View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

New Astrology Signs

Discuss Divination, Fortune Telling - Astrology, Tarot, Runes, I Ching, Tea Leaves, etc. and Predictions.

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby really? » 18 Jan 2011, 03:39

Arouet wrote:
really? wrote:
Arouet wrote:Actually, the more interesting thing here is the realization that western astrologers realised the stars were changing 2000 years ago and decoupled the signs from the stars and assigned them to seasons. So all this astrology mumbo-jumbo has actually had very little to do with the stars for a very long time!


I thought modern astrologers were still behind the times by not accounting for earth's precession over the centuries. Would you cite a reference.


The JREF guys have a decent discussion: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=197630


After reading it appears astrologers remain behind the times.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Craig Browning » 18 Jan 2011, 23:22

NinjaPuppy... thanks and do understand that I'm not "trying" to be an ass (some say it's my natural state of being) but with all the "things" I have to juggle any kind of "change" results in personal frustration (and yes, we're talking about mental function and the joys of MS). Looking at a screen that is familiar (a very old friend in fact) and finding that "the rules have changed" simply throws me into a tail spin. . . in this case I've voiced my opinion in that it makes absolutely no sense UNLESS someone wishes to avoid TED seminar & lecture posts that can quickly shoot down pro-conspiracy/lunacy & New Age cult-thinking scenarios (which this forum and unfortunately, our host, seem to roll in like a pig in mud). . . understand, I believe everyone should be able to bring up such things and why they do or don't support such. I just think that we should be able to rely on more than YouTube and Wiki-ish sources as being "authoritative" if you get my drift. . . and too, we need to keep things simple when it comes to our ability to share information rather than going out of "our" way to be "special" -- use what works as it has been working rather than trying to "fix it." :?


Enough though. . . I'm confident Winston has heard my reasoning and contention. I just hope he'll now digest it and reconsider how things are presently, and elect to work with the tools this forum software comes with that allows for a more universal sense of "friendliness" :ugeek:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby derrida » 19 Jan 2011, 01:21

hi craig, one question
i know you do divination stuff and numerology and things like that
do you also use the astrological signs?
if that is so.. did any past customer call you and ask you about the new sign?

just curious
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Craig Browning » 20 Jan 2011, 05:59

derrida wrote:hi craig, one question
i know you do divination stuff and numerology and things like that
do you also use the astrological signs?
if that is so.. did any past customer call you and ask you about the new sign?

just curious


Astrology is one of those things I'm "obliged" to know something about because I do Readings but it's not something I'm all that "sold" on.

I've met a very, very small handful of Astrologers that were frighteningly accurate and interestingly, each one was able to draw out the same basic chart for me. . . but that's the rub. . . go to any three "Astrologers" (the one's that advertise and have a "high" level of profile) and order your Natal Chart; I'll lay money on it that every single chart will be different (UNLESS, they are using the same software or suffered through the same math/geometry professor). Like I said, I've known very, very few exceptions. . . three different individuals over the past 35 years and having met literally hundreds of people that THINK they're an Astrologer.

Even if you don't believe in Astrology you have to give serious kudos to the truests that dig in and literally DO THE MATH. Of the three I've encountered that I give some kudos to, two of them were just hobbyists and one of them was an actual Astronomer by trade (actually worked for NASA) This latter two were also full-time "geeks"... Brainiacs... rationalists... pick your favorite term... they weren't the sort to buy into a bunch of New Age tripe. The other gent was Methuselah's younger brother and was probably present when the first Wiseman noticed a certain eastern cluster of planets... he was old as dirt and had been doing charts for people for over 40 years. I'll call him George. . .

George always did duplicates on each chart he made, keeping one on file for those clients that may call or write seeking his counsel. But that's where the spooky stuff comes in; George could pin point almost to the minute, when you did certain things or when certain individual types and opportunities would present themselves. We're not talking about the generalities we see in cold reading formulas, I mean he'd use the actual names, SPECIFIC times, locations and all kinds of things that go well outside the assumed rules. In other words, old George is one of those "Psychics" that causes me to doubt my skepticism :twisted:


So yes, there are Astrologers that are more than worth one's time and money but sadly, they are few and far between, with the majority of them being very low profile peculiar recluse types with some exceptionally weird proclivities (George lives on a diet composed of nothing other than a mix of lemon-juice, pure maple syrup and a touch of cayenne pepper).
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Arouet » 20 Jan 2011, 06:18

Craig Browning wrote:Even if you don't believe in Astrology you have to give serious kudos to the truests that dig in and literally DO THE MATH.


What math though? Related to the stars? We now know that the signs have been completely unrelated to the stars for a couple thousand years, linked instead to the seasons. It's kind of like my mother in law, who lives out of town. The first time she came to our place we gave her directions. She got off at the wrong exit - knew that it was the wrong exit - but then proceeded to follow the directions as if it was the right exit! I had a secretary who did the same thing with work: she'd follow my instructions, but then a bump would happen, something unexpected, but instead of modifying what she had to do, just doggedly followed my initial instructions- which were now moot.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Craig Browning » 20 Jan 2011, 06:45

I could simplify it even more than what you're saying here... the breaking down of characteristics is seasonal and always has been, but there is a correlation to the celestial map as well... but IF you would actually read about Astrology itself and how charts are configured, even doing the physical work yourself. . . you may actually learn a little about something you are blindly bashing just because some pedigreed shmucko told you to...
... last I checked that was called contempt without investigation... judging a book by its cover... blindly accepting what others tell you to believe as fact... :roll:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Arouet » 20 Jan 2011, 07:21

Craig Browning wrote:I could simplify it even more than what you're saying here... the breaking down of characteristics is seasonal and always has been, but there is a correlation to the celestial map as well... but IF you would actually read about Astrology itself and how charts are configured, even doing the physical work yourself. . . you may actually learn a little about something you are blindly bashing just because some pedigreed shmucko told you to...
... last I checked that was called contempt without investigation... judging a book by its cover... blindly accepting what others tell you to believe as fact... :roll:


Well edumacate me: if the charts have never been updated to reflect the movement of the stars, how can the calculations have been correct? The stars are moving away from us every second as is the rest of the universe. This entails that the calculations should be adjusted relatively frequently. If they are not then they are simply arbitrary numbers.

It is true that I think it ridiculous that the positions of various celestial bodies would have an effect on a person's life, based solely on the time of birth I fail to see what the moment of someone's birth means at all: what is the difference between a baby five minutes after he is born and five minutes before he is born? Not much, aside from breathing and eating mechanisms. I'd having an easier time if the hypothesis was that these planets are always affecting us, on a daily basis. But locking it in based on an arbitrary point of someone's life (ie: the exiting of the womb)? Quite hard to swallow - at least scientifically.

Now, I haven't studied a lot about astrology its true. Can you give me a reason why its worth looking into further?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Craig Browning » 22 Jan 2011, 00:35

No... other than the fact that you will continue to look like another puffed up ass that wants to negate any and all modes of mysticism from life (like the majority of others standing in your little world view).

I'm not going to play this silly game. . . I will ask you however, given the superiority of Science & Rationalism and of course, your contention here with the whole star field expansion, how nothing would be "true" to the astrological maps of old, etc.

Why have the SCIENCES of Navigation, Map Making, and Astronomy relied on those same out of date bits of information for so very long and yet, you view them as legit and accurate? Why do Astronomers (in particular) still use Astrological references? After all, it's all bogus and means nothing, right?

So what portion of this very same knowledge and understanding (Astronomy did evolve out of Astrology after all, not the other way around) is so wrong for the elder "idea" but is perfectly fine and sound for the off-spring to rely on?


Yes, the universe is ever expanding... Blavatsky got laughed at and scorned by the great minds of science for saying this a century back, but now it's "law" and thus, proven fact. . . the Universe Expands and most likely Contracts... but hey, that's an old wives tale that can be traced back to the days of Babylon and other cultures with "mystical teachings" that said the very same things. . . the old mystics were nut cases for believing in it but the Clergy of Science are sanctified and validated when they plagiarizer that very same truth? :roll:

My how things always stay the same, changing only by matter of pursued perspective. :ugeek:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Arouet » 22 Jan 2011, 03:24

You know what Craig, I think I've caught onto your game. You, my friend, are full of crap. And by that I mean of the bullish kind. I don't believe you believe in Tarot or Astrology or mediumship or any of this stuff anymore than any skeptic on this board. You couch your language in so much ambiguity, seeming on the one hand to be saying you believe in psi, but never quite getting there.

What you don't like, is the skeptical approach and attitude - and it's often dismissive and even insulting tone. I agree with you to a certain extent on that and do try not to be rude in my comments. But you are not going to tell me that you think there is some legitimacy to astrology. You know very well that what astronomers do and what astrologers do is very different. You also know that astronomers don't put any particular relevance on the constellations other than as sky markers. So don't give me that crap.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Craig Browning » 23 Jan 2011, 05:10

As I said, my knowledge of Astrology and my "faith" in it is very limited and comes more out of the fact that I have to know some of it in order to respond to clients when I do Readings as well as when I'm doing shows. Other than the few instances I mentioned earlier, I have very little in way of reason, to give Astrology much attention. I do however find it curious that all these "sciences" rely on markers and zones that were first established by Astrologers thousands of years ago and that are now being mocked and puffed-off as being pure folly. Yet, "rationally minded" people like yourself seem to get bent when someone points out how so many "reliable" sciences depend on those same markers and haven't made any of the adjustments for them, for the same reason Astrology is being mocked presently.

No one likes having their perceptions and beliefs "challenged". . . but your reply is not disappointing, it's quite typical in fact.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Arouet » 23 Jan 2011, 05:51

Craig are you saying that actual astronomers have been using outdated data? Astronomers have known about this for a very long time. Can you point me to any astronomy that has been miscalculated?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Arouet » 23 Jan 2011, 07:49

Apparently not. From wiki:

In modern astronomy
Further information: Epoch (astronomy)

The zodiac is a spherical celestial coordinate system. It designates the ecliptic as its fundamental plane and the position of the Sun at Vernal equinox as its prime meridian.

In astronomy, the zodiacal constellations are a convenient way of marking the ecliptic (the Sun's path across the sky) and the path of the moon and planets along the ecliptic. Modern astronomy still uses tropical coordinates for predicting the positions the Sun, Moon, and planets, except longitude in the ecliptic coordinate system is numbered from 0° to 360°, not 0° to 30° within each sign. Longitude within individual signs was still being used as late as 1740 by Jacques Cassini in his Tables astronomiques.

Zodiac is also used to refer to the zodiacal cloud of dust grains that move among the planets and the zodiacal light that originates from their scattering of sunlight.

Unlike the zodiac signs in astrology, which are all thirty degrees in length, the astronomical constellations vary widely in size. The boundaries of all the constellations in the sky were set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 1930. This was, in essence, a mapping exercise to make the work of astronomers more efficient, and the boundaries of the constellations are not therefore in any meaningful sense an 'equivalent' to the zodiac signs. Along with the twelve original constellations, the boundaries of a thirteenth constellation, Ophiuchus (the serpent bearer), were set by astronomers within the bounds of the zodiac.


(wow, bolding really doesn't show up well on this site. The last paragraph is the most relevant.)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Craig Browning » 25 Jan 2011, 02:35

You did notice the date here... 1930?

If I recall (been a long time since I was involved with all of this. . .from a star watcher's position... so we're talking High School) this "IAU" exercise was done so as to deliberately segregate Astronomy from its parent. . . the ungrateful child it is. . . There was some similar action taken in the mid and late 1800's for the very same reason; the "scientists" getting tired of being forced into explaining away Astrological influence.

My favorite of these "let's make the intellects squirm" arguments is how, in one breath they explain the physics of gravity & frequency and how it keeps things "together" as a system and how each gravitational field affects everyone else within that system BUT, there is absolutely no affect on people, places & things on earth as the result of these physical factors and where they may be when one is conceived and later born. . . :roll: so, it affects "everything" but not us :shock:

To this same end, I love watching them trying to explain how study cases in which as many as 12 individuals born within five-minutes of one another and along the same general latitude each hit prime milestones in life that mirror one another's life accomplishments as well as the suggested paths & traits that have been taught by Astrologists for millennia.

:evil: This whole thing has lit a fire under my butt... guess I'm going to have to do some digg'n ... CURSE YOU RED BARON! :mrgreen:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby NinjaPuppy » 25 Jan 2011, 03:30

Arouet wrote:Apparently not. From wiki:

In modern astronomy
Further information: Epoch (astronomy)

The zodiac is a spherical celestial coordinate system. It designates the ecliptic as its fundamental plane and the position of the Sun at Vernal equinox as its prime meridian.

In astronomy, the zodiacal constellations are a convenient way of marking the ecliptic (the Sun's path across the sky) and the path of the moon and planets along the ecliptic. Modern astronomy still uses tropical coordinates for predicting the positions the Sun, Moon, and planets, except longitude in the ecliptic coordinate system is numbered from 0° to 360°, not 0° to 30° within each sign. Longitude within individual signs was still being used as late as 1740 by Jacques Cassini in his Tables astronomiques.

Zodiac is also used to refer to the zodiacal cloud of dust grains that move among the planets and the zodiacal light that originates from their scattering of sunlight.

Unlike the zodiac signs in astrology, which are all thirty degrees in length, the astronomical constellations vary widely in size. The boundaries of all the constellations in the sky were set by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in 1930. This was, in essence, a mapping exercise to make the work of astronomers more efficient, and the boundaries of the constellations are not therefore in any meaningful sense an 'equivalent' to the zodiac signs. Along with the twelve original constellations, the boundaries of a thirteenth constellation, Ophiuchus (the serpent bearer), were set by astronomers within the bounds of the zodiac.


(wow, bolding really doesn't show up well on this site. The last paragraph is the most relevant.)


Arouet - Use a color. It will show up better.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: New Astrology Signs

Postby Arouet » 25 Jan 2011, 05:36

Craig Browning wrote:My favorite of these "let's make the intellects squirm" arguments is how, in one breath they explain the physics of gravity & frequency and how it keeps things "together" as a system and how each gravitational field affects everyone else within that system BUT, there is absolutely no affect on people, places & things on earth as the result of these physical factors and where they may be when one is conceived and later born. . . :roll: so, it affects "everything" but not us :shock:


Whyever would there be a specific effect at the moment of conception or birth and not at every other time of our lives. What is so special about the moment of birth? What is the difference between a baby the second before he is born and the second after? Why would that particular point in time have a particular effect on a person but not every minute after that? I'd have an easier time accepting if you said that the movements of the planets were affecting us all the time, every day. Even if that is the case, why would it be the arbitrary stars in the constellations? Plus, these stars are REALLY far away! Some are hundreds of light years away - how much gravitational effect can they be expected to have on us. The Sun would be far more influential. Along with the other planets in our solar system.

To this same end, I love watching them trying to explain how study cases in which as many as 12 individuals born within five-minutes of one another and along the same general latitude each hit prime milestones in life that mirror one another's life accomplishments as well as the suggested paths & traits that have been taught by Astrologists for millennia.


Show me a well designed study that shows this.

:evil: This whole thing has lit a fire under my butt... guess I'm going to have to do some digg'n ... CURSE YOU RED BARON! :mrgreen:


haha, well, bring it on.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Divination / Fortune Telling / Predictions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest