Can not the work with the rats and hamsters be explained with an internal body clock? What does that have to do with astrology?

I'm not sure about the work with the oysters. Even if they are responding to the gravitational forces of the moon (tides), how does this show any effect in humans. There would be extremely strong evolutionary forces to make oysters sensitive to tides, they live in tidal areas. What does this have to do with humans and astrology?

As I asked before, are you proposing the gravity is the force that is the cause for an astrology effect?

You say that what astrologers see is a seasonal effect, in other words, people born in the Spring are a certain way, people born in the Fall are a different way? If there was such an effect, why might it have to relate to astrology at all, maybe humans who are conceived in certain weather or temperatures are a certain way. And why doesn't everyone born on a certain date have the same fate?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

If you wanted to build a mobile telephone system then the mathematics which gave rise to mobile technology would not be the first place many would think to start, but without this mathematics the project would not be possible. Some of the questions posed in this thread imply an approach to study of planetary patterns which is akin to starting with a plan to build a mobile phone system without doing the necessary mathematics first.

The implication for astrology is that the fundamental mathematics of observing the planetary patterns of the solar system is just as valid and interesting a piece of pure logic as any other part of mathematics. My explanation of this mathematics rests on a set of excel spreadsheets I have made which graph the solar system in different ways. This material is purely empirical and has no reliance on astrological claims. I am happy to circulate by private email to facilitate discussion. By illustrating the rhythmic vectors which connect the earth and the planets, these charts demonstrate that much can be done within purely scientific and mathematical approaches to study planetary inter-relations.

Some postings here ask about predictions. To discuss this, I will refer to one of the abovementioned charts, showing the relative positions of sun, moon and planets for January 2007. An interesting feature of this period is that the sun and all the planets except Saturn are inside a ninety degree square arc bounded by Jupiter and Uranus. Within this square arc, Mars passes Pluto on 12 January and Venus passes Neptune on 18 January. Mercury begins near the sun and ends with Neptune. The moon crosses the group from 16-22 January.

Mathematically, the Mars-Pluto conjunction is the moment every two years when Earth, Mars and Pluto form a straight line in space. The last incidences have been 18/9/1999, 17/3/2001 and 18-26/7/2001 retrograde, 14/2/2003 & 26/1/2005. To make predictions about what the January 12, 2007 meeting of Mars and Pluto (joined also by the moon on Jan 16) might mean, it would be necessary to build a database (perhaps beginning from information such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2003 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2005) and analyse comparable months for any statistical trends, whether in politics, health, the arts, sciences or other fields. Similarly, Mars was last conjunct Uranus on 13 May 2005 and for an extended period due to retrogression from June to October 2003. Predictions about the next Mars-Uranus crossing on 25 April 2007 would need to find trends in previous incidences, preferably by analyzing datasets covering long time periods.

One question I found particularly interesting was the claim by Gillianren that “astrology is still divided into star signs, no matter which version you're using. I know people who draw up horoscopes, and they still use stars and planets. You may not, but it's a kind of astrology of which I've never heard.”

Precession of the equinox has invalidated the belief that stars cause astrological effects of the signs. For example, Saturn is visible in the evening sky until August 2007. It is approaching Regulus, the main star of the constellation Leo. The ephemeris of the tropical zodiac, as used by the Western astrology, indicates that Saturn is now at 24.5 degrees Leo, although in the sky Saturn is not yet in Leo. This discrepancy of nearly thirty degrees is explained by precession. The constellation of Leo drifts around the ecliptic towards the celestial equator at a rate of about one zodiacal sign per 2160 years, and completes a full cycle, the Platonic year, every 25,920 or so years. When systematic astrology was formulated in the Ptolemaic system of ancient Greece, the coincidence of star signs (constellations) and sun signs (twelfth part divisions of the tropical ecliptic) created the popular view that astrology involved a direct magical relation to the stars, for example the beginning of Aries at the northern spring equinox. The magical view was that the position of the sun between earth and the stars of each constellation had causative power for events on earth. Precessional drift, illustrated by the position of Saturn now visible in the night sky, has invalidated this magical interpretation, creating the requirement to understand the signs solely in terms of the rhythm of solstices and equinoxes. In my first posting I argued the twelve-fold division results from entrainment by the moon.

Another question was:
So are you saying that what astrologers see is a seasonal effect, in other words, people born in the Spring are a certain way, people born in the Fall are a different way? If there was such an effect, why might it have to relate to astrology at all, maybe humans who are conceived in certain weather or temperatures are a certain way. And why doesn't everyone born on a certain date have the same fate?

Firstly on why people differ, astrological tendencies are swamped by terrestrial factors. The chaotic planetary mathematics of personality factors is vastly more complex than building a mobile phone network, so that should just be put aside for now to concentrate on questions with easier empirics.

Regarding the main question, yes the signs are a seasonal effect. Each season has its signs, in which the astrological tradition has discerned a profound perpetual natural rhythm reflected in climate and psyche. The character of everything within each season and sub-season has been observed and distilled to understand the signs, beginning with Aries at the northern spring equinox on March 21 and flowing through to the end of the natural year in Pisces. Aries, Taurus and Gemini are and always have been the signs following the northern spring equinox, Cancer, Leo and Virgo are the signs after the summer solstice, Libra, Scorpio and Sagittarius the signs after the autumn equinox, and Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces the signs following the winter solstice.
The point of interest here starts from the claim that the astrological meaning of each sign correlates precisely with the character of its season. Obviously this is a large claim which cannot be established in a few words, but examples can sketch the principle at work. One correlation between sign and season is between the reflective hibernatory end of the natural northern year in early March and the reflective symbolic meaning attached to the sign of Pisces. Another is between the bursting energy of spring at the end of March and the energetic character of Aries. Similarly, Leo is the dominating sign of high summer. A flower bulb in spring is one example of a natural pattern which corresponds to the first three signs - its emergence in Aries, growth in Taurus and blossoming in Gemini provides a symbolic picture of the meaning of the signs of the ram, the bull and the twins. Similar correlations exist for each sign and season.

Mathematically, astrology describes this twelve-fold sequence by the interplay of two cycles - the triplicities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) and quadriplicities (fire, earth, air, water) with each sign having a unique combination of the two. These interrelations can be mapped using sine curves of differing frequency.

The conjecture here, flowing from the expectation that fractal structures are an elemental part of all natural systems, is that the permanence and strength of the rhythm of the seasons means they cause resonant fractal structures which define the temporal character of the earth. The empirical observations of astrology support this suggestion by observing fractal resonance in the natural harmonic structures created by the movements of the sun and moon and planets through the twelve sun signs. Astrology has been built upon long observation of these harmonic structures, through study of the character of planetary transits, aspects, progressions and houses. These phenomena have a purely scientific nature, derived from the tables of the ephemeris, but their interpretation faces the same chaotic feedback limitations as any natural system. The disjuncture between the predictive ambitions of astrology and its chaotic sources has led to its disrepute in scientific circles, but this disjuncture should be acknowledged as the starting point for scientific investigation, rather than its end.

Despite this great difficulty of interpretation, the astrological fractal principle ‘as above, so below’ tallies with the observation that the rhythms of life on earth, and our genetic character which has evolved in this context, have been subtly shaped through the cumulative adaptation of natural selection to harmonise with the regular environmental patterns of the solar system. This shaping of our character arises from the fact that our genetic makeup participates in the resonant patterns which structure time. Our genes have evolved over billions of years in the context of the constant natural rhythms of the solar system and so naturally reflect and participate in these rhythms.

A related question was: are astrological polarities reversed for people in the southern hemisphere, as are the seasons of our birth etc?

It is an interesting question how tropical and southern parts of the earth create different patterns which also contribute to the structure of time. It raises the question of whether the rhythm of western astrology applies to people whose genetic inheritance did not evolve within northern temperate seasons. For example southeast Australia’s seasons are in polar opposition to those of Europe and North America. Should this reverse the dates of astrology in Australia with Aries starting on 21 September? I do not believe so for people of northern extraction living in the south, although the latitude of a person’s genetic inheritance may have an affect. I suspect that people like myself, whose great-grandparents emigrated to Australia from Britain, could be more influenced in this regard by the 99.9% of our ancestors over the last 1000 generations who were born in the north than the ~0.1% who were born in the south. Such patterns could be slow to change.

Robert Tulip

But so what! I understand your point about math, of finding interesting patterns. But if the patterns have no effect on humans, you have no astrology, no matter how pretty the patterns.

So, if astrological tendencies are swamped by terrestrial factors, than why bother with astrology? And how would you see an effect anyway? My understanding is that the purpose of astrology is to make predictions about my life or my personality based upon the position of astronomical objects. I suspect that even a devote astrologer would say there are error bars in those predictions. If other factors have an influence that exceeds those error bars, then the astrology prediction is meaningless, no matter how pretty the math and the patterns.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

[QUOTE=tbm;888048]"This comment illustrates the major cultural, political and theoretical problems facing the material I am presenting here. Science is prejudiced against astrology for several good reasons, notably............."

Because it has nothing do to with real science and anyone with common sense would realize that the only effect cosmic objects such and planets or stars may have on people is if one came close enough to have a physical or gravitational effect on them.

Or more succinctly, it is bunk.

Hullo,

Might I suggest you read one of the books referenced by Robert Tulip, "Cosmic Clocks", by Michel Gauquelin, in which Gauquelin speaks to the question of gravity.


Julienne

[QUOTE=rdaneel;888079]Several comments on this:

1. Googling on wikipedia on Michel Gauquelin and the "Mars Effect" reveal that his statistical analysis is, to say the least, highly questioned.

This may be true if you Google, but it is important to give proper weight to the questioners. There is such opposition to astrology, not from scientists who have studied it, but from those who haven't, that questions often arise without value from those with an axe to grind. A group of Skeptics, for example, tried to debunk Gauquelin's work, but, to their chagrin,were unable to. That didn't stop some of them from continuing to "question" it,and even deny their results.

2. The references given in Aurora's earlier post suggest that many statistical analyses find no correlations between astrological predictions and outcomes.

But many do.
(...)

4. The gravitational effects of the planets is so small that it is highly implausible that they could make a difference.

One of the interesting findings presented by Gauquelin in "Cosmic Clocks" is that strong gravitational fields sometimes don't have the strongest "effect" - they can swamp, whereas more subtle gravitational effects can be more effective triggers.

"5. There are probably true seasonal effects of births, but they are probably due to differences in when kids attend school, seasonal illnesses, and different cultural patterns. For example, a paper by John Bound et al "Problems with Instrumental Variables Estimation When the Correlation Between the Instruments and the Endogneous Explanatory Variables is Weak", in the Journal of the American Statistical Association, from 1995, pointed out that there are correlations between birth quarter and performance in school, the incidence of certain mental illnesses, etc. There are also differences in season of birth among different income groups and in different regions. We need to distinguish between true effects of season of the year, and more questionable hypothesized astrological effects.[/QUOTE"

There are many, many variables interplaying with the astrological, just as
there are many such influences playing on the genes, modifying how genes
play out. Smoking/not smoking, decent diet/starvation, education/no education, parental involvement/parental neglect, and so much more is
involved in the unfoldment of genetic inheritance, and also of astrological patterning.

Carl Jung spoke of "synchronicity", the theory that all in the universe is synchronized - that we are all connected (6 degrees of separation), and
what is happening here on earth is a reflection of what is happening above
and is all connected. Astrology is not simple - it is not a subject to be learned and understood in 3 months - and this may be another reason why it is so little understood, as people simply don't have the time to devote to a real study of it when they are already involved in hours of study and research in their own fields. But I have never known a scientist who has really studied it who still insisted it was not of serious value.

Julienne

Just to get this into context...

Assuming the human is about 6ft tall and spherical (no sniggering and pointing at the back!) then the sun is 1.86m in diameter, the earth is 2cm diameter 200m away, Jupiter is 19cm diameter 1040m away, and A.Centauri is 54000km away.

Assuming a coin of 2cm diameter, I reckon that's 100m and 1900km respectively.

If Robert can't get these figures right, and these are easily calculated using existing information, what chance of finding teeny tiny patterns in an ocean of noise?

Anyway, it sure puts the universe into perspective...

(Please feel free to check my figures, and remember I've rounded (sniggering at the back again!) a little.)

A query asked if I was claiming that gravity waves are the basis of astrology. I am not. I do however maintain that the gravitational relations between earth and other planets have a sine-wave-like form manifest in the sinusoidal paths of the aspects between the outer planets, and apparent in many empirical relations. In an earlier post I offered to share Excel charts and tables which illustrate these observations. I am happy to put these on the internet but would need assistance to do so.

In The Scientific Basis of Astrology by Percy Seymour, he has a diagram (page 112) illustrating the relation between sun, moon and earth at full and neap tides. The two diagrams show that highest tides occur when sun and moon are conjunct or opposite, while smallest tides are when sun and moon are square. The graphed path of tide heights has a wave function which is dependent on gravity but is not the gravity waves observed by relativity. This illustrates the sense in which the rhythms of astrology have a wave-like form which arises from gravity. Think of our minds as fractals of the tides.

An example of a planetary wave-like event caused by gravity is described by Seymour on page 128: "Another effect of the gravitational tug of the planets on our Earth is to cause a small change in the ellipticity of its orbit over long periods of time. Jupiter is the main contributor to these effects, with Saturn playing a much smaller role, and the other planets playing only a very small part. This is reflected in slight changes in temperature on Earth's surface. This in turn gives rise to fluctuations in the annual populations of certain species of micro-organisms."

My hunch is that the changes in ellipticity would have wave-like patterns like the tides, possibly with 'full ellipse' when Jupiter and Saturn are conjunct or opposite and 'neap ellipse' when they are square.

Re the solar system and galactic orders of magnitude, my assumption of 'sun the size of a person' was that the person was curled in a ball, hence smaller than the sizes mentioned in a recent post. And with the solar system about as big as a dime, my critic noted my estimate of the distance to Alpha Centauri was correct (100 metres) but claimed my estimate of the size of the Milky Way (continental 48 states) was out by a factor of almost two. I note that in a recent comment comparing magnitudes Richard Dawkins inadvertently implied that life began only forty million years ago. Maybe I was relying on an incorrect figure for the width of our galactic disc. How big is it?

Robert Tulip

The mind ... boggles Changes in the ellipticity of the earth's orbit results in flucuations in annual populations?? Better look up Milankovitch cycles, those are not nearly annual cycles.

hhEb09'1 may have slightly misread the intent of this quote from Percy Seymour. 'Fluctuations in annual populations' should not be read to imply annual cycles. The Milankovitch cycles which correlate astronomical fluctuations over millennial periods to ice ages do indeed provide the long term context, as discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles and http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...nsolation_plot. These sites appear to present excellent scientific information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:O..._variation.gif is a good graph of the variations of Earth's orbit.

The Wikipedia article on Milankovitch states "The Earth's eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn" and "the orbital ellipse itself precesses in space, primarily as a result of interactions with Jupiter and Saturn." My question now is whether - within the long cycles of eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession described by Milankovitch and his followers - orbital perturbations follow the twenty year Jupiter-Saturn cycle in a similar way to the ocean tides following the monthly Sun-Moon rhythm. If so, it would illustrate an underlying geometry for some astrological claims.

RT

Mr. Tulip, I asked these questions quite some time ago, and never was addressed.

Most directly, will we (the board members) ever be able to see some of this math you propose? And will we ever get a prediciton? If no prediction is forthcoming, this thread very quickly becomes nothing but idle chit-chat.

hhEb09'1 thinks he read it OK, he's just not sure what it means Can you explain that a little further? What are fluctuations in annual populations?

PS: does that just mean fluctuations in populations?

I have sought to address these good questions indirectly in my comments in this thread and at #162 of Without math, you are not doing physics - you are merely making up stories .

Some postulates:

1. The geometry of complex rhythmic natural systems has a fractal quality.
2. The solar system is a complex rhythmic natural system.
3. The geometry of the solar system has a fractal quality.
4. Complex natural micro-systems within the solar system are in fractal relation to the entire solar system.
5. The earth is the most complex micro-system in the solar system.
6. The rhythms of the earth (e.g. tides) are in fractal relation to the entire solar system.
7. Complex phenomena, such as human thought, are in fractal relation to the rhythms of the earth.
8. Astrology is based on empirical observation and speculation consonant with these postulates.

To mathematize astrology, the first step is to quantify the empirical basis of different astrological claims. The main short regular rhythms of the earth are the day, the month and the year. Accordingly, the strongest astrological claims are made about positions of the ascendent (rotation of earth), the moon (basis of month) and the sun (basis of year) affecting the overall character of each moment. Empirical work by Gauquelin has proven the influence of the ascendant on human life. Work by Sachs appears to demonstrate sun signs. Much statistical effort in this area suffers from weak experimental design.

Further astrological claims are made about other regular natural rhythms such as planetary aspects, houses, transits and progressions. The point here is that these rhythms are actual empirical observations, with informed scientific dispute being around their influence rather than their actuality.

Using the above postulates to provide a logical basis for natal interpretation, especially number seven linking thought and earth, the claim is that all events at any one time are fractally linked. Fractal geometry provides the mathematical structure to understand the causal links between all events. Like a river, the pattern of the solar system can be considered as a whole. This wholistic approach to complex systems provides a natural physical basis for Carl Jung’s theory of synchronicity – that all events at each moment partake of the quality of that moment.

The quantitative and the qualitative within astrology must be clearly distinguished. Much discussion around topics like synchronicity is purely qualitative. Astronomy is quantitative, and provides a rich empirical framework in the ephemeris to observe astrological events. These events can be analysed to quantify qualitative hypotheses. Quantitative research could measure if e.g. the Mars-Pluto cycle has observable patterns on earth, analogous to how drifting atmospheric high pressure cells correlate with weather, but on a longer term and more diffuse basis, and in a way that would move forward the quantification of astrology.

To give an example, the current opposition between Saturn and Neptune from 2005 to 2008 is empirical. If astrologers claim, without evidence, that any meaning for human life can be observed in this opposition, they are making a primarily qualitative or artistic claim. At http://www.astro-noetics.com/sat_nep_1.html Bill Streett makes such claims, such as the overall similarity between the current USA policy towards Iraq and its policies at the same stage of previous Saturn-Neptune cycles during the Vietnam and Civil Wars.

Streett does not seem to want to use statistics to prove this relation, which is obvious to him. Through statistics, it is however possible to compare the iterations of this opposition every forty or so years to mine the data for trends. This is the nascent scientific research program implied by Richard Tarnas in his book Cosmos and Psyche, although Tarnas wrongly in my view gives priority to the qualitative over the quantitative in dismissing the value of statistical corroboration. Tarnas claims that various patterns in outer planetary cycles (eg Saturn-Pluto or Jupiter-Uranus) provide compelling evidence of planetary effects, but he expresses little interest in exploring how these ‘compelling’ patterns can be statistically demonstrated.

The question was asked why the position of a planet, say Pluto, would have a bigger gravitational effect than the gravity of the doctor on the personality of a baby. The fractal framework presented here provides a means to answer. Pluto has been in stable orbit for billions of years – a regular part of the background environment of the evolution of life on earth, which as noted at #67 is very isolated in the galaxy. Pluto's aspects to other planets are like genetic memes. Observations such as the Jupiter-Saturn effect on the earth’s orbit provide a model of how the fractal relations between Pluto and the other planets are like deep furrows in time. People near the baby do not have this deep regular causative geometric relation with the moment in time at which the baby is born.

To develop the infinitely scalable mathematics of this fractal approach, consider the tides. The primary rhythms are from the moon and sun, but mathematically, there are also constant rhythms from the planets. These rhythms could be plotted, and examined for fractality against the primary tidal patterns. My question in a previous post implied that a similar fractality might apply to perturbations of the earth’s orbit, considering how Jupiter and Saturn cause Milankovitch cycles. An implication of this question is its demonstration of the natural sinusoidal rhythms between planetary squares and conjunctions.

Regarding the rat and the oyster at #60 , the claim at #61 that the sensitivity of the oyster to the moon is simply a unique adaptive device not common to other life forms begs the question of genetic links to lunar rhythms. I prefer to see the oyster’s apparent pure gravitational knowledge of when the moon is overhead as an indicator of a similar sensitive propensity in all life, but of course one that many humans are able to consciously ignore. I would also say that the rat’s apparent intuitive knowledge of when the moon is below the horizon is not just a biological clock, but is an indicator of how all life can be in tune with the natural rhythms of the cosmos.

RT

There, you said
Which basically boils down to "Free your mind from the bonds of numbers, man." You come in, say "Lookatmelookatme! I have numbers!" Someone asks to see those numbers, and you essentially swat them down, claiming, if I may steal a phrase, "I don't need to match your pathetic level of quantization". You either have the math, or you don't. If you think you can lay claim to the math, and then decide that it's not important by waxing philosophical over the influence of Kant on law, then you're playing the wrong game with the wrong players.


Sayeth who?

It's not that complex. I guess it depends on what you consider complex, though.

A fractal quality again? Please demonstrate this for the uninitiated.

Moons orbit planets, planets orbit the Sun? Is this what you mean by fractal quality? "It sorta looks like a fractal"? I believe fractals are mathematical constructs. Please, just for the sake of completeness, hit us with the equations.

Both pure speculation, and entirely dependant on what your definition of complexity is. We haven't probed any of the other, uh, micro-systems in the solar system with anything like degree of probing we've delivered to the Earth.

Erm... When you say tides, do you mean the changing gravitational interactions between massive bodies, or do you mean the rhythmic change in local sea level?

Demonstrate, please.

You have to demonstrate that your postulates match reality. We're not playing "let's pretend everything I've listed is true".

You'd think you'd tack on some sort of math after this.

You were asked for equations. Where are they?

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

With respect, apologies if I have wasted some of your time. I have found responses and questions illuminating, and will continue to explore the possible mathematics of fractal cosmology as applied to the solar system.

Some references which may be helpful
http://www.worldscibooks.com/chaos/2622.html
http://www.worldscibooks.com/chaos/gen.shtml
http://www.worldscibooks.com/popsci/4896.html

with relevant material on the hurst exponent
http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~pvouplin/pi/rswhat.htm
http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_te...rst/index.html
http://unjobs.org/authors/h.-e-hurst
http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~skiena/691.../lecture12.pdf

And from Richard Dawkins at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
"Darwinism requires accurate replicators with phenotypic power, but they don’t necessarily have to be genes."
Planets?

Ok I see forty-something more lines of text, and still no mathematical formulas, nor a specific testable prediction. I have lost hope that this thread will provide what the first post promised. I am willing to give you time to post these, Mr. Tulip, I'd just like to know how long it will take until we get to see them.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Robert Tulip,
I do not see any attempt to address the points I brought up in post 63

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Thinking further about this post from Kristophe, I can see the level of irritation it displays, partly fair, but partly not. I was not criticising quantization, simply making the entirely fair point that quantization is not all there is to life. I was supporting Kant in his view that morality should be compatible with astronomy, and that forms of thought which are incompatible with science should be expunged. I know many readers here will think my defence of astrology is incompatible with science, but my project is partly to identify those elements of astrology which are compatible with science - a lot more than most scientists realize. As I previously said, the scientific debate should not be over the mathematical existence of astrological relations, but over whether they actually have any power. We are still some way from reaching that level of discussion, considering many scientists (notably in Phil Plait's BAUT article http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html which prompted my first posting here) have wildly inaccurate and impossible views about the mathematics of astrology. However, beyond that initial step of showing that astrology is mathematically possible, the task of quantizing astrology to produce specific predictions is an immense and long term research program which the criticisms here have helped me to scope. By the way, I have no resources for this task.

My comment about astronomers not having a perspective was, in a somewhat obscure tease, intended to point out that objective astronomy has recoiled precisely against the idea that cosmology should be integrated with a human perspective through religious morality. In seeking objectivity (quantization), astronomy has historically stated that subjective perspective is irrelevant to truth. For example, subjectively, the sun appears to go around the earth, but objectively the reverse is the case. Astronomy has freed us from the delusions of subjective perspective, but in Kepler's view has sometimes thrown the baby out with the bathwater (cf http://www.skyscript.co.uk/kepler.html). Kantian traditions in European thought (eg Husserl) argue that the apparent relations between phenomena are central to meaning, presenting a way of thought that analytical philosophy derides as mystical and relativist. The problem, as I see it, with analytical philosophy is that it drifts into the positivist idea of Carnap that there is no meaning outside science. Perhaps what Kristophe finds so repugnant in my ideas is that I am trying to place the quantification of science within a qualitative framework. The contrasting argument, that quantification is its own framework, is akin to saying we can live by facts alone, that facts are the sole values.

I am not at all saying the math is not important, just that I need to do a lot more work to present it. I promise to reply to other questions. At the moment I am researching the mathematics of the Hurst Equation (references in my last post, also http://stahl.ce.washington.edu/readmes/HurstReadme2.htm. Basically, the argument here is that if astrology is false, human decisions plotted against the planets will form a random walk, but if astrology contains truth, the walk will be non-random.

I should just say, on the question of my use of the term fractal, I am following Stephen Jay Gould's comment in Eight Little Piggies (p11) that "macrocosms are fractals of microcosms". Considering a tree, clearly the leaves are fractals of the branches, up to the level of the whole tree as a three dimensional spatial whole. What I am wondering is whether fractality exists through time - ie the tree goes through an annual cycle which mirrors the annual cycle of the earth around the sun. Is this mirroring a case of scalable similarity?

Perhaps you should spend less time posting and more time "working" on the math...

...and until you are ready to make your presentation, perhaps this thread should be locked...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Just prior to locking it would be good if someone posted a pointer to this thread.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Robert Tulip, you have been asked several direct questions, pertinent to the ATM ideas you have chosen to post in this thread.

The BAUT rule covering this ATM section is quite clear:If the questions are unclear, please ask for clarification; if you don't know the answer(s), or don't have any answers, say so; if you need time to prepare answers, say so (and provide an estimate of when you will be providing answers).

I will post a reply to all direct questions on Monday 22 January.

Most astrology is anti-scientific. Skepticism about pseudo-science is necessary (cf eg http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/h-chai2.htm. However, astrology also contains proto-science with real epistemic potential. Some astrological claims have mathematical basis with explanatory and predictive power. Rejection of the geocentric approach excludes legitimate scientific material. There is merit in a scientific research program looking at the solar system as a complex whole in which events on earth are examined for resonance with planetary and seasonal patterns described in western tropical astrology. The questions here ask how astrology can meet scientific standards. The fact is, much astrology is a folk craft which cannot ever become scientific. In responding, the first distinction is between pseudo-science (uncritical effort to justify myth or intuition), proto-science (a field of inquiry not yet rigorous but applying scientific method to its study material), and craft (traditional intuitive practice not claiming scientific status). Astrology as practiced is mainly craft (natal chart interpretation) or pseudo-science (eg newspaper horoscopes), and is often actively hostile to scientific method. The questions discussed here ask in essence if there is a proto-science of astrology which can be presented in mathematical terms. This post explores this question in basic conceptual terms, with apologies for any errors or ignorance.

#12
• What is the nature of this force that astrologers know that mainstream science has not detected?
- Astrological effects result from harmonic inter-relations between planets and the earth, intensified by stable repetition of planetary cycles over the entire period of evolution of life. The force observed by astrology is essentially fractal reflection of Lorenzian sensitivity to initial conditions. Aspects between planets affect all events occurring during them. A paper referenced here claims that Fourier analysis quantifies the relative power of the aspects.
• Why hasn't this astrological force shown up in any experiment?
- It is quantified in Gauquelin studies. A good summary of this scientific controversy is at http://www.planetos.info/. A skeptical report http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/koll1ge.pdf asks if positive results only appeared in data which Michel Gauquelin had chosen, but then goes on to state “A collection of 1086 member of the Académie de Medicine.. was gathered, independently of the original Gauquelin collection… It confirmed that the dominant effect was that of Saturn, as shown in the traditional two Gauquelin sectors. The traditional, Saturnine image of the doctor … was thus confirmed, by a separate gathering of data and fresh analysis. The strong Mars presence also confirmed what Gauquelin had found in his first publication about French physicians.”
• If the moon is so controlling, shouldn't we have picked up on this force by now?
- Gauquelin found extensive lunar effects, notably among writers. Biological examples (eg rats, hamsters and oysters discussed previously) illustrate natural harmony with the moon.
• How is this force related to distance from the moon, sun, etc.?
- Variation of orbital distance has minimal effect. Considering the solar system as like a whirlpool in which eddies are caused by initial conditions, distance at any one time between parts is just one feature of an overall complex system.
• How does this force change during the day?
- Gauquelin found that influences peak when the planet is rising, with a secondary peak at culmination. Astrology has developed elaborate claims about placement of planets at time of day (houses). This theory may one day be proven to be congruent with fractal geometry, but has not yet been so explained (or refuted). My interest is in foundational work which seeks to lay a platform for such research.
• Have these experiments been documented and confirmed?
- Gauquelin’s work has withstood exhaustive hostile attack, including replication by skeptics who then tried to conceal their findings.

#33
• An "explanation of the mathematics of astrology" should probably really contain some equations. So, please provide these for inspection. Also, please be sure to clearly define each and every variable and term in the equations, and it would be really, really great if you could provide an example as to how the equation has been used to make a verifiable prediction.
- Measuring events on earth against planetary patterns has conceptual and empirical dimensions. Conceptually, the mathematical framework of astrology requires analysis of the solar system as a complex self-similar harmonic whole through fractal geometry (discussed in next post on Gleick). My previous postings explain this conceptual framework. Empirically, astrology can find correlations by mining statistical data. Random events are normally distributed over time. Diurnal and seasonal factors introduce quantifiable non-random patterns, with event frequencies changing at different times of the day and year. The claim of astrology is that similar quantifiable non-random patterns are caused by planetary relations with the earth. Gauquelin provide examples, but resources are generally unavailable to extend statistical work in this area. Tarnas presents numerous candidates for statistical research regarding cycles of events on earth against the aspects of the outer planets. The research has not been done to test Tarnas’ claims.
- A paper “A Mathematical Formulation of Harmograms and the Strength of Numbers in Astral Charts” by Miguel Garcia Ferrandez, http://cura.free.fr/xxv/25garcian.html uses Fourier analysis to document changing intensity of planetary aspect effects around the circle of the ecliptic. The “D. Santos Astrodyne Function” described in this paper finds strongest harmonic effects at zero and 180°, secondary peaks at 90° and 270°, tertiary peaks at 120° and 240°, and so on, with each higher harmonic division of the circle delivering a weaker effect. This finding corresponds to astrological claims regarding strength of planetary aspects with steadily weaker power of conjunctions, oppositions, trines, squares, sextiles, etc. Ferrandez’ paper builds on work by John Addey on Harmonics in Astrology.
- A paper with interesting mathematical comment on these issues is “Attempt of a scientific approach to astrology” by Slawomir Stachniewicz. http://cura.free.fr/xxv/24stach1.html It states “Aspects group around n/k * 360° so probably they are due to some resonance. Resonances are quite common in physics, e.g. in mechanics (waves etc.), celestial mechanics (so-called critical terms in perturbations), atomic and solid state physics. … Resonances may be described using intensity curves. Their shape is usually a Lorentz curve described by equation y = a / ( 1 + (x/b)^2 ) where a and b describe intensity and width of the curve.
- Fourier analysis is used in financial astrology to find correlations between planetary patterns and movements on the stock market. I cannot assess this work, but note the comment from tycoon JP Morgan “Millionaires don’t use astrologers, billionaires do.”
• Why haven't the very, very detailed and numerous experiments that have been performed to determine the nature of the known forces found any relationship like you propose?
- The cultural baggage of astrology makes harmonic study of the solar system of low interest for mainstream science, perceived as a bad career move for anyone expressing interest. However, Gauquelin’s work shows real relationships. These findings justify consideration of astrology as a proto-science which requires interdisciplinary study combining harmonics, fractal geometry and genetics.
• You suggest gravity as a cause, but shouldn't the astrological gravitational power of the earth overwhelm all other forces? Even if we ignore the earth, the moon then dominates gravitational forces of all the other solar bodies. And then, the gravitational pull of the doctor delivering the baby is not insignificant.
- Background patterns of planetary combinations give a small push to the decisions people make, with statistically detectable effects. Terrestrial gravity from nearby objects lacks the permanent consistency and stability of planetary effects. As an analogy, consider your decision to go to work today. The weather will influence your decision, including what clothes you wear, but will not determine if you go to work or not except in extreme cases such as a hurricane. Your routine will overwhelm the fact that it may be a nice day for the beach, in a similar way that gravitational power of the earth overwhelms other planetary influences. But on a hot day there are more people at the beach, so the weather changes some decisions. Seasonal patterns of weather correlate with clothing and with vacations just as regular planetary patterns correlate with tendencies in terrestrial events.
• But really, let's see some math and see how to use it. What would be really, really great is if you would use your mathematics to make a prediction in the near future so we (the board members) can see just how good your work is. If you really believe in its validity, let's start putting it to the test.
- The clearest mathematical statement I have found is Ferrandez’ work cited above. Prediction for astrology remains more in the realm of craft than science, through wholistic interpretation of all the factors observed in a chart. It will be a long time before rigorous prediction extends much beyond Gauquelin effects.

#24
• “Evolution does predict that species undergo random mutations.”
- As an aside, I note that evolution theory has a significantly more predictive idea than this, namely the cumulative adaptation of species to niches with increasing complexity punctuated by crises. This underpins my claim that the niche to which the genes of earth have adapted is better understood as the whole solar system rather than just the earth in isolation.

#37
• You say that what astrologers see is a seasonal effect, in other words, people born in the Spring are a certain way, people born in the Fall are a different way?
- The sun signs are functions of the year divided in four by solstices and equinoxes with each quarter entrained by lunar cycles into three months giving a twelve-fold rhythm. The twelve signs follow sinusoidal patterns which mean every second, third and fourth sign shares certain characteristics. The three signs in each season of the tropical zodiac (eg Cancer, Leo and Virgo in northern summer) do not have anything in common astrologically except that Cancer and Virgo share a duple negative polarity.
• If there was such an effect, why might it have to relate to astrology at all, maybe humans who are conceived in certain weather or temperatures are a certain way?
- Empirical confirmation for sun signs remains elusive, especially considering the critique of Sachs at http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/s-crit1.htm. However, sun signs have a mathematical reality as a function of the tropical zodiac, and a rhythmic elegance which I believe will one day be quantified.
• In one of your posts I believe you state that astrological effects are not from an unidentified force, but the currently known ones. I gather (maybe incorrectly) that you think it is gravity. Can you calculate the relative gravitational influence of whatever objects you think cause this effect, compared to the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun? Can you show why gravity would have any effect on human biology or behavior?
- The tiny effects of planetary gravity are amplified by harmonic inter-relations, by sensitivity to initial conditions and by the extremely long and regular time series in which our DNA has been under their unchanging cycles (eg 50 billion moon orbits of earth since the dawn of life indicate how deeply lunar cycles are imbedded in terrestrial cycles). The tidal influence of Jupiter and Saturn on the shape of the earth’s orbit, creating a permanent rhythm, is suggestive of similar tidal correlations between the planets and our genetic code.
• And why doesn't everyone born on a certain date have the same fate?
- Astrology provides only a small consistent push compared to terrestrial factors, and there is enough difference every hour or less to make charts quite different.
#61
• Can not the work with the rats and hamsters be explained with an internal body clock?
- No for the rats, possibly for the hamsters. All external stimuli were controlled in Brown’s experiments, proving that rats have a purely gravitational sense of the position of the moon above or below the horizon. A solely internal body clock could match lunar periods (eg hamsters adapting to 25 hour day) but not lunar positions (rats increased activity when moon is below the horizon).
• What does that have to do with astrology?
- Proof of a biological gravitational cyclic sense at such a crude testable level invites the hypothesis that similar tidal effects exist throughout all DNA in much more subtle ways, providing a model for cyclic psychic rhythms.
• As I asked before, are you proposing that gravity is the force that is the cause for an astrology effect?
- Yes, but only in the sense that our solar system has long term stable rhythmic gravitational inter-relations between planets, these inter-relations have permanently structured the niche of all earthly evolution, and organisms which lose relation to cosmic rhythms are likely to prove less adaptive than those which maintain such relations.
#63
• If astrological tendencies are swamped by terrestrial factors, than why bother with astrology? And how would you see an effect anyway?
- Astrology has potential to become an inter-disciplinary science describing how the complex place of humanity in the solar system structures the rhythms of history, and enabling prediction of historic trends. Its effects are primarily measured by statistical correlation between events on earth and planetary alignments. My original reason for bothering with astrology arose from efforts to understand precession of the equinox, noting (perhaps with some irony) that the current slow movement of the equinoctial point from Pisces to Aquarius correlates with movement from a sign associated with belief and faith to one associated with knowledge and science. Hence my interest has been to use astrology to underpin observation of the gradual historic triumph of knowledge over belief as the key principle underpinning the emergent epochal transformation occurring in human life.

Robert Tulip

Theoretical observations from James Gleick’s Chaos – Making a New Science.

While not mentioning astrology, Gleick makes a number of general comments relevant to the matters discussed here. He defines chaos as “a science of the global nature of systems” (p5) in which “The power of self similarity … is a matter of looking at the whole” (p115). The climate models of Lorenz, which “saw order masquerading as randomness” (p22) precisely describes the way in which orderly astrological effects are postulated. Lorenz’s observation that sensitive dependence on initial conditions was "an inescapable consequence of the way small scales intertwined with large,” (p23) and a “quality [which] lurks everywhere” (p67) illustrates the mechanism of the fractal sensitivity of astrological relations.

Gleick discusses the cultural problems of scientific change, noting that “a revolution has an inter-disciplinary character … problems that obsess these theorists are not recognized as legitimate” (p37), “the rare scholars who are nomads by choice are essential to the intellectual welfare of the settled disciplines” (90), and “non-specialists find the new things” (132-3). Of course it is possible to take nomadism too far, as happens when astrologers denigrate objectivity.

Part of the problem in recognizing complexity is that “graphic images are the key” (p38). I previously offered to share graphic images which illustrate my ideas, and remain eager to do so. These images of geocentric patterns of the planets help to illustrate Gleick’s observations that “disorderly behaviour of simple systems … generate complexity: richly organized patterns … with the fascination of living things” (p43), and “the chaos Lorenz discovered … was locally unpredictable, globally stable” (p48).

A feature of complexity that illustrates the difficulty of quantifying earthly correlation to planetary patterns is their non-linearity: “Because of … nonlinearity of equations, a dynamicist would find himself helpless to answer … questions about the future of the system" (p44). “The solvable, orderly, linear systems were the aberrations … people have to know about disorder” (p68). Non-linearity is seen especially in “turbulence … a mess of disorder at all scales, small eddies within large ones … but its nature remains elusive” (122-3) “Equations of fluid flow … are unsolvable except in special cases” (133).

Astrology is perfectly described by the comments “Chaos is ubiquitous, it is stable, it is structured … complicated systems could be understood in terms of easy discrete maps” (p76) and “Over and over again, the world displays a regular irregularity” (98).

The conceptual universality of fractals as the geometry of nature emerges in the comment that “fractal scaling [is] … universal in morphogenesis” (p110) ie that the origin of biological form is inherently fractal, with each natural entity reflecting the larger whole of its niche.

Gleick says “Strange attractors fed the revolution in chaos by giving numerical explorers a clear program … wherever nature seemed to be behaving randomly” (152). He observes that “Phase space portraits of physical systems exposed patterns of motion that were invisible otherwise” (135), and asks “What other changes … would prove to be phase transitions?” (127). These points make me wonder about the planets as attractors and the cusps of the signs as phase transitions.

The objective of astrology is to show that apparently chaotic events on earth correlate with planetary patterns as tabulated in the ephemeris, such that these patterns provide predictive indicators. The null case (disproof of astrology) is that no planetary patterns provide predictive indicators for events on earth. There is a steady gradient of complexity of claimed planetary effects, from the obvious (tides) to the little known (rats increased activity when moon is below horizon) to the debated (Gauquelin statistical effects of planets at eastern horizon; Tarnas correlations between outer planetary aspects and cycles of human history). My view is that astrology as proto-science cannot go much beyond this point, ie that once we enter the realm of natal chart interpretation and prediction, we are largely in the realms of craft. While much of the craft of astrology may well have an empirical basis, it will be a long time before this can be proven. Proceeding step-wise, the next requirement is to explore the mathematics underlying the Gauquelin and Tarnas observations.

Kind regards

Robert Tulip

Mr. Tulip, thank you for writing back on the date you promised. (Much more often than not, other supporters of other ATM ideas do not deliver on their promises.) There is a lot to read and digest there, but I'd like your comments on one particular section here.

Specifically I'd like to address this comment that "distance has minimal effect." This is contrary to all the other forces discovered by science to date. Most of them have a very strong dependence upon distance. That way, closer objects have a much stronger influence over more distant objects. The easiest example is that the earth's gravity dominates the gravitational pull over the moon's, from our perspective.

If distance has minimal effect, basically you are saying that every planet is equal in it effect. If this is the case, why didn't a careful study of astrology discover the new dwarf plant outside of Pluto's orbit? It's influence is the same according to your own rules. What role does the asteroid belt play? Sure it is not all in one piece, but the total of all the asteroids would equal about one planet. And finally, since distance has no effect, what about planets outside of our solar system? Several planets outside our solar system have been discovered, shouldn't those effects been seen also? And in fact, considering how many other planets most likely exist outside our own solar system -- millions, billions, etc. -- every single one of those should have an effect as well, effectively blurring out what effects a mere 9 or 12 in-solar system planets or 100 or so in-system planets and moons.

By your own definitions, it does not make sense: If the in-solar system planets are important, then this force has to have a distance relationship and we have my first points. If this force doesn't have a distance relationship, then every single body in space has to have an effect. You cannot have it both ways.

Also, without a specific testable prediction, again this is all just talking. Science does not advance very far with just talking. How long would it take until a specific easily testable prediction could be made? If you can start making predictions, your theories will begin to carry a lot more water.

I did not say 'distance has minimal effect', I said 'variation in orbital distance has minimal effect'. What this means is that, for example, aphelion, perihelion and the variation of distance between two objects over the course of a year is insignificant compared to the harmonic effects of angles, ie that specific astrological effects do not rise and fall as a function of the distance between the two entities. For example, Saturn's effect is greater when it is in harmonic angle to another planet, not when it is closest to the earth. Of course distance in itself is a major factor, with planets with large gravitational relations with earth having stronger astrological effects than do planets with small gravitational relations. I have previously addressed the misconception about effects of stars by stating that the usual form of Western tropical astrology is purely a function of relations between sun and planets in our solar system. RT

"Fractal"

A word similar in usage to "Hyperdimensional".

Use in "explaining" implausible, nonsensical theories that have no basis in scienctific fact.

tbm

__________________
Paddle faster!! I hear banjo music!!

Perhaps I misunderstood, but a minimal effect can be measured. Which means that there is a distance effect. Which means again that the moon and sun and especially the earth should overpower any gravitational effects of any other planet/body in the solar system. And, if distance does indeed have some effect -- minimal does not mean zero -- then during any 24 hour period the moon will have a stronger effect during one time of the day than another... hence the tide charts for instance.

If you think that gravity works in some other way, then perhaps you should start an entire new thread about your opinions of gravity, and explain why one of the most studied subjects in physics has never demonstrated the effects you claim occurs.

Finally, and this really is going to be the last time I ask this (because I'm giving up unless it gets a direct answer), when are your theories going to be put to a direct test?

There is a big opportunity coming up, on Saturday February 10 Saturn will be in opposition to the Sun. Can you predict an event that will occur on this day? Or really any other day?

For the last time: Without a specific testable prediction, this is not science in the very least, it is just words.

you say "should" "overpower any gravitational effects of any other planet/body in the solar system".

before we go further;

prove your "should".

You are kidding, right? OK, I didn't fly off the earth during its last rotation and my position came the closest it would to the moon.. Therefore, the earth's gravitational effect dominates. Then, the tides correspond to the positions of the moon and the sun, not the other planets. So, the moon and the sun have the next largest gravitational effects here on earth. If the other planets had any graviational effects these would have been observed by now.

I included 'should' mainly as a courtesy to the OP, since he has different beliefs about gravity, beliefs completely unsubstantiated by all the other knowledge about gravity that we know today. He keeps stating that the graviational effects of all the planets influence us, but everything we know about gravity tells us that the gravity from the other planets is exceptionally -- I would say insignificantly -- small. That is a simple calculation based on Newton's theory of gravitation: the force is proportional to the product of the two objects' masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.