Thoughts on Astrology

[evilalex]

it's a load of horseshit.

[PhoenixGeoff]

Scientists can be skeptical but the only honest answer they can give is, "maybe".

I guess the scientific response would be to come up with some kind of testable explanation for how astrology might work. Of the four known forces, only gravity would appear to be able to have any effect over the kinds of distances were talking about here, and the variance over a year in the gravitational effects from a particular star are so slight as to be inconceivably small.

Taking an example, I'm a Scorpio. The brightest star in the constellation is Antares, which has a mass of about 3.28 x 10^31 kg and a distance from the sun of about 5.68 x 10^18 m. Because the position of the Earth from the sun is 1.49 x 10^11 m, we can estimate the difference in force exerted by Antares on me (mass 1.0 x 10^2 kg) and see how it varies over the course of a year. (Newton's Law of Gravitation F=G( (m1xm2) / r^2 ) ) Crunching through the numbers, we end up with a variance in the force exerted by Antares on me over the course of a year is 3.56x10^-22 Newtons. (In other words, 0.000000000000000000000356 Newtons; by contrast, 1 Newton is about the equivalent of the force Earth's gravity exerts on a small apple). This force is so infinitesimally tiny that there's really no possible way it could affect me. By contrast, the gravitational force exerted on me by my car when I'm standing 5 meters away from it is 3.63 x 10^-7 Newtons, which absolutely overwhelms the force exerted on me by the star.

So none of the four known forces really can account for some kind of astrological effect. (The other three, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces all work over much, much smaller distances and so cannot account for any effect from distant objects like stars).

The other effect you mention, quantum entanglement, does indeed operate. Physicists have used entangled particles to create some really weird effects. But the particles need to be in proximity to become entangled, and I've never been anywhere near Antares. But supposing that there is an atom or two in my body that does somehow contain particles that are entangled with particles in Antares. We still would have to account for how the time of year I was born somehow results in my getting entangled particles from Antares rather than (say) entangled particles from Aldebaran, the brightest star in Taurus. But there's no mechanism to explain how this might happen, or indeed to explain how having particles entangled with other particles in a particular star might have any effect whatsoever on my personality.

So I'd suggest that there's no possible way that physics as we currently understand it can come up with any sort of hypothesis for how astrology could work. That's not to say that the understanding of physics won't necessarily change; there's some really exciting stuff coming out of the LHC at CERN for instance. But there's nothing right now that could possibly provide any sort of working hypothesis for how astrology might work.

Which means, I think, that the onus is on believers in astrology to provide some sort of rigorous data to show that astrology does produce reproducibly correct results. As far as I'm aware, that's never been demonstrated.

Now, on the other hand, you can, I think, make an argument that astrology (like tarot or other forms of divination) may be a tool that can help the astrologer focus an intuitive understanding of a person's psychology. It becomes a means to unconsciously engage other skills (like listening, observing body language, etc., but all subconsciously) to learn things about a person's behavior. In that sense, it might be a sort of indirect means to gaining some insights. But as a science, I don't think you can make the case.

And now I'm done with geeking out and am ready for a little sex, dammit!

[nastybottom]

I've found the personality traits of my astrological sign to be pretty accurate (Virgo). The horoscope rarely apply to me or anything in my life though. I read it in the paper just for the hell of it.

[HungLatinDom]

Science is just a system that is used to lead to more questions. Even the things we think we 'know' we don't know.

Like what? Gravity. We all deal with it but science can't tell you exactly what it is. The Big Bang. Things that are propelled by an explosion slow down from the point of the explosion. when we look at the stuff in the universe over a period of time we expected to find the spectral Doppler shift (like the sound of a car horn passing you but with light) indicating that things are slowing down. WRONG. Stuff is SPEEDING UP shooting away from the big bang. Science can't explain how.

So consider this: if you take two particles that are related and separate them, they still continue to act like they are attached. Science can't explain how.

We are the same stuff that makes up all the rest of the universe. Planets, stars, everything.

Science says that the gravity and radiation and all that from the stars and planets is really too weak to have any effect on people on earth. But we are the same stuff as the stars. Maybe some of the effects of the ways that things line up gets transferred to the particles that make us up?

Can science prove it? Nope? Can they disprove it? Nope.

Scientists can be skeptical but the only honest answer they can give is, "maybe".

According to your argument, science could not tell us if earth is really flat, you know. Just maybe.

Please do not mess the debate. The position of astrology is not "you are in quantum entanglement with a group of stars that is light years away in different directions, and that happen to look close when you look from here", it is "the time of the year when you are born affects your personality". And well, if you make a very exhaustive personality test and then correlate the results with the different months of the year, what do you get? Nothing: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html

There is no correlation.

What other evidence do you want?

[HungLatinDom]

ANd, by the way, when a belief tries to hide and claim it cannot be proved, it is not science. By definition, there has to be ways to prove that you are wrong, in order for it to be science.

[Archerben]

I couldn't care less what someones sign is, I want cum.

But I am a Virgo and a strict bottom, so whatever that means.

[xxww]

well i think its all bull shit and can care less about anyones sign but at the same time i do think its a bit sexy and i have found some relation with my sign im a scorpio so it may have truth

[uclatinosj]

Sagittarius

Optimistic and freedom-loving

Jovial and good-humored

Honest and straightforward

Intellectual and philosophical

Blindly optimistic and careless

Irresponsible and superficial

Tactless and restless

[pipesmokin'manfucker]

Astrology is superstitious, IMO.

BTW, I'm a Leo - for what it's worth, which ain't much. I've never asked a man I planned to fuck what his sign is because it couldn't possibly matter. A hot snug creamy manhole is hot, snug and creamy no matter the date the bottom was born on.

[TattPig]

So, here's the deal...When you are born, you have already existed for 9 months, you have been capable of living on your own for at least the past 2 or 3 months (if premature delivery), and your place in the universe changes physically by less than 2 feet, from inside the womb to outside it. The only difference between one state and the other is a few layers of tissue.

How in the world can that little change of location be of any significance in relation to objects millions, billions, trillions of miles away? Further, the "rules" of astrology were set down long before people knew how planets and stars worked, how far away they are, their difference in size, etc.

Pure bunk.

Did the superstitious people of old notice a difference in people born at different times of the year? Possibly. But they had no idea of the real causes, so they superimposed the motion of the planets on those observations.

For instance, in the present day, people born in the springtime have a statistically higher probability of committing suicide. Alignment of the stars? Nope. Evidence points to the increased probability that the mother drank more during Xmas/New Years' holiday celebrations, which may coincide with a particular developmental stage in the fetus' brain (4th, 5th, or 6th month). It's entirely possible that long ago the wide differences in seasonal food availability (poor overall diet in winter leading to vitamin deficiency, etc.) may have had an even greater effect on the mental and physical development of babies born at different times of the year. And that may explain the completely spurious notion of astrology. But that's just my opinion.

[Guest]

Virgo here. As a sub bottom, I feel it suits me well.

[GreenChaser]

libra- vers bi guy

[HungLatinDom]

Sagittarius

Optimistic and freedom-loving

Jovial and good-humored

Honest and straightforward

Intellectual and philosophical

Blindly optimistic and careless

Irresponsible and superficial

Tactless and restless

That's true for me many times. And I am not that sign. Any statement vague enough will fit almost everybody.