Thursday, 2 June 2011

NASA article supports Mundane Astrology

Once again I unfortunately caused quite a kerfuffle on an astronomical forum when I presented an article vindicating the effects of planetary lineups on the Sun. It was a position heartily opposed by most of the astronomers who replied, (namely men... few or no women took part in opposing astrology, which indicates once again that male-psychology rather than empirical rationale is responsible for materialist thinking.) 

Initially I had been criticized by several of the same commentators, (out of a forum of 10,000 members), for presenting 'old' information, when I dared to demonstrate the existence of John Nelson's pioneering work regarding line-ups in Electrical Engineering. John Nelson was an avid observer as well as radio operator. He did work for broadcasting companies which demonstrated that hard Ptolemaic aspects have a derogatory effect upon the propagation of electrical signal. When I presented this work in vindication of astrology I was informed by one commentator that this work was 'out of date'. Fair enough. 

Nelson's Observatory:

Nelson's work: 

Hard Aspects: 

Since Nelson's work is clearly obsolete and is therefore not good enough to prove the veracity of the basic principles underlying traditional Mundane astrology, I resorted to a recent N.A.S.A. article of 2007 which indicates that alignments do indeed cause solar storms, with a probability of less than one percent that they do not. (0.039 percent to be exact). 


Link to pdf:

On said forum, I had been informed that there was little or no effect of planets upon the Sun, or that such effect was insignificant. It had to be that way since astrology must be false, right? (I mean there is a clear historical path from astrology to astronomy just as there is a path from capitalism to communism.) Yet several commentators seemed to be quite taken aback by the existence of this article which ipso facto proves otherwise. The article categorically states: 

'Separately, from the daily position data of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, an 11-year planet alignment cycle (my emphasis) is observed to approximately match the sunspot cycle. This observation supports the hypothesis that the resonance and beat between the solar tide cycle and nontidal solar activity cycle influences the sunspot cycle and its varying magnitudes.' (article summary). 

There is more, much more. Various articles state that solar storms appear to be responsible for earthquakes. Thus, alignments are also responsible for earthquakes since they trigger solar storms, (sunspots).... It's an unfortunate scientific and practical reality for many, even though it is seen as 'superstition'. ( Tamrazyan, Gurgen P. (1968). "Principal Regularities in the Distribution of Major Earthquakes Relative to Solar and Lunar Tides and Other Cosmic Forces". ICARUS (Elsevier) 9: pp. 574–592 )

Since I had dared to challenge orthodoxy, I was informed I was cherry picking. (It appears that 'Cherry picking' is to search for specific information pertaining to one's case.) I realized that one problem interfering with the path to a broader understanding was the definition of astrology itself. Many of the people on said forum were actually assuming that mundane astrology was the same was horoscope astrology. They thought that if one of their horoscopes was wrong, once or twice in their lifetime, then it invalidated a 6000 year old and assiduously compiled tradition, which has been supported by such giants as Claudius Ptolemy, (who compiled the much older Egyptian and Sumerian traditions into Tetrabiblos), Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and now a journal of the North American Space Agency (N.A.S.A). There is of course some relation between horoscope and Mundane astrology, but horoscope astrology is more a Greek fad from just before the age of Christ. The constellations have now shifted a gear since then such that astrological constellation does not match the constellation in the sky, as they once did. Thus synchronicity is perhaps the only way it can still work, if it ever did. 

Mundane astrology, which I will always champion, is far far older and is concerned with a study of weather cycles based upon the effects of planets upon the Sun. Chronologically it goes something like this.... 100,000 BC = The development of 'Mundane' = World Events Astrology. (Mundus = World). 300BC is more the time of the development of Horoscope astrology. The late great Stan Gooch would have gone further in his analysis. The title says it all: Dream culture of the Neanderthals, retitled from an earlier work, in 2003. With their immense minds of 1600cc, the Neadnerthals may have been far more aware than astrologers are today, regarding historical cycles and changes. Neanderthals have been in Europe for 500,000 years. We can only imagine what knowledge they would have passed down before they were wiped out in the race wars of 9000 BC in Northern Europe, before being forced to flee to the Pyrenees, Britain, the Caucasus mountains, and Japan, for safety. 

Mundane astrology is also found in the Holy Book... Seven years of plenty and seven years of harvest were worked out by the royal astrologer for Pharoah by a long term study of cycles. Since the Bible wanted to remove 'black magic', astrology was expunged as it perhaps unfairly came under the category of 'divination' = searching for synchronicity. This is not the case in mundane astrology, only horoscope astrology. In defense of horoscope astrology however, I will say this... it is commonly criticized as being rather psychological and therefore not scientific. This is true. The only problem with the application of this reasoning is that day-to-day human life is entirely psychological and not conducted in a scientific manner either.  

The good thing about Mundane astrology is that it is entirely empirical. In other words it is based entirely upon correlation of planetary position with weather-related and economic-related events occurring on Earth. If things do not correlate, then hypotheses are thrown out. Astrology-related correlations regarding history have been made since Sumerian times. The difficulty in quantifying or isolating variables has resulted in astrology being labelled a pseudoscience, but that's like saying the Earth is pseudoscience since there are many variables going on all the time, and we should not examine how they interact as a meta-narrative.

It was Jacques Vallee who said something along the lines: 'If we tell a man he is imagining something it will only convince the public that science is inept and unwilling to investigate'. 

1 comment:

  1. Just to go off at a tangent, A so called professor of physics always have something negative to say about Astrology - Brian Cox. This is the professor who doesn't understand the phases of the moon. He actually has presented an astronomy programme on the BBC. Check out The reference frame to read more about cox.