Re: Scientific Evidence for Astrology

3
This is geocosmic effects - not astrology.

Planets generating gravitational resonances in the sun or the moon pulling on the tides is not astrology nor proof of it as it is practiced and taught. Astrologers are never seen consulting tide tables nor sunspot cycles to do astrology. Astrology is based on arcane symbolism (eg signs, rulerships etc), not on geocosmic physics.

There does appear to be some correlation to the signs and seasons, but again that is based on seasonal symbolism confined to a particular region and culture in the northern hemisphere and thereby not globally relevant.

Already known?

5
Good evening,

Professor Dr. Percy Seymour, astrophysicist, has proposed similar material underpinnings for astrology in his books for quite some time. His work and that of Michel Gauquelin have met rejection by many if not most scientists and astrologers who have even bothered to read, study and comment, most of the latter apparently being much more content to indulge in speculation than to endeavour in diligent research.

Until the 17th century CE, astronomy and astrology were practised as two sides of the same coin by such persons as Johannes Kepler. Al-Birini's approach was similar: astronomy investigates celestial phenomena and records them accurately, produces better ephemerides and the like. Astrology explains what these phenomena mean in the various realms of existence. However, even the two words were not clearly distinguished from each other, such was the interpenetration.

Since Ren? Descartes science has generally one-sidedly concentrated on material and efficient causes whilst neglecting formal and final causes. Many astrologers have withdrawn into their ivory shells and towers of the past, unconcerned with developments in astronomy, often seeking astrological salvation in ancient texts.

My humble opinion is that essentially nothing has changed: astrology and astronomy remain two sides of the same coin.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.