--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" > > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > > > The idea that planets can go "retrograde" is all due to the > > > ludicrous maths involved in making the earth appear to be > > > the centre of the solar system, it really isn't. >> For the record, since the time of Copernicus > (1473-1543), astrologers have known that > retrograde motion is only apparent. Sorry, but > they don't "believe" that planets actually turn > around and move backward. They're also well > aware that the earth revolves around the sun. > > And retrograde motion never did have anything to > do with "maths." You don't need "maths" to > detect retrograde motion, just careful > observation of the night sky. >
The maths I refer to is the ludicrous system of cosines, tangents etc needed to make the earth appear to be the centre of the solar system, of course we have known since the time of copernicus that isn't true but every time an astrologer sits down to do a "chart" he uses the same maths! Iknow this because I used to be interested in it and got a book on how to draw up horoscopes. > Consider the magnitude of the realization, way back in > prehistory, that while the pattern of the stars overhead changed > from month to month, they always came back to the *same* > positions at harvest time each year; they were always in the same > positions at planting time. What a stunning discovery, that > their positions were correlated with the seasons! > > And then there were the "wandering" stars--their positions were > not at first at all predictable. Why should a few of the stars > not follow the pattern? > > Think also about how significant the stars must have seemed to > primitive humans. We take them for granted, but just imagine > what a hunter camping on the plain must have thought as he looked > at the night sky. The stars were a much more major feature of > the environment than they are to us, and infinitely more > mysterious and awe-inspiring. It's not at all surprising they > were thought to be divine. > > So when humankind had progressed to the point where it could > accurately chart the stars' motions, it was natural to assume > they were a guidance system given to humans by the gods. The > "wanderers" took on special significance, because they moved > through the "fixed" constellations and were constantly forming > different patterns with them. But even *their* motions, although > much more complex, were regular and could be predicted. And > obviously the sun and moon were the overlords of the heavens, > playing different but complementary roles. > > What gives me the shivers is that if you wanted to *design* a > system for divination for human beings on earth, you could hardly > do better than the sun, the moon, and the planets in the > constellations. The system seems tailor-made for that purpose. "Seems" is the operative word here, it wasn't made at all as we now well know. > It's also no surprise that astrology was the earliest "pure" > science, in the sense of observing and charting nature's > regularities just for the joy of ferreting out her secrets. What > a magnificent vehicle the night sky is for inspiring scientific > curiosity! > Aint that the truth? > We tend to look down our noses at these primitive, superstitious > magi who spent all their time gazing at the heavens, but that's > totally unwarranted. The impulse that motivated them to wrest > regularity from an otherwise chaotic environment over which they > had little control was precisely the same as the one that > motivates modern scientists, and it took just as much energy and > intellect and sophistication. The first ephemeris was as much of > an accomplishment as the Human Genome Project. > I don't look down my nose at them at all! Not even a little bit, I think their achievement in mapping the heavens is amazing, I agree the motivation is the same, the thing is science progresses, that is the whole point, it's an ongoing attempt to explain our experience. And as the universe has got larger with ever greater discoveries and our understanding of it more refined, previous innaccurate theories have to be abandoned, that is how it works. Someone has an idea which is put out for criticism and it stands or falls depending on whether it is a more accurate description of reality. Astrology as a "science" of human understanding fell by the wayside a long time ago, as long ago as Copernicus in fact. It's anthropomorphism, you say so yourself and very eloquently I thought. I'm an incurable romantic and have often wondered how the universe must have seemed to ancient man, imagine being at least as smart as people these days but not actually knowing anything about how the world is. Of course things like astrology evolved, any framework is better than none, they just didn't have the tools to work out it wasn't true. Someone else on here uses the idea that because it has been around so long "it's stuck to the wall" it must be true. This is faulty reasoning. Sooner or later every culture has to accept that the earth isn't flat, counter-intuitive though it is the weight of evidence eventually becomes overwhelming. So the question is not "is astrology an accurate descritption of reality" but "why do so many continue to believe in it?" I think it sticks to the wall because it's such a seductive idea that we can see the future and avoid returning karma, it can even help with relationships and tell us how wonderful we are! I also think there is a fear of loneliness or that we are truly responsible for ourselves and all that happens in our lives, blame is better to give than recieve. So the meme continues to propagate to every new generation. Most people encounter astrology in some form long before they come across physics or cosmology but they have taught us much more about the universe and ourselves than jyotish ever could but as you say that was the starting point.
