What would be the challenge if it was easy?
I see, and astrologers and mystics have an almost magical ability to perform this evaluation and prioritization? Rubbish!
Like astrology and tarot card reading and just plain new age navel-gazing in general?
The phrase "put {something} in its place" is generally code for denigration and putting something down. What "place" do you reserve for astronomy? Compiling ephemerides for astrologers and nothing more?
I agree that Earth's ecosystem should be repaired; that "narrow linear logic" you so disparage indicates so. I do not advocate escape from the planet as a result of slash and burn; what I meant was that we must have the means to preserve ourselves and a part of our ecosystem in case of something truly beyond our capabilities to manage.
This is a science board, not a fable or mythology board.
The relation of the Sun, the planets, asteroids, and comets to Earth is very much a legitimate area of study and the IAU does concern itself with it. But only in the scientific sense, which you deride as "narrow mechanistic thinking", not the holistic touchy-feely new age sense. (That I deride. )
So what governed the 17th century? The 13th century? The 4th century BCE? Any planets discovered in any of these? Why no signposts for these centuries?
New age is nothing more than old superstitions recycled for modern mass-media consumption. Again, this is not a fable or mythology board.
Wolfgang Pauli would probably tell you that you are "not even wrong".

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

you know the interesting thing about this whole discussion is that if one was talking about cause and effect ( and I also include " affect " ) there probably would be no problem and every thing would make sense.

but bring in " astrology " which is about cause and effect and suddenly there is a problem !!

interesting

Astrology is by no means about cause and effect; most of it is just wishful thinking. Someone long ago wrote down some drivel about "Jupiter in trine with Mars in a water sign means such-and-such" without any kind of real observations to determine this. And now we can't even find out who wrote this drivel when and where, because astrology does not have the "paper trail" of observation and experiment that the sciences have.

Interesting? Actually rather boring. But much easier than doing real science, hence the attraction. The people who do astrology think that they understand the universe at a deeper level but actually they understand nothing.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I disagree

actually Astrology is about cause and effect . cause and effect is fundamental the essence of Astrology itself .

have you ever read a book on Astrology? I mean a serious book on the subject ? I have , yrs ago and Astrology is far more complex then the daily paper version . which is a joke

Yes, I have read several. A book by Sepharial stands out. But where did he get his mumbo-jumbo from? Who first determined these things? I gave an example in the form of "Jupiter in trine with Mars in a water sign means such-and-such". Who first found this out? When? There is no paper trail leading back to actual observations and experiments.

In just about every real scientific paper there is a section at the end labeled "References" and in every real scientific book there is a Bibliography. (Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity is the rare exception.) Any real scientific work today has a paper trail going all the way back to Galileo, Kepler, and Newton (among others). Where is this paper trail for astrology?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Scientists can't evaluate facts?

Sure, let's go back several centuries. On second thought, let's not.

I'm curious why Eris* out of the many other TNOs would govern the twenty first century? What about exoplanets? Or the galaxy's central black hole? Or dark energy? Or the many other things we've learned about or are still learning about in this huge universe?

Right, as with most of this thread, you're talking about your value judgments and beliefs, not science.

*Persephone is an asteroid in the main belt.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

You are entirely right in this critique. Astrology does not stand up to peer reviewed standards. However, this does not invalidate the statistical effort to find correlations between events on earth and cycles of the solar system. My study on the moon and rain is entirely scientific and falsifiable and should be suitable as the basis for a peer review article. My linking the outer planets with their centuries of discovery is much more speculative but I still find it interesting.

The task of linking back to observations and experiments requires simple physics. I suggested an experiment to demonstrate the existence of the trine using water ripples on a pan of sand (in Precessional Cosmology thread). I have not done this yet myself so I am not sure if it would work. The moon rain data also presents a model to describe unknown natural geocentric cycles. These mathematical experiments and observations are in my opinion a way forward.

The sort of comments you describe from Sepharial seem to be based mainly on client consultations and folk tradition and are not rigorous. Yet this lack of evidence does not show that a mathematical basis could not be found for some such intuitive claims. In the book by Dane Rudhyar I have just read, Astrological Timing, there is an astounding mix of true statements with flights of fancy, and it can be hard to discern the border line.

Evaluation is a separate task from discovery. Curiosity just leads to amassing of information, not evaluation of its importance. I have high respect for the evaluative powers of scientists, but evaluation introduces non-scientific factors into the equation.
Geocentric approaches in astronomy have practical uses now in meteorology and could potentially be useful in other fields such as epidemiology and psychology. Finding practical uses for astronomical observations is worth exploring.
“Eris” (which I suggest be named Persephone) is the only object bigger than Pluto yet found past Neptune. I find that exciting as a marker of our era. (Website is http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/ *) If we later find other bigger planets in our solar system then they will need to be assimilated at that time. Our DNA evolved in a solar system as isolated as a coin on a football field, and this system can be considered a single object for purpose of assessing the context of evolution. Planets of other stars or other more distant objects lack this direct connection. Calling this planet Eris is dumb and small-minded. The IAU should change this decision, and the Pluto demotion.
My value judgment is that science needs to change in order to assess the earth as a dynamic system. My belief is that large scale new technologies are needed, illustrated by my story about the discovery of the outer planets marking big shifts on earth.

* Caltech website states “Interestingly, there are no actual rules for how to name a planet (presumably because no one expected there to be more). All of the other planets are named for Greek or Roman gods, so an obvious suggestion is to attempt to find such a name for the new planet. Unfortunately, most of the Greek or Roman god names (particularly those associated with creation, which tend to be the major gods) were used back when the first asteroids were being discovered. If a name is already taken by an asteroid, the IAU would not allow that name to be used again. One such particularly apt name would have been Persephone http://www.pantheon.org/articles/p/persephone.html . In Greek mythology Persephone is the (forcibly abducted) wife of Hades (Roman Pluto) who spends six months each year underground close to Hades. The new planet is on an orbit that could be described in similar terms; half of the time it is in the vicinity of Pluto and half of the time much further away. Sadly, the name Persephone was used in 1895 as a name for the 399th known asteroid. The perhaps more appropriate Roman version of the name, Proserpina, was used even earlier for the 26th known asteroid. The same story can be told for almost any other Greek or Roman god of any consequence. One exception to this name depletion is the Roman god Vulcan (Greek Haphaestus), the god of fire. Astronomers have long reserved that term, however, for a once hypothetical (now known to be nonexistent) planet closer to the sun than Mercury (god of fire, near the sun, good name). We would not want to use such a name to describe such a cold body as our new planet!”

Define "geocentric" - picking a reference frame as appropriate (whether it is Earth, the Sun, Mars, another star, whatever) isn't a "centric" approach. And, this sounds just a bit different than "A geocentric approach can help to put astronomy in its place."

The ship has sailed on "Persephone." And, there's a whole universe of objects bigger than Pluto found out past Neptune.

I find there to be many exciting finds in astronomy, which is why I would wonder why you would focus on just this one. It just ignores so much.

Whether you call them planets or not, there are already over a thousand known TNOs.

So you're suggesting interplanetary panspermia? What's your evidence?

The earth isn't considered a dynamic system? Since when?

A story based on myth.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Thank you, Robert, for referring this thread to me. Reading many of the posts on this thread helped illuminate the idea of the “Yoga of Objectivity”; which, I presented in my post, “The Participatory Mind”. Also, thank you for pointing out the poetic construction versus a scientific claim of the four paradigms: Mythos, Logos, Theos and Mechanos, which does not lead to a valid scientific discussion on ATM.
By bringing another definition of the four elements into our current scientific paradigm and mindset, it becomes easier to understanding the ancient’s reasoning in calling earth, fire, air and water as the four fundamental building blocks of matter:

earth=solid
water=liquid
air=gaseous
fire=energy

Yes, these are known as phases or states in our current scientific paradigm, but all matter can expereince or exhibit these phases. Was it wrong for the ancients to identify these as elements?

Of course my favorite element is the Fifth Element. Movie aside, poetically I believe we need to incorporate this Fifth Element into our scientific inquiry. How we do it, I don't know?

Reading many of the posts (some quotes listed below), I question if there is an arrogance that implies that the scientific paradigm is the pinnacle of human thought. Is the scientific mind the top of the evolutionary ladder? Is there no more room for growth? Does the ladder not continue?

Below is only a thought exercise and in no way illustrates that I see Science and the Scientific Method as wrong or obsolete. I see them as tools that have a purpose. However, these tools are being improved to be more inclusive and incorporate such ideas that many may find offensive or impossible to incorporate; (such as, consciousness=fifth element?).

To imagine how future scientists (50 years, 100 years or 1000 years from now) will view us, in the above posts, please replace all underlined words with such words as scientific or scientific method or current scientific theory. Now, in the past 50 years, have there been any astronomers/physicists/scientists that presented an idea or theory that was first ridiculed and now widely accepted? If yes, replace the names in bold with the names of these people and theories.

So if the scientific method is perfect as is, is the only remaining possibility for scientists now is to devote their lives to continue adding more laws of thermodynamics, laws of strong forces, laws of weak forces, laws of gravitational forces, laws of electromagnetic forces, etc., until we get the Grand Unification Theory or the Theory of Everything right?
Unfortunately, today's scientists do understand "mankind's place in space and time (very limited)", but we haven't stopped the silliness.

Now, I truly resemble and resent this remark ;-p I live in what Forbes Magazine describes as the “Smartest city in the Nation”. Forbes states, "52.92 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher among people age 25 and older. It also reported that 3.97 percent of [this city's] residents have a Ph.D., while 92.89 percent graduated from high school." Yes, I myself had practiced the “Yoga of Objectivity” as a NASA fellow in Civil Engineering. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, in the advance stages of this “yoga”, I was unable to twist and pretzel my mind into a particular box, but I consider myself neither a dimwit, nor a scientist (as you can see from my non-scientific posts.)

Oh, by the way, this won’t help my cause, but this town is also know as “an island surrounded by reality”, with what I can guess has the highest concentration of astrologers, psychics and alternative healers. I wonder why there is such a concentration of PhD’s and “New-Agers” living and working together so harmoniously. Must be a Harmonic Convergence (tongue in cheek).

Wow, I just discovered our illustrious, fearless leader of this forum is my neighbor since June. Welcome to this crazy city, Phil.

I hadn't seen that list, it looks like it came out last week?

I live in #6, and although it is not as overt as Boulder, I think we can lay claim to a sizeable alternative population. After all, Duke is where Rhine did his paranormal studies.

Plus, we'd be second on the list if it were just for just PhDs.

What is the causal link here? Are you suggesting that some unknown force/influence caused Pluto (and the rest) to be discovered? Or are you suggesting that the discovery of Pluto caused the trends that we observed during the 20th century?

If neither then even if "the energies and symbols associated with that planet predominated" it would only be coincidence.

Found answer to my own question here at Rejecting Nobel Class Papers (2003). Supplied by user Ian Tresman.

Maybe it does. I can't begin to guess what the next rung might be. But I'm pretty sure it's not going to be some mystical new age drivel.
Now, how many of these PhD's are flipping burgers, and how many of the hamburger-flippers can "throw a mean tarot"?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I can understand the venom and animosity towards those "mystics" who lie, cheat and prey on lost souls (and there are many of these predators), but I hope your biases and blinders don't include many of my former colleagues who have remained at NCAR, NOAA, or CU and are bringing consciousness into their research with their personal practice in meditation, yoga or other inner growth practices you may call "new age drivel".

Here in B-town, many PhD's and PhD candidates have left their field of expertise and are working in fields that do not pay much more than flipping burgers. I, myself, am an extremely satisfied grade school teacher. I have worked with other higher educated engineering/physics types on ambulances, local farms, and river guiding. I know more than a few PhD's in hard sciences, now returning to school for social work, health care, etc.

Also, many who can "throw a mean tarot" work side by side with those mentioned above. B-town may be where the next rung is reached.

In the above link, Sophie Petit-Zeman writes (emphasis mine):
Maybe she should have checked with a historian. Benjamin Franklin was never president of the United States. Being president of the US is not a prerequisite for having your portrait grace a Federal Reserve note. Alexander Hamilton was not a president, either (at least of the US under the constitution adopted in 1787). Doesn't give me much confidence in the "peer review" of the Guardian, although they did issue a correction.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

And, this: "These findings come in the wake of four international congresses on peer review that have promoted research into all aspects of it. Jefferson and colleagues are now calling for a large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of peer-review. But does their work cut the mustard? Asked whether it was peer reviewed, Jefferson says: "Yes, and it was done through collaboration rather than in the adversarial way that can happen. Editors can usually only publish about 10% of what they receive, so they're looking for reasons to reject papers. Furthermore, peer review is actually 'competitor review' and they may be trying to find reasons to shoot down their rivals."

Kinda ironic, no?

Emphasis mine. I caught that mistake too, since it was on the first line. But it did not prevent me from reading the rest of the link. Were either of the links valid or helpful? If you had read them, please provide constructive comments. I'm guessing you did read, since you caught the correction at the bottom. So, I'm always willing to learn insights from a Senior Member.

If they start bringing personal beliefs that can't be objectively tested into scientific research, then I do mind. If they keep untestable personal beliefs out of the lab, I certainly don't mind.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Apparent coincidences can have complex synchronous meaning. In a whirlpool, complex patterns can result in harmonic relations between different points in the current. The solar system can be viewed in a similar way as a complex dynamic system, with different events occurring at the same time having deep causal ties. It is not that one causes the other, rather that they both go back to a common causal origin.
The expansion of human perception from the view that Saturn was the furthest planet occurred incrementally from 1781 with the discovery of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. The speculation I discussed maps modern history against an astrological interpretation of each of these planets, with the industrial, chemical and atomic revolutions occurring around the times each were discovered. This idea comes from Richard Tarnas’s Cosmos and Psyche, where modern times are examined against the symbols associated with the outer planets. This symbolic interpretation is not yet a scientific argument, but rather a modern myth that can help to understand astronomy against a broader cultural framework. My argument that the tenth planet ‘Eris’ should be called Persephone is focussed on the needs of the earth for repair, and a view that the myth of Persephone, rescued by Hermes from Pluto to Demeter, provides a paradigm for the changes needed in the world. The discoverers of ‘Eris’ note that Persephone would be a better name because the planet spends half its time inside Pluto’s orbit. My argument is that we are at the cusp of a new oceanic movement of humanity from land to sea, and the planetary theme ‘two-thirds sea / one-third land’ will be a defining idea for this century.
Nature is seriously out of whack. Understanding nature requires a scientific approach. The existence of the universe is a first axiom for science. However, understanding how human beings, as natural objects, relate to the rest of the universe, is a scientific approach that is really in its infancy. A very large part of this relation is geocentric.
My view is that geocentric approaches within astronomy provide a foundation for understanding the structure of time, and that the temporal structure defined by the precession of the equinox should be fundamental to scientific understanding. Not only in terms of mechanical understanding of the physics of precession, but in study of how this theme opens links between astronomy and philosophy. This is not an argument just about the physical nature of the universe, but about how human beings relate to the universe, and how that relation can help us to understand nature.
A good example discussed in this thread is the four elements, fire, earth, air and water. I argue these provide a framework for life in a way roughly analogous to how the 92+ elements provide a framework for matter. This opens Bohr’s thesis of the complementarity of physics and biology, how the organism is not reducible to quanta. I take this further by saying there are temporal cycles in the biosphere which correspond to the four elements, a theme that can be woven through the interdisciplinary study of ecology.

Particle accelerators and rocketry attract some of the best and brightest but this does not mean they are the most important challenges. Geocentric sciences such as economics and sociology are sometimes less technically complicated than physics, but are equally important for understanding our world. My own interest is in hydrology, how the principle that fresh water floats on salt water can be used to transport bags of fresh water along ocean currents like blood through arteries and veins, building a 'hydrosphere'.
I am not advocating anything that is magical, but am saying that there is scientific challenge in areas now condemned as magical. Priorities should be based on evidence, and geocentric cycles are a useful evidentiary framework.
I am not sure where you draw the inference that I think navel-gazing is practical. As for astrology and tarot, there is obviously a lot of rubbish in these fields, but again, that does not invalidate the possibility that they are touching on an underlying truth.
Far be it from me to criticize mainstream astronomy, which is among the most highly evolved artifacts of our planet. Astronomy provides a model of rigorous discovery which other sciences struggle to match. However, astronomy can get too pure when it places barriers between itself and more chaotic forms of thought. Scientific suspicion is fair enough to some extent, but a geocentric approach can help to draw out connections between astronomy and practical concerns. Geocentrism is sufficient for most practical purposes, and it is important to recognize the useful role of astronomy in informing practical purposes. Physics is essential to lead technological development. Ephemerides are certainly useful, and there is much more they could be used for, such as to mine databases for tests of statistical correlation.
Noah’s Space Ark is not a particularly thrilling model for the future. I do think we need to explore highly different approaches. Jeffrey Sachs recently commented that “New technologies are the only way to tackle climate change... Rapid economic growth and climate change mitigation cannot go together as long as we stick to current technologies… policy makers must focus on technological changes right now, rather than on economic measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. These changes require upfront public R and D funding, especially for demonstration projects, plus a supportive regulatory environment.” (Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, speaking at Delhi Sustainable Development Summit, February 2008).

I think this involves a non-linear change. For example, the principle that fresh water floats on salt water can be used as a basis for large scale new technologies. In my view, we should work to build a global hydrosphere for the earth, as a network of fresh water lenses, as a climate adaptation and mitigation strategy.
Okay, I am just pointing out that a geocentric myth can have significant explanatory power, even if it is allegory rather than evidentiary. Persephone’s pomegranate seeds binding her to Pluto and Hermes’ help in restoring her to Demeter make a nice parable for the situation facing our planet.
Holism is not necessarily ‘touchy-feely’. You make a good point that much of non-scientific thinking is mushy nonsense. However, I simply believe the observation on the part of the scientific community of the failings of unscientific thought has become entrenched as a prejudice within the mainstream, to the extent that things that are unproven are considered impossible. I would rather look at unproven holistic areas as challenges for science.
Saturn marked the outer known boundary of the solar system from prehistoric times until the discovery of Uranus in 1781 at the time of the industrial revolution. Neptune was discovered in 1846 during the chemical revolution, and Pluto in 1930 during the atomic revolution. These planetary discoveries mark big points of expansion of human consciousness. I think a next big expansion needs to include recognition of a geocentric framework in which mainstream astronomy is recognized as an important contribution.

No planets marked the earlier centuries in this way because the cosmology of the solar system was stable over this long period, until the Copernican discovery which of course had greater direct social impact than did finding the new planets. However, the outer planets were very big discoveries, and it is legitimate to look at these discoveries against cultural history. From Tarnas, a mechanism is not apparent, but the correlations are.
No, you are wrong. The slow path of the equinoctial point along the ecliptic does mark change in human culture towards a new Aquarian Age. This observation is a point of connection between astronomy, philosophy, history and psychology.
time will tell

I see things exactly the opposite. The next big expansion should be in educating the public that the geocentric model is WRONG. I view this heliocentric v. geocentric argument one that was settled about 2 centuries ago, and am surprised that everyone hasn't caught up to this fact yet.

I've posted some proofs that heliocentric is the correct model:

Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism - what the...?

__________________


'Just be a good team player in life', Andrew Evans

Is anyone really reading this thread? (users Hornblower and North, not included) Please look at the first lines of this thread (emphasis mine below). It is not a thread of Heliocentric Model vs. Geocentric Model. It is a thread regarding perspective or in using Einstein’s words, it's about Frame of Reference. If you re-read the posts, you will see the OP is talking about Geo-perspective approach to astronomy.
Reading these posts, I am reminded of a quote by the comedian, Jimmy Durante, "My head's made up--don't try to confuse me with the facts."

The facts in this case are the actual words posted by the OP. Not his speculations or personal beliefs.

I know I have been railing against scientific biases on this thread. However, it isn't just scientific biases that keeps us from learning, it's any biases or blinders. If you can help me see my own biases and blinders, I am willing to evaluate them and determine if you are right or wrong. If you are right, I'll thank you for the gift for growth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic ...Someone long ago wrote down some drivel about "Jupiter in trine with Mars in a water sign means such-and-such" without any kind of real observations to determine this. And now we can't even find out who wrote this drivel when and where, because astrology does not have the "paper trail" of observation and experiment that the sciences have.

In this Newtonian Clockwork Universe, what is the difference between saying, "Jupiter in trine with Mars in a water sign means such and such..." and saying "on June 18, 2006, at 23:05:46 in the evening, I observed...” The positions of the planets and stars were the ancients’ method of telling or marking time.

Also, there is a "paper trail". It use to be a papyrus trail (or what ever material used before it was re-copied onto paper in the 1800's.) Most likely today, it's digital, but don't expect it to be online. And prior to being written done n Sanskrit, it was an oral tradition. So, the trail does go fairly far back. At least to 500 AD, the generally accepted time of late vedic literature as studied by Indologists such as Michael Witzel, Harvard Chair of Sanskrit. Who, by the way, is a prominent skeptic to any pseudo science.

What nonsense am I talking about? Well, since this is a global forum, ask one of the skeptics who lives near or in India to go to the town of Barnala, in Punjab, ask for a person named, Pandit Bhagat Ram for the "paper trail". If you are not willing to verify this yourself, or have someone you trust verify it, please do not retort with, "What nonsense, I don't believe it!" It just shows blinders and biases. Verification is the key, right? Thanks, Jimmy, for the quote. By the way, I was in India in the late 80's and verified it. To bad you don't know me; hence, can't trust me.

If the only point is that one can arbitrarily pick different reference frames, then there is no reason for this thread. Hornblower asked about that early in the thread:

Geocentrism

On the other hand, if one going to make an argument that the Earth is somehow the center of the universe in some scientific (not belief based) way, one would be expected to support that argument. It certainly seems, in reading the posts, that a geocentric argument (though a belief based one) has been proposed.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Very true. In actuality, though, I had already figured out what this thread was about in post #4 and said so:You know perfectly well. "on June 18, 2066, at 23:05:46 in the evening, I observed..." is an observation and the time of an observation. Saying "Jupiter in trine with Mars in a water sign means such and such..." is a prediction, a statement that at these particular times such and such happens. Although astrology claims to be about predictions, most of these predictions (like most divinatory and prophetic "arts") are actually after the fact and not predictive at all.
Why not? Imagine the "new age" that finally having the definitive paper trail of astrology on-line would usher in!
You mean it was invented in India? Only in India? How does it relate to and differ from the traditions as practiced and taught in Babylonia, Greece and China? You are aware that there are other traditions? Must be the blinders.

By the way, a couple of years ago there was a poster who called herself Hekate and was quite vehement on the point that the only "real astrology" was that practiced in ancient Greece in conjunction with the worship of the Greek gods. Look up those threads. They're rather amusing.
Maybe you should listen to him.
Why should I have to go to Punjab or anywhere else for this? Why is this not being shared with the world at large? What about ushering in a "new age" by finally making this "important" information available to all? So much of human knowledge is mere keystrokes away, why keep this secret in some out of the way place? Oh, yeah, I suppose people can't handle the truth. Some "new age".

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

In my opinion, much of Robert Tulip's desire to analyze possible correlations between astronomical phenomena and various cycles and events here on Planet Earth is against mainstream science. There is nothing fundamentally bad about that, and he is more than welcome to try to persuade us to take his ideas seriously. After all, people such as Copernicus were clearly ATM in their lifetimes, and were not generally accepted for several generations.

What I find odd is his continual belaboring of the point that we should look at this from a geocentric viewpoint when we already do so. We analyze the cause of the tides that way, and any statistical analysis of possible correlations between celestial patterns and such things the weather or evolution would be done likewise, at least in the preliminary research stages. Whether or not anything of scientific substance emerges from all of this is beside the point.

So are you suggesting that some (unknown?) influence both caused the discoveries of the various planets, along with the various features that you associate with each century?
Does this mean that, astrologically speaking, planets have no effect unless we know that they are there?
I would argue that this modern myth does not help us to understand astronomy. If anything it would seem to confuse the issue.
Perhaps changes are needed in the world but changing the name of an astronomical body seems to confuse symbols with action. This appears to be a flaw in a wide range of "magical" thought. At best, a symbol can provide something to rally around, but it is ourselves that does the "heavy lifting". At worst, this form of magical thinking leads to inaction where people might believe that they have healed the earth by walking three times around Stonehenge while chanting.

Yes,

but I still don't get it. Suppose we analyze phenomena in the following 2 ways (a) do the process within a geocentric viewpoint (b) just do the process without any viewpoint.

I don't see how the final result would be any different in (a) vs. (b).

So why not analyze all phenomena with (b) and then in the last step see how the final result fits into the TRUE view of the universe, heliocentric solar system, expanding universe, general relativity , etc. If you do it with (a) , then the danger is that a lot of people might start getting confused and actually think that geocentrism is true. (a) puts too much emphasis on a dead hypothesis and skews thinking too much in a totally incorrect direction.

I'm sure Mr. Tulip is just trying to improve our perspective on things. I just fundamentally disagree with him that a geocentric viewpoint is a good idea. After all the history of how hard won the idea of heliocentrism was, I can't see going back to viewing things primarily in a geocentric context. And yes, I'm sure my scientific training gives me a certain set view on this.

__________________


'Just be a good team player in life', Andrew Evans

These links did not work for me.
The original four elements were actually stated by the Buddha and taken from their to Greece about 586 BC. They are not intended to be taken in the same way as the 92+ elements. A better word today would be "properties". The four properties are actually:
* inertia or mass (earth)
* cohesion or tension (water)
* pressure or expansiveness (air)
* vibration or heat (fire)
These four properties are actually the same properties that lead to a wave equation and may be said to be exactly a prescription for Maxwell's equations for example. Interestingly they were described by the Buddha as being properties observed as sensations when the senses become very refined through the practice of vipassana meditation. So when you refer to them as biological you are correct.

I don't see what is ATM about looking at things from a geocentric viewpoint.

Actually, in GR you can use any co-ordinate system that you want and it still works. If you use a geocentric co-ordinate system then dues to the high velocities of planets and stars, and the limit of light velocity, the entire universe is only 55 AU in diameter. Although it is possible to do GR in such a reference frame, it is really not the best choice as light takes complicated spiraling paths and everything is dreadfully distorted. Things are easier when we allow that the Earth rotates.

Neither do I, but...

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov