h a l f b a k e r yTempus fudge-it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
So various organisations (including NASA) have pointed out that the dates
typically used for astrology signs are
wrong, because precession or something. And also there should be an extra
(13th) one called 'Ophiuchus'.
This news unsurprisingly wasn't well-received by the purveyors of
horoscopes,
because ... well, who would want to
admit that they've been giving everyone someone else's predictions their
whole life?
Fortunately, this debacle didn't actually matter, because it turns out
horoscopes have very little predictive value.
So what? Well, it occurred to me today that all newspaper astrology readings
are specified using the date of the
subject's /birth/. Which strictly means that those who avoided this chore
through medical intervention /don't
have a star-sign/.
I therefore propose that astrologers could keep the existing star-signs in the
places their audience expects, and
use the additional star-sign for those from their mother's womb untimely
ripp'd. The astrological symbol for
Ophiuchus seems very appropriate, which I think proves that this is valid, and
was indeed fortold.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
It's the main indicator that astrology is crap: the ONE THING
that astrologers could do precisely (measure the positions of
the stars etc) is the one thing they refuse to do.
Conveniently, I was born under Ophiuchus, so I can have lots
of fun whenever horoscope-loving types ask me my sign. A
former flatmate of that sort told me that "I ruined her
world-view" after a brief discussion of the Zodiac. |
|
| |
*Real* believers in astrology don't let anything
inconvenient like facts or astronomy get in the way of
their belief. |
|
| |
Your chart reveals untimely actions. Haste may be fateful, yet caution may not bring you the rewards you desire. You will meet a stranger in a yellow boiler suit. Do not believe anything you read online. |
|
| |
This fascinates me. My horoscope is always a day late. If I
read one from the day before it makes perfect sense. If I
read today's it's always nonsense. |
|
| |
Now I'm wondering. And what if you have your labor induced
because you are tired of being large and awkward and
terribly uncomfortable and you opt to pop the cork, so to
speak, when you want to, not when the baby was meant to
be. |
|
| |
There are all kinds of questions. Or you could read the
comics and forget the whole astrology thingy and say it's a
waste of your time. Comics aren't but the stars are. Hmmm.
Wait... |
|
| |
Isn't that like crossword clues? If you look at today's crossword you haven't a clue what is going on. Look at yesterdays and read the answers and it all makes sense (except for the cryptic crossword which doesn't make sense even if you have all the supposed answers) |
|
| |
If god doesn't play dice, it's all deterministic. If electromagnetic fields cook a child, complex gravity fields are there as well. We are in a varying gravity field, right? |
|
| |
Astrology guessing at the data is another matter. |
|
| |
//If electromagnetic fields cook a child// |
|
| |
Ehhh ... are we speaking from experience here? |
|
| |
But they don't cook children |
|
| |
Astrology debunkings often rely on the seeming
unconnectedness of the stars' position in the sky, to an
individual human being. They are far, far away, after all. |
|
| |
This mode of reasoning neglects the possibility that the
stars' position could be directly (but incidentally)
correlated to factors that have a more direct bearing on
our character and physiology. |
|
| |
In particular, seasonal changes in conditions reoccurring
annually in humans' evolution, could influence the
temper and physique of people, depending on the
season of their birth. These seasonal variations have
been observed scientifically (link pending..) |
|
| |
Unfortunately, 'conventional' zodiac astrologers have
been studied thoroughly and found to be no better than
chance at predicting a person's character. (...) |
|
| |
From all this, my suggestion is that astrology could be a
real thing but that our modern astrologers are not very
good at it. This opens the possibility to a new wave of
scientific astrologers, basing their charts on
measurement and study, rather than woo. |
|
| |
As the idea suggests, c-section could disrupt the
'natural' character of a person. Other anthropogenic
influences could be drugs, noise, photoperiod,
temperature, and humidity. |
|
| |
[afinehdyd] I lean toward that opinion myself - and suggest that
historically, the most pronounced effects of seasonal variation on the
developing psyche (which may well have been a thing) are probably less
visible these days due to the invention of central heating. Something
which smooths things out over the year such that a day in mid-summer
isn't vastly different from one mid-winter - at least compared to the
experience of someone living in a home with only rudimentary tools and
fire at their disposal. |
|
| |
But regards the idea, it doesn't seem to be of any harm to introduce a "not of woman born" variant into the
zodiac - though I think I'd be tempted to add it as a binary variable - so 12 normal birth signs, and then
another 12 with the same sign, but with added Caesarian factor. We can defer the introduction of artificial
wombs and the astrological mechanics of the spawning fields of the machine-collective from the
Matrix/Skynet until it becomes a more pressing issue. |
|
| |
We are cooked from the primordial soup. Cooking in this use is on the subtle side. |
|
| |
True, The science of Planck shows us Astrology will have a very very subtle effect. That is why I thought it might affect the electromagnetic formations of the mind, in one's liquid environment development from the combined blob, to give some generalized types of people. Generalized way s of how people ride the gravity terrain as macro-stuff happens. |
|
| |
Birth time, date, and method is a slight mislabel/ reduction of the data. |
|
| |
Does this work if we were born preemie? I mean, it wasn't much... but if I'm a Scorpio, then I'm a soft-shelled Scorpio for sure. |
|
| |
Mentioning hard shells, I wonder if large nuclear tests have to be factored in? |
|
| |
//Dice are also deterministic// this doesn't sit well with me. A true dice action isn't supposed to be deterministic by definition. an action that goes through a probability focal point that can't vectored from the past actions. |
|
| |