Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn 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 agree with you and I have no doubt my former colleagues are using their hard earned years in the Yoga of Objectivity (PhDs) with integrity. They also have the tools of “navel gazing” and yoga positions to relax their minds and body from the stresses of not only the research, but also stresses from internal or external politics.

BTW, meditation is much more than “navel gazing”. Unfortunately, those who use this simplistic term have never and most likely will never try it. Many “Eureka!” moments have occurred when the mind has been given time to relax.

Boulder has many world-class scientists and world-class athletes. Seeing the number of yoga studios and attending some of them, myself, I know that yoga is part of a regular regime for a good number of these people. I’ll see if I can get some statistics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn 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:

After going over the full thread again and acknowledging my own biases and blinders to pick out some personally pertinent ideas from the OP(see below), I see that the discussion is not regarding an arbitrary reference frame but a very specific reference frame, which is the observer. These may not be the OP’s main questions, but they have been mine:

Can we incorporate the perspective of the observer in the scientific process?
Doesn’t the biases and conditioning of the observer, change how a scientific process is observed, and therefore what is actually observed? Won’t a scientist, a brick-layer, a priest, a romantic, etc. see something different when they see tonight’s lunar eclipse? If what they observe differs from you, does it mean they are wrong?

Since I don't know the answer, I am asking the question: How can the observer become a valid variable in the scientific equation? Any suggestions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip …Part of my point is that science regards its assumptions as absolute and refuses to see how they are culturally conditioned. The geocentric component in any science incorporates the perspective of the observer into its system, while for non-geocentric astronomy the perspective of the observer is irrelevant. …

If these predictions are actually after the fact as you say, and which I can agree with you, then the two statements, “on June…” and ”Jupiter in trine…” are both observations being marked by either a man made calendar/clock or the position of the stars. Since you are not willing to look at the “paper trail”, how do you know some ancient scientists did not follow the lives of their subjects and mark a timeline of pertinent life events with positions of the stars? With enough empirical data collected, can trends and correlations be made? How much empirical data can be collected between 1500 BCE to 500 CE the currently accepted range of Vedic Literature? Don’t modern day sociologists have these types of experiments? Tracking twins? Tracking invitro births?
Nice try, but no blinders regarding other traditions here. Boulder has many different traditions and practices brought from around the world.

Just a side note: Vedic astrology, Jyotish, is a star-based (sidereal) system, which follows the actual movements of the stars, not a seasoned-based system. So it’s not off by 24 degrees like the other traditions. So it doesn’t meet one of the BA’s criteria of falsehood. Of course, I’m sure it meets the BA’s other falsifying criteria, but since I’m not an astrologer, it doesn’t matter to me.
I actually do practice what I preach. Referencing Michael W’s work helped me see the CURRENT limitations of a website I found interesting: Scientifc Verification of Vedic Knowledge. Ongoing research will tell if these limitations will increase or decrease. Some astronomy and cosmology ideas on this site are not questioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic 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".

Actually, many aspects of this “paper trail” are being shared with the world here, here and here. You just have to want to find it. In my own search regarding this “paper trail”, I found the story of Donald Walters, and of David Christopher Lane*, both retell the exact same experience I had during my own verification process in India. Each came away with opposite conclusions. As for myself, I’m on this and other forums seeking more answers before making any conclusions even after 20 years. Actually, I hope I will continuously modify any idea I hold true. I know I will throw some out when more information dictates.

*David Christopher Lane states in his postscript that he does not have any proof to support his disbelief and recommends "a team of qualified specialists visit Hoshiarpur and determine the veracity of the records." It should also be noted, that like many here Dr. Lane outs many unsavory "mystics" and "gurus". He also accepts and endorses valid "teachers".

Mr. Donald Walters is also known as Swami Kriyananda. He also did not take his experience at face value, first expereince disbelief and thought the claim was outrageous; however, his own research supported the experience.

Now, I believe the wiki links I provided illustrates that the biases and conditioning of the observer is very relevent to the observation. I'm sure there is no argument here. However, since Dr. Witzel and Dr. Lane took the Yoga of Objectivity to train their mind to see the world in one way, and Mr. Walters took the Yoga of Yogananda to see another way, is there a middle ground to include what the OP below states as an "Objective Subjectivity" or is it "Subjective Objectivity". My own practice in a Buddhist monestary in Thailand, taught and forced me to verify all my expereinces. The monks there stressed never take anything at face value. The phrases "Know Thyself" and "Mindfullness" were emphasized. Greek or Buddhist, I believe this "subjective objectivity" is the key to expanding the limits of the Scientific Method. If there are no limits to the Scientific Method, I stand corrected.

Precisely the obvious observation you make, that geocentrism is WRONG, has been used by science to patronise and condescend towards alternative ways of thought for which the observer is assumed to be the centre. The question is about method in science. Of course many subjective approaches are wrong (eg creationism), but this does not prove that an 'objective subjectivity', where the individual is attuned to the cosmos, is impossible.

The themes of attunement and perspective were main topics for the critique of Cartesian ontology in Heidegger's Being and Time, perhaps a reason why Heidegger has been variously described as the best and worst philosopher of the twentieth century. Readers who believed that Descartes had embarked on an arid path of alienation thought Heidegger profound, while those who saw the power of Descartes' application of mathematics to thought recoiled in horror from the re-enchanted cosmos implied by Heidegger. My question here may be whether a rational enchantment is possible.

The problem is one of perspective. Astronomy is de-centred on principle - it considers that the effort to integrate the perspective of human consciousness into its system is far too complex to quantize and introduces nothing but confusion and falsity. And yet, the outlook which puts the observer at the centre, asking what the observer is in cosmic terms, is scientifically legitimate, if rather chaotic. If we ask what astronomy can explain about a perspective with the observer at the centre, we open up a field of questions which are scientifically legitimate but which are problematic for the philosophy of science.

Every point may in some sense be a centre of the universe, but if we accept that perspective is important, those points which think and reflect accurately on the cosmos are thereby privileged as foci. This privileging is spiritual rather than physical. Excluding the spirit, although sound in principle, disengages science from human concern, limiting science to description rather than evaluation. When David Hume, the father of positivism, said you cannot derive an ought from an is, he was simply stating a necessary implication of the Copernican principle - that humans have no right to judge because we are not at the centre of anything. In this claim Hume was actually the father of nihilism - the complete loss of values.

Going back to our earlier discussion about whether the ancients viewed circular motion as fundamental, it occurs to me that this is analogous to the way Newtonian mechanics viewed Euclidean geometry as fundamentally true. It was impossible for Newton to imagine that something so obvious as Euclidean axioms, eg that parallel lines do not meet, might not apply to real space time. My view is that a similar limiting assumption applies to modern astronomy through the privileging of a placeless objectivity. Human beings are part of nature, but this basic observation is difficult to think through in its implications.

The paradigm shift I am suggesting requires integration of the perspective of the observer into the framework of science. I continue to insist that an 'objective subjectivity' can be usefully studied through systematic assessment of geocentric evidence about correspondence between earthly and planetary cycles. Existing astrology is far from systematic or scientific, but this does not mean its subject matter cannot be explored systematically. Geocentric approaches may not be objective in the conventional sense, but this methodological principle of the acceptance of subjectivity contains its own evidentiary problems, and a set of new objective possibilities. The value of geocentric observations lies in their potential human utility.

Or this might be because science needs to use instruments to measure phenomena. I was just reading "the God Particle" by Leon Lederman, and he explains how different particles/energies can give us a different view on the same phenomena being observed. Each view adds to our knowledge. But there is still a practical limit on how much precision our measurements can attain.

By this logic, if men colonize the solar system/Milky Way someday, then the priviledged foci will definitely not then be geocentric.

The uncertainty principle recognizes that the observer will disturb the measurement, and so properties can only be measured within a certain uncertainty.

__________________


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

First, thank you the "The God Particle" reference, I'll look it up. Sounds interesting. Second, I totally agree with the above statement on uncertainty. However, I was told in another forum that "...the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle only applies to conjugate variables (like momentum and position or mass and lifetime)at the microscopic quantum scale. It cannot be applied to objects of the sizes we can see."

If the Uncertainty Principle can be applied to macroscopic observations, can we minimize this "certain uncertainty" by including the observer as a variable in the equation? Especially, since it is the observer who creates the uncertainty. Again, I must apologise, I don't know how to include the observer in a valid scientific approach.

Does this differentiate between different groups of humans, i.e. that the perspectives of those humans who refect less accurately on the cosmos, are in some way inferior and less important?

You could go further. The truly privileged perspective is my own, as I have no idea what is observed by the other six billion people on this planet. This moves us on from a geo-centric view to an ego-centric view.

Of course, it seems unlikely that the Earth is the only place that life exists in the universe. Indeed it is rather difficult to exclude the possibility that there are many other locations in this universe where lifeforms "think and reflect accurately on the cosmos". A lot of them may even do it better than we do. By your reasoning we should be using the brightest and best of these as "foci". That we don't know where they are is no excuse for ignoring them. Either way it means that the geocentric perspective isn't that privileged in the grand scheme of things, and we perhaps shouldn't go looking for deep meaning based upon it.

agreed


not at all . we must still investigate our perspective but at the same-time be aware of our perspectives limits.

not really. fundamentally the moon is where it should be , within our Solar System , regardless of where any of the six billion people , on this planet are situated.

but really that does not get down to Roberts point at all . Robert is thinking , cosmos.

exactly

but at the same-time . we can compensate for our place with-in the Universe by thinking 3D thus putting our imagination in anothers shoes so to speak .

not hard to do really.

for instance instead of looking from the shore looking out towards the lake or sea , picture your self looking from the lake or sea " towards " the shore .

sorry Robert I butted in here . I just couldn't help it !!! ( I hope I helped , if not opps !!! )

north

But the claim was that there exsted a privileged persepctive based on the criteria previously given. Using that criteria suggests that some humans have a less priveleged perspective than others.
And that would also be true even if no people existed on this planet. Sounds to me as if the geocentric viewpoint is not particularly privileged.
But if we are talking about the cosmos you have to justify that the geocentric perspective is privileged. Purely from the perspective of GR it is no more privileged than an imaginary point dancing cartwheels around the Orion nebula. Using Robert's own criteria still doesn't seem to make the geocentric view very privileged.
That's quite true, but all that we can say with any certainty is that the "centric" location using the criteria is not likely to be here. Where it is we just don't know, so currently we can't do as you suggest. Can you tell us where the "true" privileged location is?

Part of the problem with the scientific approach is that using instruments often removes phenomena from their context rather than seeking to explain them in dynamic relational ways. For example with precession of the equinox, instruments can tell us its rate, but if we accept that precession has a cyclic structure (having occurred 175,000 times in the history of life), then the problem of analyzing this structure is not primarily instrumental. It is not about measuring but about integrating.
Yes, you are right, but for now, with apologies to Eric Idle, the only intelligent life we know of is down here on earth. The earth is the only known focal measuring point in the universe. I think it will be great when we find another. In any case, this is a rather complicated argument as I am not using the concept of privilege to say the mainstream is wrong, but that an alternative perspective, forming an integrated view of the earth as our centre, is equally valid and can be a more productive topic for astronomy.
Yes, but the uncertainty principle operates in the context of static measurement rather than dynamic complexity. The overall truth is too complex to measure exactly. Physics recognizes this and makes a controlled laboratory environment, but then applies the mathematical fallacy that there is no truth outside exact concepts – confusing the lab and the world. Approaching this ‘measureless truth’ with other methods, such as statistical probability, is of course a big part of science. I am arguing that statistics can be applied much more extensively to geocentric phenomena within astronomy to explain observations which integrate the perspective of the observer.

So far, Eris is the only planet and KBO bigger than Pluto discovered in our solar system. This does not include exo-planets; those we have found so far are almost all gas giants, and some are larger than Jupiter.

In reference to the IAU, many astronomers believe they made a bad decision in demoting Pluto. Dr. Alan Stern referred to the decision as "sloppy science that would never pass peer review." Many believe both Pluto and Eris as well as Ceres should be designated as planets.

It's just my opinion, but I believe things like astrology and myth should be considered in the same light as mainstream religion. There are some astronomers who are believing Christians and therefore believe that a man rose from the dead. Yet they can separate this part of themselves from the part that does science or find a way to reconcile both views (such as believing in a God that created the world they study). Similarly, a person can be an astronomer and a believer in non-mainstream spirituality such as Tarot cards, astrology, etc., and in the same way as the believing Christian, find a way to either separate or reconcile their scientific selves with their spiritual selves. We can't really prove or disprove religious questions such as whether Jesus rose from the dead or God parted the Red Sea, and scientists generally don't even go there. If believing in these things helps a person live a better life, then it's really a personal thing, and one can respect that person and still disagree with them. I believe the same approach should be taken to non-mainstream beliefs that are largely personal for individuals and don't involve proselytizing or trying to influence the scientific community.

Hi Laurele, thanks, I would also say that the process of naming ‘Eris’ took place in a rather confrontational way, hence as the discoverers say, illustrating the discord now apparent between mainstream cosmology and alternative approaches – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28mythology%29 – hardly an auspicious name for the biggest object in the solar system found since Pluto. Eris is the archetype for the wicked fairy who tries to kill Sleeping Beauty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty - surely a better name is possible? My prediction is that Persephone will come to seem a sensible name for the new planet. Maybe the existing asteroid can change its name slightly.

This reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of separate magisteria. The key point is that with your approach spiritual concern is devalued and shunted aside by the scientific assessment that it is ‘a personal thing’ and lacks epistemic basis. This in itself is grounds for a conversation about the values and methods of science, and whether science alone can provide a sufficient framework for human thought. My belief, which I would like to say is testable, is that there is scientific merit in spiritual concern, and that astrology, as a relational application of astronomy to psychology, should be explored as a scientific discipline, a geocentric relational subject within the broader intellectual horizons of thought.

The recent eclipse can illustrate the potential for such geocentric approaches – looking at the planets in terms of how they relate to us psychologically. I make this point to illustrate that this approach is not stupid or irrational but has interesting and potentially testable psychological insights which are based on the premise, true for this purpose, that the earth is at the centre of our frame of reference.

Transit theory, which I find highly insightful, claims that eclipses intensify any planetary transits of people’s natal charts that occur during them. The eclipse was next to Saturn, right on the point where Uranus was from September 1962 to July 1963, and where Pluto was from October 1957 to 1959.

The claim is that the eclipse intensifies the major Saturn transits over the next three months for people born at these times, extended due to the Saturn transits being a long retrograde repeat of an event of September 2007, with Saturn returning to the eclipse point in early May. Taking a wider orb, these Saturn-eclipse transits affect all those born from about 1955-65.

Here are some interpretations from Robert Hand’s Planets in Transit

For those born 1962-63
• Saturn Conjunct Uranus (March-June 08): internal forces for change colliding with powerful resistance from the external world… tension and sudden release… you are likely to take sudden actions that are the products of gradually building tensions within you…it may be possible to create a balance between the force of Saturn and the force of Uranus [to] accomplish a great many changes in a highly structured way.

For those born 1957-59
• Saturn conjunct Pluto (March-June 08): structure in your life will change significantly, but not suddenly or without warning … some things will come to an end or an old order of life will cease… Pluto can signify tremendous evolutionary energies, which Saturn restricts… Build new structures to correct the problems you face now, and concentrate all your energy on bringing about necessary evolution in your life.

Scientists will say these claims are ridiculous and imaginary, but I believe there is a basis for empirical testing of the truth of these predictions.

I googled astrology eclipse February 2008 and found http://www.aquariuspapers.com/astrol...ange-astr.html I am not familiar with this website so am not endorsing it, but it uses many concepts which I believe have scientific basis but are rejected by the mainstream. I like its interpretation about this eclipse, located at tropical 2 degrees Virgo (ie sidereally in early Leo), being right on the spot where Saturn will go direct on 3 May, as indicating it is time to launch a vision in our lives.

I still don't understand what you are suggesting is the linkage between what happens in the terrestrial realm and the non-terrestrial realm. For example is it that humans look at the skies and modify their behaviours based on the changing symbols that are observed? Or, do the astrophysical objects themselves directly affect the behaviour of people (though not apes, cats, dogs, or rabbits?)
Where did the idea come from that an eclipse intensifies planetary effects? Was it based on a large scale statistical analysis of behaviour, or was it an inspiration based on a purely symbolic interpretation of what an eclipse is about?

perhaps . but I'm not aware of this " priveleged " perspective . ( I havn't read the whole thread )

yes

but the argument against the geocentric viewpoint( our position ) is not about our view of the solar system persay as it is on how we view the cosmos , from our perspective , from our particular place within the cosmos looking out into it . the perspective consequences and problems , which are innate , because of our place within the cosmos .

I agree


Humans did many years ago , because of the lack of understanding of what these changing symbols really meant . hence a psychology of symbols by the symbols of the sky many years ago.

now we now better




the more sensitive the being the more they are affected and therefore become aware

its a culmination , as a whole , of astrophysical objects , combining together to give an end result , which directly affects the behaviour of people and fundamentally gives them certain characteristics .

now having said that , there is also the environment , within which the person grows . which obviously affects the person also . so there can be varying degrees of Nature and Nurture , to any fundamental characteristic brought on by the Nature of astronomical objects interactions and therefore consequences

As the Church Lady would say, "How convenient!" So not only do we accept aspects if they are within 5 degrees of longitude, we can also get aspects by looking backwards in time from an eclipse or a transit. Anyone for epicycles?
What experiments are these based on? Where is the paper trail leading to Robert Hand's writings? I'll bet they probably don't go back to some swami in the Punjab!
But first some real, rigorous double-blind experiments need to be performed. Has Robert Hand ever done any? Has Sepharial? Has that swami in the Punjab? You know as well as I that they have not. This is just drivel handed down from time immemorial.
Sure, you like it, it says something you want to believe in, that's how the racket works. How do you know their interpretation is correct? How can you verify it? You can't.
I think it would be a good time to lift the blinders, throw away the astrology books, and use our vision to see what it is really there.

__________________
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.

Celestial Mechanic

just asking

if the moon can affect the sea ( tides ) because of its gravitational influence .

what makes it so hard to think that terrestrial beings are not affected by non-terrestrial actions ? fundamentally

Pushing water around is easy; making people think and take actions on these thoughts is hard.

__________________
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.

its not pushing water around , its pulling or drawing water out towards the source of the pull


how do you mean ?

explain

Yes it does differentiate to some extent. Astronomy enables humanity to mirror the cosmos by mapping the universe and explaining the laws of physics. This is a highly worthy and important task. Your term ‘inferior’ is loaded, but I probably share with many the view that true knowledge is superior to false belief, with the implication that those who willfully cling to false belief diminish themselves, even while their perspectives are equally important in a democratic way. The challenge I am posing is to integrate the findings of mainstream astronomy with ordinary experience. I think “those humans who reflect less accurately on the cosmos” are very much capable of learning from those who do reflect more accurately, but the problem I am exploring is that astronomy is still caught up in some epistemic binds which result from how scientific method has related (or not) to other ways of knowing. Posing the problem of the epistemic status of geocentric observations is intended to open analysis of the scope of the scientific method, including finding ways to apply science in areas which are now dominated by non-scientific approaches.
No, this does not make sense except through the false lens of solipsism. I can have a very good idea what is observed by other people on this planet in terms of day to day realities. In astronomy, my observation of elliptical orbits is shared by all others who care to investigate the nature of the solar system. This Copernican example also applies to geocentric themes such as the day and the map, in that we have a very good idea of what these ideas mean for sensible people. I do claim that there are also geocentric phenomena which are less well known, but these phenomena should be amenable to objective study.
But this ‘no excuse’ is silly. The very good ‘excuse for ignoring them’ is that humanity has no way of ‘using’ anything of which we have no knowledge. You are taking a hypothetical alien intelligence as a reason to downplay the significance of geocentric phenomena, and to close off the possibility of astronomy giving more attention to the problem of how humanity relates to the cosmos through geocentric structures.

My opinion is that the solar system is complex and dynamic, with all parts affecting all others in ways that we have only begun to understand. Earth is the most complex spot by far in our solar system, and in the whole universe as far as we know. Hence the complex relations between the earth and its immediate cosmic environment are very much worthy of study. Our immediate cosmic environment is reasonably delimited as the solar system, consisting of those astrophysical objects which have been gravitationally bound to the earth within a separate entity over cosmic time. My view is that the chaotic effects of interplanetary relations can best be interpreted as synchronous – earth and the other planets came from the same causal source so are working out the same founding impetus in their own contexts – and as harmonic – there are wave structures in the solar system which we barely understand but which strongly shape our underlying long term ecology.
At an eclipse the moon is exactly opposite the sun from a geocentric perspective. Effects of sun and moon are simultaneous and reinforcing during an eclipse, the only time when this opposition occurs with the moon on the plane of the ecliptic, so the only time when sun, earth and moon are in an exact straight line. Within astrology, Sun and Moon are considered to have greatest effects, so their mutual exact reinforcement during an eclipse results in a claimed intensification of other perceived planetary effects. These claims are based on folk tradition rather than statistics. Statistical methods could look for evidence of this effect, but should recognize that the effect is weak compared to terrestrial factors and so would need systematic analysis of large datasets with well defined questions. With the transit examples I gave, it should in principle be possible to quantify them in datasets of chaotic human phenomena such as accidents and investments and relationships.

My comments were triggered by your suggestion that "Every point may in some sense be a centre of the universe, but if we accept that perspective is important, those points which think and reflect accurately on the cosmos are thereby privileged as foci." This you used to justify the notion that a geocentric perspective was privileged. There are plenty of people on this planet who think, but due to a lack of knowledge they may be able to reflect accurately on the cosmos. (Be careful, as many astronomers would place astrologers in that group. )
I would suggest that the vast majority of astronomy is of little relevance to the everyday experience of most people.
Only in very general terms.
I have never observed planetary bodies moving in elliptical orbits. I am happy to accept that measurements and observations made by others are consistent with this notion, but I do not have the equipment or the inclination to observe this for myself. At a guess, I would suspect that greater than 50% of the worlds population aren't even aware that planets follow elliptical orbits, never mind having observed them for themselves.
No harm in nthat.
I was merely trying to apply your criteria. Remember you said
"Every point may in some sense be a centre of the universe, but if we accept that perspective is important, those points which think and reflect accurately on the cosmos are thereby privileged as foci."

Do you rule out the possibility that there are other civilisations "out there" that meet your criteria (possibly even better than us humans)?

If you do, then fine, but otherwise there are all of those equally good foci out there.

To be honest, I suspect that deep down you are really wanting to say that the earth is privileged because that is where we are. If so, it would be better to just say that.

What do you mean by "complex"? The universe is a pretty big place, so suggesting that the earth is the most complex spot in the universe sounds like a long shot, unless you have a definition of "complex" that is finely tuned to make the earth pop out.
There are many reasons why the study of the interaction between the earth and its environment are worthy of study, such as "we live here", and it is easier to observe things in more detail.
Doesn't that just limit to the Moon, and possibly Cruithne? I wouln't describe the Sun as being gravitationally bound to the Earth, any more than I would describe the Earth as being gravitationally bound to a flea.
[quote]
My view is that the chaotic effects of interplanetary relations can best be interpreted as synchronous – earth and the other planets came from the same causal source so are working out the same founding impetus in their own contexts – and as harmonic – there are wave structures in the solar system which we barely understand but which strongly shape our underlying long term ecology.[quote]
Why would life on earth be sensitive to the motions of Pluto? Have you tried calculating the gravitational forces involved. To say that they are miniscule is being generous. We cannot, to my knowledge, detect the location of Pluto using earth based gravitational sensors, so any structure within humans capable of doing that would be extremely special. If such a structure/sense existed, how did it evolve? What evolutionary pressure would act such that thos organisms able to sense the locationn of Pluto had an advantage over those that couldn't?
If we consider the physics, however, the forces aren't vastly different during eclipse to the forces when the alignement is quite right and you don't get an eclipse. The observation of an eclipse is dramtic, but it doesn't shake up the solar system.
There is no harm in looking for an effect, but I wouldn't rate the chances of success highly.

Suppose for the sake of argument we decide that it is worth the trouble to investigate Robert Tulip's ideas scientifically. I would not expect astronomers to do the lion's share of the work, at least not in the preliminary stages. This looks more like a job for geophysicists, meteorologists, biologists, psychologists, etc., in partnership with a qualified statistician who can judge whether or not possibile correlations should be dismissed as mere coincidence. Any of these specialists can consult readily available ephemerides of the stars and planets as needed. These fields are inherently geocentric, so Robert's continual pleading for a geocentric viewpoint becomes a moot point.

Here is a poem/song I wrote about twenty five years ago. I haven’t previously published it except on my website as it is rather embarrassing. It picks up on my sense, growing up in Australia, far from the centres of world thought, that integrating modern astronomy with immediate perception is not always obvious.

Flat Earth
I drove from Perth to Sydney across this big country.
It went up and down in places, but it was flat as the wide blue sea.

The world is flat, The country is flat The plains are flat, Gravity what’s that?

Some people say that the world is round.
How crazy is that?
The people on the other side would all fall off -
Bye bye England, Bye bye America

Giordano Bruno,
Galileo Galilee,
Copernicus and Kepler and Newton -
Why couldn’t you see?

The sun and the moon go round and round
High up above the trees.
If we lived so fast we’d all fall off.
Isn’t that plain to see?

So come on out to the Western Plains And have a look round with me.
Tell me if you think its flat or round, I’m sure you will agree

The world is flat, The country is flat
The plains are flat, The world is round.

The orb of an aspect is an interesting problem. If an aspect has an effect, this effect will come gradually into operation as the aspect becomes exact and then gradually diminish. It should be an empirical problem to determine the period of effect, and therefore the orb, of an aspect.

My brief explanation needs expansion, and has nothing to do with epicycles. The 2008 planet path at http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...endar-2008.gif shows the retrograde (upward on the graph) path of Saturn across the middle, showing how Saturn will station from March to May (at the eclipse point) before going direct and joining Mars and the Moon in July. Getting “aspects by looking backwards in time” is a misunderstanding.

Hand calls the enlightenment the endarkenment, and is a student of medieval thought. He also likes Vedic thought, so his paper trail does go to the Vedas. These ideas are not based on experiments but on observation and tradition. Your question opens the issue, raised earlier regarding the uncertainty principle, of how deeply the experimental method is able to get into these sort of questions. I personally think there is much scope, as for example my proposed trine experiment, but really there has been such a clash of cultures regarding these topics that scientists have viewed them as not worthy of study.

I had a look, and found this http://www.astrodivination.com/moa/ncgrberk.htm. It is a summary of a 1980s experimental study at Berkeley which found no evidence for astrology. In my opinion, the design of this experiment, despite involving astrologers, simply shows how difficult it is to design experiments that will show these weak effects against the strong background static of ordinary life. The link is on the website of Geoffrey Cornelius, a proponent of magical tarot. He states ‘This summary supplements and should be read in conjunction with the discussion in The Moment of Astrology (revised edition) appendix 2, which gives a detailed critique of the rationale of the NCGR/Berkeley Double-Blind Test.’ I am quite skeptical of of some of Cornelius's ideas, as he is deliberately anti-scientific in some respects, but it would be interesting to read his critique of the Berkeley study.

My own view is that the double-blind method is severely limited as a tool to examine this topic because it imposes a static model on a dynamic system. This might work for some astrological claims, but expecting the general public to pick themselves from an astrologer’s paper interpretation in lab conditions (the Berkeley hypothesis) is a tough ask. Much better to look for trends in population level data.

The verification is through comparison to previous occasions when the same alignment has occurred, to assess predictions for consistency. I do think that population level studies of these sort of claims would be needed for any scientific verification. Richard Tarnas presents interesting anecdotal cases from the history of thought regarding the association between Uranus and innovation across a range of aspect and transit examples, but he is not really systematic. For example, he points out that Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes and Newton were all born with close Uranus-Sun aspects, conforming with the interpretation that this aspect produces strong innovation, but not proving anything.

For me, the verification of the actual claim I made will depend on whether I can see it affecting my life. In my case, born 23 March 1963, (and for many others born that year as Uranus moves so slowly), Saturn will station from March to May on my natal Uranus point, which also happens to be the recent eclipse point. Hand suggests this implies a period of controlled innovation. A test would require that people born at that time are later assessed to see if this prediction applied more to that time in their lives than to other times.

I understand your complaint and distaste. Robert Hand seems a bit like Merlin with his piles of old books. Modern thought thought it had made all that redundant. The trouble is, the modern method of Descartes, namely the focus on clear and precise ideas, actually excludes subject matters which are not clear and precise, even though they may contain interesting facts.

(1) "The God Particle" : One reviewer says that "what Stephen Hawking did for cosmology, Leon Lederman does for particle physics". This is the best book on particle physics I've read yet.
(2) I take issue with the uncertainity principle not being applicable to macroscopic objects. In some sense, the laws that apply in the macroscopic world can be derived from the laws in the microscopic world by the correspondence principle. So I think modern physics already has that base covered.

__________________


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

I am very happy to follow up on this suggestion to look at the large areas where a geocentric approach to astronomy is testable and potentially useful through the use of the ephemeris as a basis for research into statistical correlations. Hornblower has previously commented that this process is not inherently ATM. I agree in principle, except that it will open up new areas of science and force the questioning of some mainstream cultural and epistemic assumptions.

Be careful when trawling through data for statistical correlations. If you consider a sufficient number of combinations you will always find some "significant" correlations, just as 5% of data will fall outside your 95% confidence limits for "significance". (A statistician colleague of mine bemoans the popular notion of statistical "significance", hence my use of the quotes.)

By finding correlations which can only be explained by an unknown physical causal mechanism, it will be possible to extend astronomy into the scientific study of geocentric phenomena. For example, the moon rain correlations I found (chart attached again) are significant at a high confidence level. This is either a 1% fluke or a good example of an unknown geocentric cosmic relationship which provides a model for further more complex correlations to be investigated. Until this data is validated against other results, and provided with a compelling mathematical explanation, it is just a very interesting research program.

Attached Thumbnails