Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
The structure of time is geocentric in its basic levels of measurement, and this basic measure has an important place within a coherent scientific framework.
|
That may have been true a long time ago, and historically, but no longer. The basic measure of time is the second, which has no connection to terrestrial events, in the way that you are referring to terrestrial events.
Quote:
|
Geometrically, the earth’s orbit is a near-circular ellipse divided by these four points of change.
|
While it is certainly true that the earth's orbit is nearly circular (it deviates from a circular path by not much more than its diameter if I recall), but the center of that circle is offset from the sun by over a million miles, some six times the distance to the moon. That causes the earth to speed and slow in its orbit as it gets closer to and farther from the sun.
Quote:
|
The circle is the earth’s annual orbit, and the central cross connects the solstices and equinoxes. The step required to derive the signs applies harmonic theory, taking the first three harmonics of the circle to inscribe four equilateral triangles in the circle based on the four turning points of the year. The claim is that each of the four turning points exhibits harmonic resonance with the two points on the orbit which are equilateral to it. These four triangles divide the circle into twelve equal segments and define the physics of the twelve signs of the tropical zodiac.
|
Because of the reason mentioned above, there is not really that nice of a symmetry.
Quote:
|
This physics demonstrates that the tropical signs are not ‘emanations from the stars’ as depicted in some folk traditions and in claims that precession refutes astrology, but are pure mathematical products of the annual relation between the earth and the sun. This is a useful piece of information in itself, given the common error (recently repeated here NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial at Baut) where scientists suggest that precession of the equinox refutes sign theory.
|
Some people are just ignerint.
Quote:
|
11. Science has of course not found any demonstrable physical influence from these four equilateral triangles defining the signs. Certainly, if there is any influence it is very weak as it has not to date been proven empirically despite popular use in horoscopes. It is still however an open question whether proof of such a weak effect could be obtained from large scale statistical studies.
|
From the studies, we can say that it is weak enough that any predictive power it has is completely swamped by the astrological noise.
Quote:
|
Considered as four factors which form the annual cycle, they can be visualized as demonstrating the physics of the four ‘elements’ of fire, earth, air and water, not in any metaphysical or alchemical sense, but as simple mathematics, with the permanent rhythm involving monthly succession of these four ‘elements’ in this same order.
|
In other words, you're simply re-naming "three" as "air" or something? If there is no metaphysical or alchemical sense to it, it seems to be just adding to the astrological confusion.
Quote:
|
14. Whatever its empirical influence, this twelve fold annual cycle has happened with clockwork regularity more than four billion times, producing a stable law-like rhythm within which all life on earth has evolved.
|
As I mentioned earlier, the offset of the sun from the center of the circle causes a deviation from the regularity such that if you had a timepiece with that "clockwork regularity" you'd have tossed it to the street with the trash.