The argument of astrophysicists against astrology
The argument of astrophysicists against astrology
Watching a scientific popular film, I stumbled across the argument of astrophysicists that all current systems of astrology is not adequate just because they do not take into account any stars shifting since the founding of the system before our time. Thus, the older а system, the greater a cumulative error. As far as I know, there is no normalization in astrology that allows to compensate any stars shifting. (The displacement of stars is а result of the expansion of the universe and gravity.) Can anybody fend off their argument?
Re: The argument of astrophysicists against astrology
Well these astrophysicists can’t have it both ways.
For example flat Earthers will argue that the Pole Star hasn’t moved for thousands of years, whereas it should have by now if the correct cosmology looks like this:
Then astrophysicists have, if I’m not mistaken, replied that the other stars including the Pole Star are SOOOO far away, that in a matter of mere thousands of years in comparison to how far away the stars are, they wouldn’t from our perspective appeared to have shifted much, if at all.
Like I said, they can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps it is that since the stars are so far away, astrology can still be relied on because from our perspective the stars have not moved in thousands of years?
For example flat Earthers will argue that the Pole Star hasn’t moved for thousands of years, whereas it should have by now if the correct cosmology looks like this:
Then astrophysicists have, if I’m not mistaken, replied that the other stars including the Pole Star are SOOOO far away, that in a matter of mere thousands of years in comparison to how far away the stars are, they wouldn’t from our perspective appeared to have shifted much, if at all.
Like I said, they can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps it is that since the stars are so far away, astrology can still be relied on because from our perspective the stars have not moved in thousands of years?
Re: The argument of astrophysicists against astrology
The fact of the matter is that they argue that displacements are significant and cannot be neglected. A couple of thousand years ago, the constellations looked different. They created a computer program that shows what constellations looked like thousands of years ago.Perhaps it is that since the stars are so far away, astrology can still be relied on because from our perspective the stars have not moved in thousands of years?
Re: The argument of astrophysicists against astrology
Astrology being a part of the "ten sciences" in Tibet is actually something imported from India. My understanding is that astrology is a lay science like drama or medicine.
/magnus
/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)