
By: tides2dust
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Astrology and Astronomy  (Read 114 times)
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« on: Aug 29, 2015 03:13 pm »

Richard Feynman, Nobel laureat and eccentric admired theoretical physicist used to criticize astrology, but at least once he did it in a constructive way, prompting a debate with a purpose to have people who liek astrology study astronomy. I agree on that. There is a physical science and a metaphysical science, the two are sometimes correlated. The scientists often sin of hubris, not admitting that the metaphysical science is Beyond their expertise. We can say they may have a complex of superioriry which conceals a complex of inferiority since they cannot understand metaphysics, hence ridiculing it.

These are the words of Feynman:

Quote
I think that we must mainly write some articles. Now what would happen? The person who believes in astrology will have to learn some astronomy. The person who believes in faith healing might have to learn some medicine, because of the arguments going back and forth; and some biology. In other words, it will be necessary that science become relevant.

I totally agree with him.

The person who believes in astrology will have to learn some astronomy.

This woudl be  a must. We should understand the basics of astronomy to understand the rationale of astrology, its limits and its advantages.
Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« Reply #1 on: Aug 29, 2015 03:21 pm »

I couldn't believe it at first, but NASA has some webpages in its site dedicated to astrology (OK, it's of the skeptics type). That seems a good place to begin to study astronomy correlated to astrology.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/starfinder2/en/

A criticism which springs up soon is the way the Chaldeans astronomers chose to split the zodiacal belt into 12 equal parts, instead than 13 unequal parts. Also, another criticism is that because of the precession of the equinoxes the limits between the zodiacal signs have shifted.

Quote
When the Babylonians first invented the 12 signs of zodiac, a birthday between about July 23 and August 22 meant being born under the constellation Leo. Now, 3,000 years later, the sky has shifted because Earth's axis (North Pole) doesn't point in quite the same direction.

Now Mimi's August 4 birthday would mean she was born "under the sign" of Cancer (one constellation "earlier"), not Leo.

The constellations are different sizes and shapes, so the Sun spends different lengths of time lined up with each one. The line from Earth through the Sun points to Virgo for 45 days, but it points to Scorpius for only 7 days. To make a tidy match with their 12-month calendar, the Babylonians ignored the fact that the Sun actually moves through 13 constellations, not 12. Then they assigned each of those 12 constellations equal amounts of time. Besides the 12 familiar constellations of the zodiac, the Sun is also aligned with Ophiuchus for about 18 days each year.
Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« Reply #2 on: Aug 29, 2015 03:26 pm »

This link of the NASA site is pretty eloquent. It's the tiem of the sun-constellation transits nowadays, it changes everything compared to Chaldean astronomy-astrology. Also, pls note the Sun transits in Scorpius only 7 days, whereas it transits in Ophiuchus (a constellation not included in the zodiac) 18 days.
 i would not be a Leo, I'd rather be a cancer (but I don't know if the dates are the same as in 1960).

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/starfinder3/en/
Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« Reply #3 on: Aug 29, 2015 03:47 pm »

The wiki voice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

tends to destroy cthe redibility of astrology.

Actually, the factual concern is that the empiric evidence provided no proof of accurate forecasting (the experiments described). On the contrary, the results of astrological forecastes were the same as if chance would have governed the horoscopes (in other words, horoscopes would amount to tossing a coin).

This could be rebutted by saying that there are very few good astrologers nowadays. Of course, this woudl also mean that astrology could not be used unless we found those good astrologers and tested them.

The other criticism, that astrology has no basis in the physical sciences, in irrilevant. Astrology is not a phsical science, it's a metaphysical science and should be judged according to the rules of such a knowledge. Scientists cannot criticize metaphysical science, philosophers specialized in metaphysics could.

This doesn't rule out the fact that the basics of astrology should fit into a logical framework.

For example, the NASA objections posted above sound sensible. Why modern astrology does not allow for the equinoctial precession, why Ophiucus does not belong to the zodiac, why the zodiacal belt has been split into 12 equal durations rather than into their actual durations? Do these differences  make up a fundamental flaw in modern astrology which hence should be discarded as lacking of inherent logical coherence (which is a very serious flaw in the field of metaphysical science).
« Last Edit: Aug 29, 2015 03:51 pm by mccoy » Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« Reply #4 on: Aug 29, 2015 03:58 pm »

Thsi is a site which proposes some points in favour of astrology

http://www.near-death.com/paranormal/astrology/scientific-evidence-of-astrology.html
Report Spam   Logged
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 352
Online Online

Posts: 9577


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #5 on: Aug 29, 2015 06:16 pm »

The wiki voice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

tends to destroy cthe redibility of astrology.

Actually, the factual concern is that the empiric evidence provided no proof of accurate forecasting (the experiments described). On the contrary, the results of astrological forecastes were the same as if chance would have governed the horoscopes (in other words, horoscopes would amount to tossing a coin).

This could be rebutted by saying that there are very few good astrologers nowadays. Of course, this woudl also mean that astrology could not be used unless we found those good astrologers and tested them.

The other criticism, that astrology has no basis in the physical sciences, in irrilevant. Astrology is not a phsical science, it's a metaphysical science and should be judged according to the rules of such a knowledge. Scientists cannot criticize metaphysical science, philosophers specialized in metaphysics could.

This doesn't rule out the fact that the basics of astrology should fit into a logical framework.

For example, the NASA objections posted above sound sensible. Why modern astrology does not allow for the equinoctial precession, why Ophiucus does not belong to the zodiac, why the zodiacal belt has been split into 12 equal durations rather than into their actual durations? Do these differences  make up a fundamental flaw in modern astrology which hence should be discarded as lacking of inherent logical coherence (which is a very serious flaw in the field of metaphysical science).

Not only does astrology allow for the equinoctial  procession; Astrologers knew about it before scientests.
To be more accurate most scientists (up to recently) still attribute this motion to the wobble of the earth.
« Last Edit: Aug 29, 2015 06:32 pm by Steve Hydonus » Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 352
Online Online

Posts: 9577


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #6 on: Aug 29, 2015 06:21 pm »

The wiki voice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

tends to destroy cthe redibility of astrology.

Actually, the factual concern is that the empiric evidence provided no proof of accurate forecasting (the experiments described). On the contrary, the results of astrological forecastes were the same as if chance would have governed the horoscopes (in other words, horoscopes would amount to tossing a coin).

This could be rebutted by saying that there are very few good astrologers nowadays. Of course, this woudl also mean that astrology could not be used unless we found those good astrologers and tested them.

The other criticism, that astrology has no basis in the physical sciences, in irrilevant. Astrology is not a phsical science, it's a metaphysical science and should be judged according to the rules of such a knowledge. Scientists cannot criticize metaphysical science, philosophers specialized in metaphysics could.

This doesn't rule out the fact that the basics of astrology should fit into a logical framework.

For example, the NASA objections posted above sound sensible. Why modern astrology does not allow for the equinoctial precession, why Ophiucus does not belong to the zodiac, why the zodiacal belt has been split into 12 equal durations rather than into their actual durations? Do these differences  make up a fundamental flaw in modern astrology which hence should be discarded as lacking of inherent logical coherence (which is a very serious flaw in the field of metaphysical science).

The tests depend on who conducts them. Carl Jung did astrological studies and experiments and determined that beyond a doubt there is proof of the validity of astrology.
Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 352
Online Online

Posts: 9577


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #7 on: Aug 29, 2015 06:25 pm »

The wiki voice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

tends to destroy cthe redibility of astrology.

Actually, the factual concern is that the empiric evidence provided no proof of accurate forecasting (the experiments described). On the contrary, the results of astrological forecastes were the same as if chance would have governed the horoscopes (in other words, horoscopes would amount to tossing a coin).

This could be rebutted by saying that there are very few good astrologers nowadays. Of course, this woudl also mean that astrology could not be used unless we found those good astrologers and tested them.

The other criticism, that astrology has no basis in the physical sciences, in irrilevant. Astrology is not a phsical science, it's a metaphysical science and should be judged according to the rules of such a knowledge. Scientists cannot criticize metaphysical science, philosophers specialized in metaphysics could.

This doesn't rule out the fact that the basics of astrology should fit into a logical framework.

For example, the NASA objections posted above sound sensible. Why modern astrology does not allow for the equinoctial precession, why Ophiucus does not belong to the zodiac, why the zodiacal belt has been split into 12 equal durations rather than into their actual durations? Do these differences  make up a fundamental flaw in modern astrology which hence should be discarded as lacking of inherent logical coherence (which is a very serious flaw in the field of metaphysical science).

People tend to read and look at studies that support their own views.
Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 352
Online Online

Posts: 9577


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #8 on: Aug 29, 2015 06:30 pm »

This link of the NASA site is pretty eloquent. It's the tiem of the sun-constellation transits nowadays, it changes everything compared to Chaldean astronomy-astrology. Also, pls note the Sun transits in Scorpius only 7 days, whereas it transits in Ophiuchus (a constellation not included in the zodiac) 18 days.
 i would not be a Leo, I'd rather be a cancer (but I don't know if the dates are the same as in 1960).
Sorry mccoy but you do not understand astrology. You are still a Leo unless of course you subscribe to Vedic astrology. In western astrology you are a Leo. You do not understand the tropical zodiac and it's meaning. It is solar based... not star based.
« Last Edit: Aug 29, 2015 06:34 pm by Steve Hydonus » Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« Reply #9 on: Aug 29, 2015 10:03 pm »

Steve, of course I do not understand astrology, I would not have initiated this topic otherwise, whose aim is to try and understand reconcile classical astrology and logic, if not science.

It is all too evident that most astronomers and physicist still do not understand that the influence of the stars is not physical. It is not the light or the electromagnetic radiations, it is some other kind of influence they do not understand nor want to make any effort to understand.

Your mentioning tropical astrology prompted a research which has spawned some interesting concept. For example, the 12 constellations are just a memento, a benchmark, a conventional way to indicate 12 segments of the ecliptic of the same angular width. This is most important since it effectively rebuts all fo NASA criticism. The 12 signs system is just a convention to indicate specific segments or sectors of astral influence.
What surprises me though, is that there is not an explanation of such a simple concept in the NASA site nor in the Wiki voice I indicated. OK, it is not physical science but the logic Beyond that should be considered and accepted.

Quote
The classical zodiac was introduced in the neo-Babylonian period (around the seventh to the sixth century BCE). At the time, the precession of the equinoxes had not been discovered. Classical Hellenistic astrology consequently developed without consideration of the effects of precession. The discovery of the precession of the equinoxes, is attributed to Hipparchus, a Greek astronomer active in the later Hellenistic period (ca. 130 BCE).

Ptolemy, writing some 250 years after Hipparchus, was thus aware of the effects of precession. He opted for a definition of the zodiac based on the point of the vernal equinox, i.e., the tropical system. While Ptolemy noted that Ophiuchus is in contact with the ecliptic, he was aware that the 12 signs were just conventional names for 30-degree segments.


« Last Edit: Aug 29, 2015 10:15 pm by mccoy » Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« Reply #10 on: Aug 29, 2015 10:34 pm »

Sorry mccoy but you do not understand astrology. You are still a Leo unless of course you subscribe to Vedic astrology. In western astrology you are a Leo. You do not understand the tropical zodiac and it's meaning. It is solar based... not star based.

In western classical tropical astrology I'm still a leo, whereas in sidereal astrology I take it I would be a cancer according to both Fagan's and Berg's conventions.

So, the NASA site seems to be treating together tropical and sidereal astrology, mixing the classical apples and oranges. Someone should tell them.

The confusing fact is that sidereal astrology is today correlated to the classic tropical astrology. I take it it is because of lack of tools to draw a sidereal natal chart. But it is something which would apparently (just apparently because I do not know the transformations) legitimate the Concerns of the NASA site.
Report Spam   Logged
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


« Reply #11 on: Aug 29, 2015 11:16 pm »

Also, this discussion and teh subsequent research  has made it clear to me that Sri Yukteswar practiced a from of sidereal astrology, in fact his words related by Yogananda relate the influence of the stars thru the filters of planets.

But tropical astrology is related only to the solar system, without any regard to to the farther stars. That is, only the influence of the objects within the solar system. I was actually not aware of the difference, having been my conceptual reference Sri Yukteswar.


This is an interesting fact-checking with modern science, which again proves how too often scientists are blinded by hubris. Before raising their objections, they should study and strive to understand the object of their criticism. Even as they study the most minute details of their matter of expertise.


http://www.freewillastrology.com/beauty/beauty.main346.shtml

Quote
QUESTION: Why don't astrologers consider the fact that when the Sun is in the sign of Aries, it is not really in the constellation Aries?

 ANSWER: The astrological signs are not defined by, nor do they have anything to do with, the constellations you see in the sky. Approximately 2,000 years ago, when the foundations of astrological thinking were formulated, the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Astrological signs do not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then, due to the phenomena known as the precession of the equinoxes. The equinoxes move backwards, or precess, with respect to the constellations by about one degree every 72 years.

 However, modern Western astrologers understand that the raw material of their work does not involve a study of distant stars. Rather, their relevant data have to do with the interweavings of the planets in our own solar system within a zone of influence defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun. The key demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes, the points in time and space at which the Earth, with its tilted axis, is positioned with respect to the Sun in such a way that the length of day and night are equal. At the vernal equinox, which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries.

 This zodiac, positioned with respect to the equinoxes, is called the "tropical zodiac." Most Western astrologers, who use this system, are called tropical astrologers. There is also a zodiac based loosely on the constellations. It's called the "sidereal zodiac," and is used primarily by Vedic (or Hindu) astrologers. For an excellent discussion of the differences between sidereal and tropical astrology, and the merits of each, pick up the April/May 2002 issue of The Mountain Astrologer.
Report Spam   Logged
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 352
Online Online

Posts: 9577


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #12 on: Aug 30, 2015 02:41 am »

Also, this discussion and teh subsequent research  has made it clear to me that Sri Yukteswar practiced a from of sidereal astrology, in fact his words related by Yogananda relate the influence of the stars thru the filters of planets.

But tropical astrology is related only to the solar system, without any regard to to the farther stars. That is, only the influence of the objects within the solar system. I was actually not aware of the difference, having been my conceptual reference Sri Yukteswar.


This is an interesting fact-checking with modern science, which again proves how too often scientists are blinded by hubris. Before raising their objections, they should study and strive to understand the object of their criticism. Even as they study the most minute details of their matter of expertise.


http://www.freewillastrology.com/beauty/beauty.main346.shtml

Quote
QUESTION: Why don't astrologers consider the fact that when the Sun is in the sign of Aries, it is not really in the constellation Aries?

 ANSWER: The astrological signs are not defined by, nor do they have anything to do with, the constellations you see in the sky. Approximately 2,000 years ago, when the foundations of astrological thinking were formulated, the names of the constellations happened to be paired with the astrological signs. Today, those pairings are no longer in sync: Astrological signs do not line up with the constellations in the same way they did way back then, due to the phenomena known as the precession of the equinoxes. The equinoxes move backwards, or precess, with respect to the constellations by about one degree every 72 years.

 However, modern Western astrologers understand that the raw material of their work does not involve a study of distant stars. Rather, their relevant data have to do with the interweavings of the planets in our own solar system within a zone of influence defined by the relationship between the Earth and Sun. The key demarcation points in that relationship are the equinoxes, the points in time and space at which the Earth, with its tilted axis, is positioned with respect to the Sun in such a way that the length of day and night are equal. At the vernal equinox, which occurs on about March 20th of each year, the Sun enters into the sign of Aries.

 This zodiac, positioned with respect to the equinoxes, is called the "tropical zodiac." Most Western astrologers, who use this system, are called tropical astrologers. There is also a zodiac based loosely on the constellations. It's called the "sidereal zodiac," and is used primarily by Vedic (or Hindu) astrologers. For an excellent discussion of the differences between sidereal and tropical astrology, and the merits of each, pick up the April/May 2002 issue of The Mountain Astrologer.

Mccoy like many other disciplines people do not fall under one category and reject all others. For many there is validity in both approaches and i use principles for both. You have never asked me though so i saw no point in going into it-the differences-what i shy away from and what i use in astrology. It is not that cut and dry you know.

Its like asking a musician what style do you play? Well some people play all jazz but there are many people who mix their styles and add classical or blues or any number of styles. Other musicians are hard pressed to explain what style they use.

The Sun is very important in our lives as the main light of the solar system. Its position with regards to the equator determines the seasons. The fixed stars are also placed in some of the western charts. Some eastern astrologers are recognizing the importance of trans-Saturn planets. We are learning from each other. Both Western and Eastern Astrology make use of the angles between the planets regardless of their ideas of the Astrological Signs which i find as one of those areas that should not be looked on with finality but rather a growing awareness. We can learn the most from our personal observations and find a system that works for us. As you may have noticed i have never said much about your astrological sign but rather your chart using other tools. There was a definite reason for that.
« Last Edit: Aug 30, 2015 05:27 am by Steve Hydonus » Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
namaste2All
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 55
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


Light reflects from many facets of diamond


« Reply #13 on: Aug 30, 2015 10:54 pm »

Thanks McCoy... cool words...
another illustration how our awareness reality framework may be a reference point that may be constrained by the Age and Company we keep...
neat stuff... thx.
Report Spam   Logged
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 352
Online Online

Posts: 9577


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


WWW
« Reply #14 on: Aug 31, 2015 05:18 pm »

Thanks McCoy... cool words...
another illustration how our awareness reality framework may be a reference point that may be constrained by the Age and Company we keep...
neat stuff... thx.

Yes. I have taken an interest in science; however I have found scientists to be some of the most biased and prejudice people I have ever met. Ofcourse this is a generality based on my personal experience. Suffice it to say they would do good to run some experiments in the lab of their own meditation instead of constantly experimenting with the laws of nature which change with paradigm shifts and the course and depth of present empirical knowledge.

Who we keep in our orbit of friends and aquaintances helps shape who we are. There are many elements of both science and astrology that still require much understanding before we are able to come to an understanding that consistently plays out in results. There is an unfolding awareness in both disciplines that manifests in our present awareness. There are many areas in both arenas that are still vague and not so comprehensible like the constellation and remote stars as an influence on human interaction and the the uncertainty principle  in quantum physics. We live in an environment of uncertainties and vague probabilities. Many times we are faced with the unknown and a groping hope to understand what is sometimes beyond present recognition and comprehension. We are in growing awe that the mind begins to understand one thing which opens up to more and more possibilities.

mccoy;

i never have come up with a conclusive view of the constellations and their specific affects on the backdrop of the planets, Sun and Moon. I know that I would be considered a Gemini if we were to take into account procession. I have difficulty with that assessment since there are many factors that point to Cancer fitting me better. The most important is being a caregiver for years-a real Cancer characteristic. What about you? Does Cancer fit u better?
« Last Edit: Sep 02, 2015 12:03 am by Steve Hydonus » Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/stevehydonus
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus https://myspace.com/stevehydonus/music/songs<br />http://stevehydonus.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy