posted July 07, 2007 05:53 PM            

"Superstring theory and other esoteric advances in physics….are revealing that our reality is embedded in a much more expansive, higher-dimensional realm of pure energy – or pure spirit….
The discovery of quantum nonlocality – the ability of particles to exert subtle influences on each other instantaneously across vast distances – is confirming the ancient mystical teaching that all things are profoundly interconnected. Quantum nonlocality might also explain extrasensory perception…. As well as the miraculous healing that results from prayer and other spiritual practices."

posted July 07, 2007 06:13 PM            

This was the one you originally posted: http://www.astrosurf.com/nitschelm/astr_usa.html

posted July 07, 2007 06:19 PM            

how does that happen?

the above posted was one I couldn't make heads or tails from.

posted July 07, 2007 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

Scientific merit?

Thomas Aquinas, medieval theologian extraordinaire, believed that if the moon could influence the tides of the ocean, then there was no reason why the planets couldn’t influence mankind. But even if we assume that ancient symbolism for various constellations is credible, can we honestly believe that the planets and stars making up these constellations exert a force on human beings at the time of birth that infuses them with character traits that pertain to these constellations?

For astrology to gain any scientific merit, a form of energy must be proven to extend from a constellation and have direct effect on the human body. The most likely candidates, science’s two most powerful types of energy, are gravity and electromagnetism.

---

Zala

posted July 08, 2007 06:53 AM            

(seriously, do you actually know how 'scientific validity' is defined, measured and calculated? well... there's nothing 'scientific about it; it's all aproximations and umm.... human choices)

posted July 08, 2007 07:14 AM            

It maddens me when I have to explain to stupids that nothing ‘causes’ anything in this world – that things go about following their own nature – being themselves sort to speak.

When you add 1 to another 1, there’s no law that obliges them to ‘make’ a 2. only IF a human choice intervenes and decides to keep them confined to a GIVEN area (say ‘positive numbers’), they will always behave in the expected way – and that would be the given one. the one the human decided before hand!

So – only a primitive expects to find ‘causes’ in the natural universe. And only a 4 year old would be amazed that the vase fell 3 meters away when I pulled the cord (simply cos the cord extending to the vase is not visible). and that 4 yo would look for cords everywhere - and that's called 'magical thinking' ('I make things happen in the world', "there ahs to be a cord', 'thing happen when there is smb psuhing/puling them').

The line of thought along the lines of “stars causing people to do or be anything’ is beyond simplistic – is plain stupid.

We ‘read’ the stars bc our human nature makes us unable to see what’s right under our noses – but we can easier see what’s further away. We also forgot how to read the ‘human-signs’. Well… most of us, anyways… thankfully, astrology was written down and we can still learn it today.

Science is just a modern language we invented when we realised that we have no idea about the universe we inhabit. We INVENTED science.

posted July 08, 2007 08:38 AM              

I don't really look at astrology as a hard science, but more of a social science. I feel it's more like a soft science, such as psychology. It's like psychology with a twist.

It is a lot like psychology to me. It delves into what makes people tick. It asks people to look into themselves and others.

I do believe there is some validity to astrology. I can't overlook (no matter how much logic wants me to) that certain signs are so their sign; so much so that I can guess their sign or element almost always. Also, certain transits seem to really be on the money.

However,there was a study done and people were given natal charts to read. Most of the people said it sounded just like them. It fit their personality to a T. The catch? The charts were fake. They were for birth dates and times that were deliberately inaccurate.

On the other hand, the scientist who did the study was astounded by how well one could predict occupations by astrology sign. It was uncanny, he said.

I love astrology. It's fun. It's a hobby. It's tres interesting. Would I base my life or decisions on it? Hell no!

Is it accurate? Yes, I've found it uncanny just how accurate my chart and others I know have been. That said, I, and others, could really sound like most signs, in general. There are some I could never identify with, like Sun in Cancer, for example, but generally, people are so complex that they will be able to see something of themselves in a description. Think about it!

And how many times have we seen people find out their ascendant is different? These people have identified with their ascendant, and then, Boom, they find out it was wrong and can't believe it. But they usually can identify with their new one.

I think a lot of times astrology can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people are told they have a bad or good transit they will act in concert with that.

I see so many people trying to make synastry work. They will use a bijillion obscure asteroids just to get a trine or whatever. It's actually sad to watch. And I want to say, just because your astrological synastry isn't perfect, doesn't mean your relationship isn't special. You make your destiny to a very large extent.

I'm not saying I think astrology is bunk. I wouldn't be so interested in it if I felt that way. I do think people need to take it with a grain of salt and realize their destiny is not carved in the stars. There is always free will.

I do think humans are affected by the gravitational pull of the planets. We are all electricity and water. I've seen people affected by the full moons, even when I didn't know there was a full moon. This was in a hospital setting. The patients would get nuts! We always could tell it was a full moon without looking. I have no logic to explain that.

I would love to see, or conduct, more studies. Until then, there will always be an internal debate regarding it. But it is always interesting.

posted July 08, 2007 10:53 AM            

quote:

---

It maddens me when I have to explain to stupids that nothing ‘causes’ anything in this world – that things go about following their own nature – being themselves sort to speak.

---

I liked John Horgan's book -- it's encouraging to see "scientists," "validating" with their "scientific methods," something that "mystics" have advocated for thousands of years It's nice to see them adapting their "rules" to embrace new information.

quote:

---

It maddens me when I have to explain to stupids

---

posted July 15, 2007 08:52 AM              

You could have relative absolutes based on given conditions...that the water molecules in the given example would slowly absorb the heat, and with increased movement eventually escape as gas...but then again, we still don't know much...how much do we know about the matter of the universe? Yeah, about the portion that makes up six percent of its constitution and still nothing about dark matter.

posted July 15, 2007 09:16 AM            

Someone asked if Jung used charts in his research. I remember reading that he could take a pile of natal charts and "match up" the married couples without ever meeting the people. The "one" he made a mistake on, ended up leaving their spouse for the one he thought was their significant other in the first place. Unfortunately, they didn't say what criteria he was using.

posted July 15, 2007 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

I don't think of astrology as a science.....more as a language. A beautiful symbolic language that for reasons I don't fully understand; describes our shadow, our light and our evolutionary growth.

---

HD, got a bang out of the Planet-Vibe-Beams-From-Space pic

Cristina, you do have a point I think we must first define “science” before we can ask if Astrology is a branch of it…..