So I'm putting this in the science forum, as Astrology is both a science and an art. It is the study of the planetary bodies, their energy and their influence on us, and it is also like a language with its own glyphs and symbols that requires interpretation from trained astrologers to decode the messages. It has been around for thousands of years in civilzations more advanced than our own, and astrologers have always been considered to be among the wisest and most revered members of a community. It has many levels, and can go deep into mythology, archetypes, to the very core of our psyches and subconscious. There is a lot of disrespectful intellectuals and scientists who pooh-pooh Astrology, saying it is all bunk and being very closed minded towards it. Years ago, I was intrigued by astrology and how it worked, because of the characteristics people displayed that matched accordingly with their sun sign, and just how scarily accurate a daily horoscope could be. If you still think it is bunk, go see a professional astrologer and get your natal chart and aspects laid in detail- you will be astonished how accurate it is, and how it can help you overcome your issues and be the best version of yourself. I am taking a course on it right now, and you can even plan events during key times, like starting a project on a New Moon and seeing the rewards come at the completion time of a Full Moon.
^ agreed, the planets "energies" don't have influence over us. This isn't science, it's pseudo nonsense that's been disproven in the last what? 3 hundred years? I show no characteristics of a libra, why's that? Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
The typical response I've gotten in the past from astrologers is that it's not all the time only generally those characteristics. LMAO So basically astrology is worthless according to at least three astrologers and can only predict a characteristic 50% of the time. It's funny how most horoscopes list good qualities that everyone wants to believe about themselves.
If astrology isnt bullshit, then why is my horoscope always wrong, inaccurate, and downright retarded? the truth is, astrology is very similar to a cold reading, some people happen to identify with it. You toss out enough guesses, and eventually you'll get at least ONE right. A common phrases like 'artistic' 'compassionate', are some of the most popular ways to identify with one's self. It's bullshit, but fun when they're somewhat accurate.
I see a lot of people don't realize that the true power of astrology comes in the details. The day and minute you were born will yield a more detailed understanding.
I find it all very sketchy... Our definition of birth isn't anything real in nature. Is "birth" the minute your head comes out of the mother? Is it the minute your whole body comes out? Isn't the conception 9 months earlier? Moreover, the seven-day division of our calendar is also arbitrary, and so is the 30 or 31 days in a month, so the day you are born on is also defined by arbitrary human conventions. Basing so-called scientific predictions on arbitrary human concepts is sketchy to begin with...Perhaps there is some truth in the statement that planets influence behavior, but I doubt that this can be deducted from your time of "birth".
Cause you ain't a believer. Ya gots ta believe! Try fortune cookies. That's where the power lies! Plus they taste good.
There is no scientific basis for astrology. My wife once bought an astronomy book. She is a Gemini. I read like 5 different horoscopes without telling her which one they wwere. Every horoscope was intentionally vague enough to apply to everyone in the room. Weird huh? Not only that bit if you study people, you find they don't fall into the norms astrology claims. It only seems that way because of selective listening (all Pisces are calm, I've met all Pisces) -yuri
[SIZE=12pt]Yuri, that sums it up pretty well. [/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Astrology has no predictive power. Sure it can make vague predictions that can be contorted to fit some event or maybe some event that might happen sometime in the future... When vague they can seem to be about you. I do something similar to this in my classes, which nicely sums up vagueness, but I choose a random birthdate for a student (not their actual one) and read a horoscope. [/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]But for precise predictions astrology lacks the power that science has. If astrology were a science it would be providing hypotheses that could be test to refine the theory, not spewing untestable imprecise statements. [/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Astrology fails to provide a mechanism by how it would work, though I do like that the doctor that delivered you had more gravitational influence on you than a planet debunking of the gravity hypothesis.[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]I understand in a prescientific era thinking that the planets influence events on earth, after all the position of the sun in the sky dictates the season. However we have moved beyond that with our understanding of the cosmos.[/SIZE]
To add a little humor, I recall an astronomer said we should 'put astrology in a blackhole.' I am not convinced astrology can account for or predict behaviors based on celestial alignments and influences. I think personal experience has an overwhelmingly more powerful influence. However, gravity does have some influence. 'Gravitational Effects on Biological System' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11541902/
That article has been cited once in 16 years. And the one citation was a paper refuting their conclusions, and that study was actually done by the very same PI (see last author) to refute his own previous paper that you cited. If you read the abstract, they say, Note the phrase, "since it is comparable to other weak interactions"...which is a strange thing to say because they suggest something should be considered because it's comparable to something else that has no reason to be considered. Having spent the last 11 years studying protein function at the greatest of details, I can assure you that gravity does not play a role in molecular biological processes. One would be laughed at if you did an enzyme kinetics experiment and considered the role of gravity in it.
Oh ok! I didnt figure gravity played much of a role but I did a quick search, saw that abstract and thought maybe i assumed wrongly. So has someone tested this idea and found it has no effect or we just assume it doesnt? Seems like it would be hard to test, wouldnt it require a zero gravity lab? You've got me curious now. Speaking of, isnt there a field of astrobiology?
I dont mean to hijack the thread, so you could answer in pm. Two further questions, assume we have 3 earths. One with normal gravity, one with double and one with half. Living organisms, such as plants, animals and humans, would be the same size in all 3 environments? How do organisms decide how big grow? For the sake of making the answer more simple, assume all other variables are identical.
Amount of energy is a big factor is growth. Big lizards for example, where are they found? When dinosaurs existed (really big lizards) how hot was the earth?
You missed what I was getting at. I was asking how we know gravity plays no role in biology. Polar bears seem to grow pretty big in the cold.