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Why have the SCIENCES of Navigation, Map Making, and Astronomy relied on those same out of date bits of information for so very long and yet, you view them as legit and accurate?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?
My how things always stay the same, changing only by matter of pursued perspective.