Principle of Astrology Proven to be Scientific!

reply to post by bsbray11


Well, I can't speak for all the other posters here, but for myself I responded to the fact that the title of this thread is totally erroneous. The research was about the effect of daylight hours vs. night hours on circadian rhythms...it had nothing to do with astronomy whatsoever. In fact, since the daylight/nighttime hours were artificially produced in a lab, the results suggest the total opposite of the thread title: that the position of the planets have nothing to do with circadian rhythms.

I would wager that you didn't read the source article...and you definitely didn't read the original research article so grossly misquoted by the Natural News.

Originally posted by OnceReturned

There are no astrological forces at work here. The position of the planets have nothing to do with the observed effect; there is no mechanism by which they can exert a significant influence on biology, they are too far away. There are seasonal changes that occur within the mother that could account for the results much better than some mysterious influence coming from Jupiter or Mars.

There are clear physiological changes in many animals that are associated with the seasons.

Precisely like how the reproductive urges of animals and their ovulation are set by a 28 day lunar cycle or in the case of other animals by a 12 month cycle.... Now how do you suppose that works?

Do animals have lunar calandars?
If not then there is some process at work

....It's reasonable to suspect that these changes could influence the animals offspring. As the seasons change, the position of the planets changes also, but this is irrelevent; it just happens to be something that is occuring, it's not causing anything at the biological level.

and your proof that it is not something acting at the biological level is what scientific study?

The theory of astrology isn't really a theory until some causal mechanism is proposed, and as long as that mechanism is magic, we shouldn't take it too seriously.

The solar flux is a plasma field and various planets moving through that plasma field cause their own peturbations on the field strength and polarity of the plasma.

Of course in a hundred years from now when these effects are understood and better studied astrologers will no longer be viewed as supersticious heretics.

Consider this text from published article linked above:

Environmental factors, particularly light, can markedly influence neural development1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It is known that seasonal light input can acutely reorganize the mature biological clock located in the suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN)6, but whether development under different seasonal photoperiods can imprint the mammalian circadian clock is unknown. We exposed mice to different seasonal developmental photoperiods (short day, light:dark (LD) 8:16; long day, 16:8) until weaning, followed by 4 weeks of a matching or counter-balanced continuation seasonal photoperiod. At approximately 7 weeks of age, we either assayed the properties of their SCN circadian clocks by ex vivo imaging of a dynamic fluorescent reporter of circadian gene activity (as in ref. 7, see Supplementary Methods) or recorded wheel-running behavior in constant darkness (Supplementary Fig. 1). All animal care was conducted in accordance with Vanderbilt University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines. In mature mice raised on LD 12:12 light cycles, seasonal photoperiod has been shown to be encoded by altering the relative peak times of individual neuronal electrical or molecular rhythms in the SCN, with long days eliciting more dispersed timing of neuronal rhythms and a broadened overall rhythmic waveform, and short days eliciting an increased degree of neuronal synchrony and a narrowed SCN waveform8, 9, 10. Analysis of the main effects of the proximal continuation photoperiod with our mouse line and reporter imaging method revealed similar findings, with long days eliciting SCN molecular waveform broadening, primarily as a result of increased variation in the phases of individual clock neurons, but with substantial changes in neuronal waveform and period as well (Supplementary Results, Supplementary Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 1).

Funny that sounds like just the same effect one would expect from a plasma field showering a stream of electrons and beta particles on the earth. Plasma fields have two particles, free photons and free electrons. In plasma fields with Xray energies thay can also involve free protons or neutrons.

So if you accept that bombardment with extra light energy can cause changes to imprint at birth, then why not photons from plasma fields?

The authors are investigating the effects of seasonal lighting conditions, not the position of the planets. Their experiment was completely disconnected from the actual seasons; their lighting conditions were artifical. They didn't even test mice born in different calendar seasons. They varied the artificial light in order to mimic the lighting conditions of different seasons.

The experimental conditions rule out the astrological explanation without a doubt. (Thats not to say that astrology is disproven by this study, only that it is a matter of fact that this study does not support astrology.)

edit on 12/26/10 by OnceReturned because: To add.

The selective rejection of findings to suit your own beliefs can deliver any result you choose to interpret from this study.

I am quite confident that some day the process will be understood and i do not view it as supersticious to look for a scientific explanation to an observed effect.

The practice of astrology whether you reject it or not has a serious basis and has observed the effects over a long period of human history. Astrologers do not claim it is magic. That is your interpretation.

Originally posted by avocadoshag
I would wager that you didn't read the source article...and you definitely didn't read the original research article so grossly misquoted by the Natural News.

No, I read it, and I haven't disputed anything you've said.

I'm only making observations on the behavior of the people who are posting, such as yourself since you've volunteered to antagonize my post, who only find the article interesting as an opportunity to exercise traditional "skeptic" dogmas.

Something in my first post must have struck some chord with you for you to have responded to it at all, and you're responding exactly as if I'm intruding into your belief system by just pointing it out.

reply to post by sy.gunson


I don't have an "interpretation." The article doesn't support astrology or any other nonsense; the only phenomenon under investigation was the effect of lighting conditions during pregnancy on the offspring. This has nothing to do with plasma fields or lunar cycles. Did you read the thing that we're talking about?

reply to post by bsbray11


You have said nothing about the article in question or the experiment that it refers to. You've only expressed your distaste for skeptics. Allow me to express my distaste for baseless, trivial, and off-topic rants that intentionally side-step the issue in order to promote an uninformed attitude among those who don't care to read or think about what's actually being discussed.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
You have said nothing about the article in question or the experiment that it refers to. You've only expressed your distaste for skeptics. Allow me to express my distaste for baseless, trivial, and off-topic rants that intentionally side-step the issue in order to promote an uninformed attitude among those who don't care to read or think about what's actually being discussed.

What I said was in regard to behaviors that are evident in response to the OP. If there was some direct scientific proof of astrological principles, I don't doubt for a second you would see the same people here doing the same thing, instantly looking to pick apart the idea before considering the new implications of what is being shown.

The OP shows that the season you are born in, can affect physiological development through at least one mechanism. This actually isn't a new development. I've followed similar studies in psychology magazines that were done prior to this, that showed similar results. Now I find this to be a very interesting concept in itself.

Instead of any discussion about this discovery, which isn't new, we have a string of people hung up on the fact that the article is associating this discovery with ancients principles of astrology, and of course we can't give any credibility to that because it's some kind of dogmatic taboo you've inherited like the 12 monkeys. The mechanisms can be manipulated using indoor lighting, yes, but did the ancients have indoor lighting? No, so in their primitive views of the world they could have very well already realized the patterns we are only now beginning to rediscover in greater detail through science, since all of their lighting would have been provided by the Sun and would have naturally changed throughout the seasons just like the article the OP is talking about. I notice none of you "skeptics" put any thought into that direction. No, you prefer to come in trying to tear the whole idea down, baby and bathwater and all, just because you find the idea of scientific validation of astrological ideas either offensive or frightening. Instead of learning something new, you've just taken the opportunity to assert your "skepticism" and totally deny the article, and yourselves of an opportunity to learn something.

What I don't like is when people think of themselves as "skeptics" but really are just "believers" of another kind. They are only "skeptical" of things that go against what they already believe, just like any Christian, New Ager, conservative, liberal, Muslim or what you like. You all have dogmas of your own which are nothing but reactions to these other belief systems, to constantly deny them and thus reinforce your rejection of them. I am the true skeptic because I question ALL OF IT, including what you THINK is correct based on simple rejections of other perspectives! "Oh, that can't be true, everyone knows astrology is trash and has been debunked hundreds of times etc etc..." But "Not so fast" will say a true skeptic, who is really questioning everything. True skepticism is not a belief system, it is an attitude. What you see throughout this thread is people assembling to assert their personal belief systems in reaction to ideas they already disagreed with.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

I don't have an "interpretation." The article doesn't support astrology or any other nonsense; the only phenomenon under investigation was the effect of lighting conditions during pregnancy on the offspring. This has nothing to do with plasma fields or lunar cycles. Did you read the thing that we're talking about?

Duh... Lightning is plasma

If you don't get even that much then perhaps you're not informed enough to discuss the issue knowledgably?


As for Lunar cycles the syncronicity is well known and long observed. Now how do you explain the motion of the Moon's orbit affecting the reproduction of animals and reptiles?

You have no explanation.

Originally posted by OnceReturned

There are no astrological forces at work here. The position of the planets have nothing to do with the observed effect;

Says you... You have no explanation yourself for the "observed effect"

....there is no mechanism by which they can exert a significant influence on biology, they are too far away.

Sez you with no alternative explanation of any other mechanism.

There are seasonal changes that occur within the mother that could account for the results much better...

Such as?

There are clear physiological changes in many animals that are associated with the seasons.

Fancy that.... so how does that seaonal change operate on the biochemistry?

It's reasonable to suspect that these changes could influence the animals offspring.

Couldn't agree more. It's unreasonable to dismiss a link suggested by a scientific study purely because it clashes with your beliefs.

Would it be possible then to associate certain basic behaviors with the corresponding month that the behavior occurs in? From what I understand of the article, the time of the year impacts the development of the brain which affects the overall personality.

If this study is true, then a survey collecting data on a person’s personality and their date of birth would yield results showing some sort of correlation, albeit in a very general way, correct?

The only way that astrology could ever be proven is to show that the different planets radiate or reflect some sort of energy that interacts with us, just as the sun gives off sunlight which travels to earth, then once that is established it would have to correlate with a certain behavior. This hasn’t been proven, and I don’t see how it can be possible, so for now I remain skeptical.

While I do not believe the premise of astrology to be scientifically accurate, I still think astrology is a wonderful tool for spiritual and personal development. By categorizing our personalities and lives into distinct behaviors and situations, we can become more aware of our strengths and weaknesses and use the remedies prescribed by astrology to grow as an individual.

For example, let’s say someone is looking at my horoscope and says that I have mars opposite venus in the seventh house giving me some relationship problems because of my trust issues. The astrologer then provides a remedy by saying the venus trine uranus in the eleventh house allows me to overcome this by practicing and developing unconditional and altruistic love. Even though it may have been totally made up and not particularly relevant to me, I still benefit because most people have some trust issues to a certain degree so anybody is able to apply the vague advice that is given. Furthermore, unconditional and altruistic love can never be a bad thing, so as long as I really believe in astrology and that whatever the astrologer is telling me is true, then I come out of the experience a better person.

Most people that get astrology readings do believe it helps them and if it gets them to make some positive changes in their life, then great. Whatever works. It really doesn’t matter if the science behind it is totally bogus.

reply to post by Epiphron


Pretty much agree with you Epiphron about the difficulties proving it and the need for more in depth study.

Even in astrology everything is qualified by a set of rules or principles so that it is not just when you were born, but whether planets were retrograde, where planets were in reference to your time of birth etc so that no two Leos or scorpios are the same merely by virtue of sharing the same birth month etc.

Such a study would have to be a blind study with astrologers predicting certain values by their methods and scientists observing by theirs.

Irrespective I see no contradiction with science if planets move through a plasma disturbing field strengths and directions.

The church once taught that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.

Calling astrology magic is a cheap, simplistic slurr. A few centuries ago some of the greatest intellectual minds were exiled for heresy, whom today we accept as scientific geniuses. Their views eventually disproved the narrow minded bigotry of religion but not before those persons were cruelly mistreated.

When the practice of astrology has to suffer the same cruel denouncement today in 2011, in our supposedly enlightened, democratic age of free speech, then is it no wonder it exists shoulder by shoulder with other unconventional beliefs?

Nobody expects everyone to agree with astrology, however it is a widely accepted belief that deserves an opportunity to justify itself through scientific analysis.

If the skeptics are so hostile to scientific studies then one wonders what are skeptics so afraid of ?

Credibility and respectability for those beliefs?

reply to post by sy.gunson


Yes, the scorn and ridicule that astrology receives by society is largely undeserved. It doesn’t do anybody any good when we laugh at the beliefs of others.

I think the main problem that the scientific community has with astrology is that it makes the claim that the planets affect us but fails to explain how. The whole purpose of science is explaining how things work, so if a claim is made without an explanation as to how, then they can't test it. That's where the 'magic' ridicule comes in.

Nobody expects everyone to agree with astrology, however it is a widely accepted belief that deserves an opportunity to justify itself through scientific analysis.

I wholly agree, there have been studies in the past that claim to have debunked astrology, but I believe larger and more comprehensive studies are needed. The problem is that legitimate researchers, even if they are willing to risk their career and reputation by studying astrology, have a hard time getting funding for that sort of research.

Here’s a website for anyone interested in the current state of research in astrology.

Astrology Research

The RGCSA is an independent research group, which has been set up to monitor standards of research in astrology and promote the use of sound scientific methods in empirical studies.