Yes, I'm an Aries. I need to clarify a few things, before launching into this post though. I don't follow cheesy horoscopes. I truly believe the planetary alignments affect human nature.
I believe, because physicists and mathematicians also believe there is scientific proof that it is possible. You see there are four forces at work with planetary movement (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear-strong and nuclear-weak) - however, only two of the four have the potential to affect us. Gravity and electromagnetism can affect things over distances. So, that being said if the planets have any affect on us, it would be one or both of these forces.
The Moon's gravity obviously greatly affects our tides, but it's electrical field is essentially zero. Not exactly zero - but effectively, thus making the magnetic field non-existent because it's so random and scattered. Gravity is much more powerful than the electromagnetic fields, no matter how tiny the impact is between planets - it's still enough to create a domino effect.
***"The Moon’s gravity causes tides, but effectively nothing else. The Sun’s gravity has about 40% of the Moon’s influence and Jupiter, which completely dwarfs the effects of all of the other planets combined, has about 1 two-hundred-thousandth of the Moon’s tidal effect. Point is, our understanding of the known forces of the universe preclude the idea of the planets and stars having any direct influence on people." So to be fair, nothing is conclusive, science likes to be exact."
Though the evolution of all things scientific and/or researched and proven, begins with theory ...
***"So the better question isn’t “can so-called ‘science’ explain astrological effects?” but instead “are there astrological effects?”. There has been a lot of research into astrological phenomena, but so far all of the results have been negative or unrepeatable (science talk for “this isn’t a thing”). Since the 18th or 19th century the scientific community has pretty much stopped looking, but they were at it for a very long time. There aren’t many scientific papers that seriously investigate this sort of thing, partly because the results are well-known, and partly because the experiments involved are easy enough that they tend to show up in middle-school science fairs relatively often (this is also why there are no articles in Nature about baking soda and vinegar volcanoes)."
"That said, I’d like to provide some point on what I see as a flawed take on the subject. You see, my formation is as a Philosopher, and when studying Classic, Medieval and Renascence philosophies, there’s no working around the need to obtain at least some theoretical understanding of Astrology, as those older thinkers used to take it into account or at least talk about it. And in so doing, one of the most interesting realizations at which one arrives is that the actual theoretical basis for Astrology had almost nothing to do with Physics. In fact, Physics entered the picture (and the discussion) more or less at the time it began showing its many awesome results, circa 17th century or so. Before that, however, nope, it’s nowhere to be seen. Furthermore, due to Physics not being part of it, it also wasn’t thought that the planets influenced people directly, and much less that such direct influence happened by way of some kind of energy field, force or the like, concepts that simply didn’t exist back then.
So, what did Astrology (and astrologers) actually believe? In something called “analogy” (not to be confused with the literary concept). The notion was more or less this: given that the universe and you form a single whole, it comes that “you” equals “universe minus everything that isn’t you”, or, put another way, that there’s a correlation between whatever happens with you and whatever happens to everything else. So, if you could find a regularity “out there”, that would correspond to a regularity “in here”. And what are the only absolute regularities we find in a world otherwise completely random? The planetary movements. Thus, by studying the planetary movements then correlating the “analogous” internal movements they revealed with a person’s specific, individual characteristics, you’d be able to get some insights on her past and current standing, as well as on where she was going. It should be noted, in addition, that this study of a person’s individuality should be made in person, not by merely figuring where and when she was born, because any number of life facts, up to and including what you did in the morning, influenced how you were to interpret the analogy." (Alexander Gieg, BA in Philosophy)
It makes sense to me. I believe there's so much more to sun signs than the silly horoscope interpretations. I have found most people, individually possess the characteristics inherent to each sun sign, that they are born under. There's got to be something to that, alone. There's just more theory than anything applied here. Not a great deal of science. I ask you to consider the amount of research and work that goes into natal/birth charts, planetary alignments - astrologically speaking, surely, it must mean something? Yes, some of it can be incredibly general and skeptics may say we apply what speaks to us individually because we want something to believe in. We want celestial involvement. I would recommend if any of this is intriguing to read up a little on the Theory of Astrology. I'm no scientist, I'm not a professor, I have no claims of being an astrologer and my formal education is limited to less than an AA. I haven't read a birth chart in over 20 years. Nor would I, because there's so much more to the process now and it's such a specific and definitive chart based on your true date of birth, not just the date, but the time, the year, etc... I know I get way to squirrelly to stay focused.
Because I like to include information to support my own thoughts or beliefs or sometimes the written word behind what's inspired the post - I'm going to include some negativity that refutes Astrology. Published in 1985 in Nature, (one of the world's leading scientific publications) was The Carlson Double-Blind Study. To date, it is still one of the strongest indictments against Astrology. An article by Ken McRitchie points out the flaws of this study. "These flaws include: no disclosure of similar scientific studies, unfairly skewed design, disregard for its own stated criteria of evaluation, irrelevant groupings of data, rejection of unexpected results, and an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. Yet, when the stated measurement criteria are applied and the data is evaluated according to normal social science, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provide evidence that is consistent with astrology (p = .054 with ES = .15, and p = .037 with ES = .10). These extraordinary results give further testimony to the power of data ranking and rating methods, which have been successfully used in previous astrological experiments. A critical discussion on follow-up studies by McGrew and McFall (1990), Nanninga (1996/97), and Wyman and Vyse (2008) is also included."
I digress. I still like the idea that the galaxy beyond us can have such a substantial impact on our everyday little lives. Perhaps, I just want something to believe in, it doesn't really matter, I honestly just wanted to share.
Aries, as characterized by various astrologers ; are bold, energetic, adventurous, pioneering, courageous and brave, enthusiastic, confident and on occasion quick-witted. Selfish at times, quick-tempered, self-sacrificing for others, impulsive and impatient. Will boldly go where no one is willing to tread. I'm the first sign on the zodiac, so innately we think we have to be first (translates to selfish - which contradicts self-sacrificing) fiercely competitive, fiery by nature, love a challenge and all about new beginnings and freedom. We do like our space. We are incredibly loyal to the people we love and care for and will fight to the death for them, as well as our principles and beliefs. We want to lead, we do NOT like being told what to do and often find it offensive that someone wants us to obey them. Mostly because we are more fully capable of leading and truly despise the idea of following, we're also very headstrong and independent. We are frank, direct and often candid. That's not always well received and some may find it difficult to relate to us. However, we are exciting and others like to be around our energy and humor.
I like to think I am unique, even if only in my own head.
***Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist, November 18, 2012
I believe, because physicists and mathematicians also believe there is scientific proof that it is possible. You see there are four forces at work with planetary movement (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear-strong and nuclear-weak) - however, only two of the four have the potential to affect us. Gravity and electromagnetism can affect things over distances. So, that being said if the planets have any affect on us, it would be one or both of these forces.
The Moon's gravity obviously greatly affects our tides, but it's electrical field is essentially zero. Not exactly zero - but effectively, thus making the magnetic field non-existent because it's so random and scattered. Gravity is much more powerful than the electromagnetic fields, no matter how tiny the impact is between planets - it's still enough to create a domino effect.
***"The Moon’s gravity causes tides, but effectively nothing else. The Sun’s gravity has about 40% of the Moon’s influence and Jupiter, which completely dwarfs the effects of all of the other planets combined, has about 1 two-hundred-thousandth of the Moon’s tidal effect. Point is, our understanding of the known forces of the universe preclude the idea of the planets and stars having any direct influence on people." So to be fair, nothing is conclusive, science likes to be exact."
Though the evolution of all things scientific and/or researched and proven, begins with theory ...
***"So the better question isn’t “can so-called ‘science’ explain astrological effects?” but instead “are there astrological effects?”. There has been a lot of research into astrological phenomena, but so far all of the results have been negative or unrepeatable (science talk for “this isn’t a thing”). Since the 18th or 19th century the scientific community has pretty much stopped looking, but they were at it for a very long time. There aren’t many scientific papers that seriously investigate this sort of thing, partly because the results are well-known, and partly because the experiments involved are easy enough that they tend to show up in middle-school science fairs relatively often (this is also why there are no articles in Nature about baking soda and vinegar volcanoes)."
"That said, I’d like to provide some point on what I see as a flawed take on the subject. You see, my formation is as a Philosopher, and when studying Classic, Medieval and Renascence philosophies, there’s no working around the need to obtain at least some theoretical understanding of Astrology, as those older thinkers used to take it into account or at least talk about it. And in so doing, one of the most interesting realizations at which one arrives is that the actual theoretical basis for Astrology had almost nothing to do with Physics. In fact, Physics entered the picture (and the discussion) more or less at the time it began showing its many awesome results, circa 17th century or so. Before that, however, nope, it’s nowhere to be seen. Furthermore, due to Physics not being part of it, it also wasn’t thought that the planets influenced people directly, and much less that such direct influence happened by way of some kind of energy field, force or the like, concepts that simply didn’t exist back then.
So, what did Astrology (and astrologers) actually believe? In something called “analogy” (not to be confused with the literary concept). The notion was more or less this: given that the universe and you form a single whole, it comes that “you” equals “universe minus everything that isn’t you”, or, put another way, that there’s a correlation between whatever happens with you and whatever happens to everything else. So, if you could find a regularity “out there”, that would correspond to a regularity “in here”. And what are the only absolute regularities we find in a world otherwise completely random? The planetary movements. Thus, by studying the planetary movements then correlating the “analogous” internal movements they revealed with a person’s specific, individual characteristics, you’d be able to get some insights on her past and current standing, as well as on where she was going. It should be noted, in addition, that this study of a person’s individuality should be made in person, not by merely figuring where and when she was born, because any number of life facts, up to and including what you did in the morning, influenced how you were to interpret the analogy." (Alexander Gieg, BA in Philosophy)
It makes sense to me. I believe there's so much more to sun signs than the silly horoscope interpretations. I have found most people, individually possess the characteristics inherent to each sun sign, that they are born under. There's got to be something to that, alone. There's just more theory than anything applied here. Not a great deal of science. I ask you to consider the amount of research and work that goes into natal/birth charts, planetary alignments - astrologically speaking, surely, it must mean something? Yes, some of it can be incredibly general and skeptics may say we apply what speaks to us individually because we want something to believe in. We want celestial involvement. I would recommend if any of this is intriguing to read up a little on the Theory of Astrology. I'm no scientist, I'm not a professor, I have no claims of being an astrologer and my formal education is limited to less than an AA. I haven't read a birth chart in over 20 years. Nor would I, because there's so much more to the process now and it's such a specific and definitive chart based on your true date of birth, not just the date, but the time, the year, etc... I know I get way to squirrelly to stay focused.
Because I like to include information to support my own thoughts or beliefs or sometimes the written word behind what's inspired the post - I'm going to include some negativity that refutes Astrology. Published in 1985 in Nature, (one of the world's leading scientific publications) was The Carlson Double-Blind Study. To date, it is still one of the strongest indictments against Astrology. An article by Ken McRitchie points out the flaws of this study. "These flaws include: no disclosure of similar scientific studies, unfairly skewed design, disregard for its own stated criteria of evaluation, irrelevant groupings of data, rejection of unexpected results, and an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. Yet, when the stated measurement criteria are applied and the data is evaluated according to normal social science, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provide evidence that is consistent with astrology (p = .054 with ES = .15, and p = .037 with ES = .10). These extraordinary results give further testimony to the power of data ranking and rating methods, which have been successfully used in previous astrological experiments. A critical discussion on follow-up studies by McGrew and McFall (1990), Nanninga (1996/97), and Wyman and Vyse (2008) is also included."
I digress. I still like the idea that the galaxy beyond us can have such a substantial impact on our everyday little lives. Perhaps, I just want something to believe in, it doesn't really matter, I honestly just wanted to share.
Aries, as characterized by various astrologers ; are bold, energetic, adventurous, pioneering, courageous and brave, enthusiastic, confident and on occasion quick-witted. Selfish at times, quick-tempered, self-sacrificing for others, impulsive and impatient. Will boldly go where no one is willing to tread. I'm the first sign on the zodiac, so innately we think we have to be first (translates to selfish - which contradicts self-sacrificing) fiercely competitive, fiery by nature, love a challenge and all about new beginnings and freedom. We do like our space. We are incredibly loyal to the people we love and care for and will fight to the death for them, as well as our principles and beliefs. We want to lead, we do NOT like being told what to do and often find it offensive that someone wants us to obey them. Mostly because we are more fully capable of leading and truly despise the idea of following, we're also very headstrong and independent. We are frank, direct and often candid. That's not always well received and some may find it difficult to relate to us. However, we are exciting and others like to be around our energy and humor.
I like to think I am unique, even if only in my own head.
***Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist, November 18, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment