My horoscope was dead on! [Archive I]

Volker.Doormann

July 26, 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Muad'Dib
Are you claiming that no one who makes claims that favor astrology (e.g., newspaper astrology columns) make those claims on a fallacious and superstitious basis? I.e., is all astrology right, or do you have to "do" it in a particular way? No. The important point is, that he, who is able to interpret the astrological signs correct, can match this with a person who is born on a known time and location. That shit is made with astrology is not the point. If I'm reading you correctly, you claim that astrology is integral to Judaism and the reason this isn't clear to everyone is because the Jews covered it up. Regardless of the accuracy of this claim, do you think Jewish astrological methods are better (or equal to) historically Chinese or Indian or Arabic astrological methods? If so, why? What's the proper methodology to use? No. The time, that Jews have done astrology is gone for a long time. There is a claim in Judaism: "'Ein Mazal Le Yisrael' which means: 'Israel is not affected by the zodiac (Mazzaroth)'. But - and this is important - it is said, that if Israel will leave the spiritual laws (causality/Karma) from the zodiac, Israel will fall back under the laws of the Mazzaroth (zodiac). This means in short, that all Jews of imperfection in this world are under the law of the zodiac, only them, who are perfect (all Karma solved) are free from this causality.

In the OT there is spoken from Balaam - an astrologer - who was called to interpret the twelve zodiac signs on the sky, but this situation was modified. Numbers 24:1 "And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness ('very accurate descrition'). And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding [in his tents] according to their tribes .. " Why must they call an astrologer to interpretate something, for what one must lift the eyes to see a plot of four times three 'objects' aligned to the four directions of the sky? (No one believes in the historic logistic of this plot).

Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? 32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? 33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

"The zodiac is first mentioned in Jewish sources in Sefer Yezirah (the earliest extant Hebrew text of systematic, speculative thought, with discussions of a distinctively mystical nature; written sometime between the 3rd and 6th centuries), where the names given to the 12 signs are direct Hebrew translations of the Latin names. A later publication, the Yalkut Shimoni (best known and most comprehensive anthology of midrashim, dating
somewhere around the 12th-13th century) associates the 12 signs of the zodiac with the 12 tribes of Israel. In a medieval Midrash on the festivals of the year (Pesikta Rabbati), a passage occurs which explains the names of the signs homiletically in accordance with Jewish history." Forgive an ignorant question, but you seem to be the one to ask: what is there to know about astrology? Are all astrologers right, or are some would-be astrologers misguided? If the latter, what do you say is the correct astrology? Correct astrology needs the study of all the thousand+ of possible different symbols by experience and own check of validity inclusive knowledge about all the correct astronomical calculations for each time and location.
It needs the knowledge of the full spectrum of human psyche (Unabomber, Charles Manson, Tourette syndrom guys, Losers, genies, musicians, dreamers, introverted sentimental, etc.). What is the plot of his chart? What is the load in this life and what are the possibilities of that character? Using Astrology one can find an answer in some minutes, while a psychologist needs some month to find the kernel point of a being. This scope includes a view to the load from prior life's and it's effects from causality together with a perspective of jobs for this life.

People do ask, 'why do I have this individual fate?' 'What is the cause?' It should be clear, that no one is born with the same social state or same state of health condition for his life. If causality is an acknowledged law, there could not be a random chaos without any order in the nature of psychological life. Astrology shows this dynamic of life for each individual, which is stamped while birth with the specific signs of time in an eternal harmony with the laws of the universe from the state of position of the earth to the planetary angle positions in the 2 Pi space and four quadrants around the location of birth.

Hope this helps.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

July 26, 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by lunachick
www.astro.com

;) Did they told you about your loud serious fights you had with your father?

lunachick

July 27, 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Did they told you about your loud serious fights you had with your father?

LOL! That was a shot in the dark, Volker, and you know it. Like all early teens I shouted and cried at my parents when I wasn't allowed to go out, or get my own way, or whatever. That was way too easy. :p

Incidentally, I was born in Bad Aibling, Germany, on the 11th May 1963, at approx 12 noon. Go for it! ;) :D

Volker.Doormann

July 27, 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by lunachick
LOL! That was a shot in the dark, Volker, and you know it. Like all early teens I shouted and cried at my parents when I wasn't allowed to go out, or get my own way, or whatever. I spoke on 'your loud serious fights you had with your father', and you speak about ' I shouted and cried at my parents', and thats - however - a hit. Those remarks are not taken from random; they are published. I can tell you more about the relation between you and your father, your confused parent's home and about your 'hard' conversation stil in life discussions.

I think, you have missed your father as a real father, you are quick at repartee, but sometime your talking prior to thinking. You do not know fear or danger and you destroy the things, which you love. You are acting in hidden areas, you are mad about your inhibitions, you do hide your intentions, and you have problems to be soft and gentle. If you have a partner he is a problem to you. You are fixed in your mind, sometimes you are agressive and of powerful violence. You love philosophy and culture ... [some 20k byte more text snipped].

Volker

MortalWombat

July 27, 2003, 10:49 AM

A few years ago I saw some program on TV that had James Randi on it. Randi performed a demonstration in a classroom of college students. He announced that an astrologer had done readings on each student. He handed each student his or her particular horoscope and asked each one to read their own horoscope privately, and then asked to rate its accuracy on a scale of one to five, five being the best.

Almost all the scores were fives and the rest were fours. Then Randi asked the students to pass their horoscopes to the student behind them. After a few seconds the students realized that every horoscope was worded exactly the same.

A similar thing was done by John Stossel on Good Morning America. He had an astrologer do a chart for mass murderer Ed Kemper, passed it out to a bunch of people, and asked them to rate how acurately it reflected their own lives. Most agreed that it did. Then he revealed to them that they all got the same horoscope, and to top it all off, it was of a mass murderer. That elicited a few laughs from the participants.

Arken

July 27, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I spoke on 'your loud serious fights you had with your father', and you speak about ' I shouted and cried at my parents', and thats - however - a hit.

Oh please. It's only a 'hit' because most teens had 'loud, serious fights' with their father. Try something more specific... like the name of the first guy she kissed or something.

Volker.Doormann

July 27, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Almost all the scores were fives and the rest were fours. Then Randi asked the students to pass their horoscopes to the student behind them. After a few seconds the students realized that every horoscope was worded exactly the same.

A similar thing was done by John Stossel on Good Morning America. He had an astrologer do a chart for mass murderer Ed Kemper, passed it out to a bunch of people, and asked them to rate how acurately it reflected their own lives. Most agreed that it did. Then he revealed to them that they all got the same horoscope, and to top it all off, it was of a mass murderer. That elicited a few laughs from the participants. There are some rules in science. Who has checked the correct birth time from Ed from with a horoscope was made? I find on the IN: "KEMPER, Ed ("The Co-Ed Killer") Born in 1945 in Burbank, California, Kemper began having problems after his parents' divorce. "

or "Ed Kemper was born in December of 1948 in Burbank, California (USA). He had 2 sisters. His mother and father fought constantly; eventually they divorced. It was after the divorce that Kemper began having problems."

If I get a correct birth certificate from Ed, I can write which astrological signs are relevant for his special psyche stamp. Without this your example is of no scientific worth. It is like religiuos bias.

BTW. This example shows, that people do believe, what they would believe: The believe, that one text is scored by several readers shell disprove the hole astrology. But astrology wasn't involved in this game, except as one text sheet from which was asserted by no prove, it is a text from Ed's chart. The object of this game were stupid scoring students who score each shit paper where an empty square is. Strange skeptics here.

Volker.Doormann

July 27, 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Arken
Oh please. It's only a 'hit' because most teens had 'loud, serious fights' with their father. Try something more specific... like the name of the first guy she kissed or something. Wait for her comment.

BTW. If some do not know, that there are some hidden functions in nature, not known by physicists, well known by the people in Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Chaldea, (Relation between the character of planets and born beings) then he can certainly explain by known physic, why Mrs. Penny Thornton got some specific data in 1989 from an event in 1997 doormann.org/ladydi.htm. Maybe Mr. Randy or anyone can prove that this might a hoax, but I wold like to see by proof, why this is/must a hoax. LOL.

Volker

ComestibleVenom

July 27, 2003, 03:02 PM

Somebody else's horoscope was right on! (As a description of me)

Therefore, I was not born in august making me a Leo, but am a capricorn. Therefore my parents lied or are deluded about the date at which I was born.

ComestibleVenom

July 27, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
BTW. If some do not know, that there are some hidden functions in nature, not known by physicists, well known by the people in Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Chaldea, (Relation between the character of planets and born beings) then he can certainly explain by known physic, why Mrs. Penny Thornton got some specific data in 1989 from an event in 1997 doormann.org/ladydi.htm. Maybe Mr. Randy or anyone can prove that this might a hoax, but I wold like to see by proof, why this is/must a hoax. LOL.

What information was claimed to be obtained?

What independent verification of it are availible?

How many hundreds of such predictions have been made by this fellow and failed miserably?(I conjecture many, many)

Volker.Doormann

July 27, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Division By Zero
I read the horoscopes once in a while out of boredom, and they're dead wrong more often than they are kinda-right.

Consider first that no two horoscopes are the same on any given day. If horoscopes have any truth in them, it's kind of odd that the newspaper you read apparently overrides your birth sign.

Secondly, even if every newspaper everywhere made the same predictions, there are only twelve signs in the Zodiac. There are roughly 6 billion people on Earth, so if we divide them up evenly we get 500 million people for each prediction. Ever heard that next to signs 7+ planets positioned in that signs play a role in astrology? Ever heard, that next to this some other thousand+ elements play a role in astrology? I have interpret about 1200 different independent elements in my software, from which some 50-70 relate to a born being. Your scientific approach on this is not better than trying to divide by zero.

Some of the effects in life can be interpret for example from the position of the planet Saturn in aspekt to other planets, moon or sun. All astrologers in the world agree on the effect of 'boundary' concerning Saturn. Saturn can shield something, but it can also limit the freedom in several areas (p.e. father). 'You are well inside, but you cannot go out', may a sentence related to Saturn.

Why do I write on this?

Well, on doormann.org/asssky.htm you can read a great article by Ahmad (IRIS) about the Astronomy in Babylon and he cites from a Babylonian boundary stone mentioned Saturn (Ninib) as the 'Lord of Boundary':

"Whenever ... any one shall arise and against that field shall raise a claim or cause a claim to be raised, shall say the field is not the gift of the king and shall order a thoughtless man, a fool, a deaf man to approach that inscribed stone and shall throw it into the water, burn it with fire, hide it in a field where it cannot be seen. May the great gods, as many as on this stone by their names are mentioned with an evil curse, that is without escape, curse him. May Anu, Enlil, and Ea in anger look upon him and destroy his life, [and] the children, his seed. May Marduk (Jupiter), the lord of constructions (?), stop up his rivers, and Zarpanitum ( ), the great mistress, spoil his plans. May Ninib (Saturn) and Gula ( ), the lords of the boundary and of this boundary stone, cause a destructive sickness to be in his body, so that, as long as he lives, he may pass dark and bright red blood as water. May Sin (Moon), the eye of heaven and earth, cause leprosy to be in his body, so that in the enclosure of his city he may not lie. May the gods, all of them, as many as are mentioned by their names, not grant him life for a single day."

Some other meanings obout Venus, which was called Astarte, Innana, Ishtar, Dilbat, Ashera, etc. and which do relate to beauty, woman, etc. are also in full agreement to the present meaning of the planet Venus in astrology and there is no disagree in the astrological meaning about Saturn some 3000 years ago and now.

The bias stamp given by religions and high school education concerning astrology is. But no one has cross checked any durty bias. Strange understanding of science.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

July 27, 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
What information was claimed to be obtained? Cite from her book: "In the second dream, which I will recount in the present tense since that is how I recorded it in my diary, I am sitting in a sand dune having a picnic. Diana comes towards me, dressed in white with a black cloak around her. She sits down besides me. I feel awkward and unprepared for her sudden and unannounced arrival. She is telling me about someone who is called Peter, who has been fired because of her. Apparently he is going to France and will be undergoing plastic surgery to conceal his identity. She goes on to talk me about William, and while she does this, she holds up a large figure 3. She then begins to cry, and I comfort her, urging her not to give up on the marriage. She recovers her composure and I take up the topic of Peter, refering to him as a past relationship. "Its's not over. It's very much on, " she says. ...

... I escort her out to her car, and when I return, William is seated in the same chair. He is much older {1989 William was 7} and sporting a beard. He says to me. "They don't tell me everything, you know. For a few minutes we lost complete radio contact with them ... " As he was saying this to me, I saw an event from an aerial point of view. Two police motorcycles and a white car streaming ahead, leaving a black car on its own. Two vans approch from either side and prevent the black car from moving forward. [!] The dream ends in chaos and I hear my own voice saying, "Isn't anyone going to do anything ...?" What independent verification of it are availible? ISBN 0-671-89186-3 Pocket Book, New York, Printing January 1995.

Press article publish in the IN: " According to witnesses, Paparazzi -- the commercial photographers who constantly followed Diana -- were pursuing the car on motorcycles.

Authorities said seven photographers -- six reported to be French and one Macedonian -- were in custody, and a criminal investigation was under way. Police seized two motorcycles and a motor scooter believed used in the chase."

" Mystery of the white Fiat Uno. Probably the most intriguing eye-witness account was that of Sabine and George D. Their surnames were withheld to save them from media harassment.

In January, they gave a detailed interview to Hello magazine in which they said they saw a Fiat Uno shoot out of the tunnel moments after the crash." How many hundreds of such predictions have been made by this fellow and failed miserably?(I conjecture many, many) Irrelevant. Please start arguing with this one. We are speaking about physics - not about statistic.

Volker.Doormann

July 27, 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
Somebody else's horoscope was right on! (As a description of me)

Therefore, I was not born in august making me a Leo, but am a capricorn. Therefore my parents lied or are deluded about the date at which I was born. I think there is no reason to take this all in this forum for true, without any evidence from a published birth certificate as .jpg

Jesse

July 27, 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I think there is no reason to take this all in this forum for true, without any evidence from a published birth certificate as .jpg

If you're really going to suspect people of lying about their birthday when their horoscopes don't match their personality, you could always use this site (for US residents only):

Anybirthday.com (http://anybirthday.com/search.htm)

Of course, people might not want to give their full name online.

Here's a possible experiment we could do here--people here could give you three or four different possible birthdays, one of which is their real birthday, then you could use your software to come up with personality profiles for each one, without saying which goes with which birthday. The person could pick the profile that matches best, and you could tell them which birthday that profile was for and see if it's correct. Would you be willing to try this?

Arken

July 27, 2003, 05:48 PM

I'll be a guinea pig for this experiment.

Here are three possible birth dates, years and times. I will assume you have not seen my birthdate in my profile before and I have since delted it.

Here are the three:

June 27, 1977 at 2:13 a.m.

October 9, 1974 at 12:49 p.m.

July 14, 1979 at 11:51 p.m.

If a third party wishes, I will be happy to provide my real name for the purposes of looking up my actual birthday at anybirthday.com.

Rochs

July 27, 2003, 06:18 PM

The only horoscopes I read:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3928/horoscopes_3928.html

Bible Humper

July 27, 2003, 09:03 PM

Come on, this is just the same material used in cold reading....

a demonstration in a classroom of college students. He announced that an astrologer had done readings on each student. He handed each student his or her particular horoscope and asked each one to read their own horoscope privately, and then asked to rate its accuracy on a scale of one to five, five being the best. Almost all the scores were fives and the rest were fours. Then Randi asked the students to pass their horoscopes to the student behind them. After a few seconds the students realized that every horoscope was worded exactly the same.

Astrology uses many of the same methods as cold reading, the "predictions" are all things that almost anyone can find true about themselves.

Who DOESN'T believe that they have, for example, "vast reserves of untapped potential"? Answer: Almost nobody.

I spoke on 'your loud serious fights you had with your father', and you speak about ' I shouted and cried at my parents', and thats - however - a hit.

It is no secret that this is part of the teenage experience in the vast majority of cases. The "rebellious stage".

This applies to me too, and to the vast majority of other readers.

I think, you have missed your father as a real father, you are quick at repartee, but sometime your talking prior to thinking.

I don't understand the first part, but the second part applies to everyone too. Who HASN'T said something that they REALLY regretted afterwards?

This applies to me too, and to the vast majority of other readers.

You do not know fear or danger and you destroy the things, which you love.

"does not know fear of danger" is a bit out there. You are saying that Lunachick is completely fearless?

Not afraid of heights? Snakes? Creepy strangers? NOTHING at all? I doubt it....

As for destroying the things you love bit, everyone does this to some degree or other, if only because they begin to take things for granted.....

This applies to me too, and to the vast majority of other readers.

You are acting in hidden areas

Who doesn't have secrets of some sort?

Everyone has SOMETHING which they can believe that this is referring to

This applies to me too, and to the vast majority of other readers.

you are mad about your inhibitions,

As is everyone else on the planet..... How great could we all be if we were not held back by our own hangups!

you do hide your intentions,

Nope! Never ever ever!

If you have a partner he is a problem to you.

Hahaha! No way man, she has one of those legendary relationships which are smooth as silk at all times.

Has anyone had a 100% problem-free relationship before?

You are fixed in your mind, sometimes you are agressive and of powerful violence.

Everyone is "fixed in their mind" to some degree. Not sure about the second bit, do you think that she is a killer or something?

You love philosophy and culture ...

Come on, can we get some traits which are RARE? There is a good reason why not....

Seriously, cold reading is KNOWN to be technique. You can buy books and learn how to do it.

Tell us something about her which is only true of 1% or less of the species.

lunachick

July 27, 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Bible Humper
Tell us something about her which is only true of 1% or less of the species.

Thanks, BH. :)

Yes, please, Volker. I actually have a soft spot for astrology, and studied it to some degree for a few years in my early 20's. I just kinda like that sort of thing. :)

But, for the sake of the folks here - I understand that if you really wanted to, through reviewing my chart - you could find something that really was me. I bet you could pinpoint a time - time being the operative word here - when something life altering has happened to me. It shouldn't be too hard - I've led a rather eventful life, and had some major shit happen here and there.

I'll give you an example: I immigrated to a land far from my birthplace at the age of 5. - That is quite specific, I think, and may help convince people here of any 'scientific' merit in astrology.

Should you accept that small challenge, then I wish you luck. I will be completely honest in answering true or false. :)

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Jesse
If you're really going to suspect people of lying about their birthday when their horoscopes don't match their personality, you could always use this site (for US residents only):

Anybirthday.com (http://anybirthday.com/search.htm)
Thank you Jesse. I will try to find Ed. Here's a possible experiment we could do here--people here could give you three or four different possible birthdays, one of which is their real birthday, then you could use your software to come up with personality profiles for each one, without saying which goes with which birthday. The person could pick the profile that matches best, and you could tell them which birthday that profile was for and see if it's correct. LOL. Why should I trust any person here, that the person is integer and honest? Why should a person agree on some deep lacks of his character if be stated? You read about that what bias people have, what disbelieve. Your suggested experiment lacks exact on this.

In an experiment running this time in Germany a similar experiment setup is made, but prior to the vote the persons were tested about serious consequence (honest) answers. Until now AFAIK there is a significant number of correct matches (Mr. Edgar Wunder, prior chief editor in the German Skeptik magazine, drives this experiment).

There was an evidence perceived from a woman in the OP of this thread. That's the point of interest. Not the skeptic to all evident perceptions has any meaning in science, it is the unbiased view on that, what is. And fantasies about some believes are not part of any science. Skeptics must learn and accept, that there are more than physical forces in nature, which are not to shown by proof, but by cognition. Truth in music, truth in speech, truth in communion with people and truth in the own work on science. No one can give here proofs to others.

I think the main problem in this all is that people would more determine (world, other people, cars, woman's, country, nation, future, end of lifetime, opinions, etc.) than to perceive (truth, that, what is, nature, world, woman's, etc.). And because of this people in general have problems with truth. Truth is not to match with the own biased position, from education, or cool signs of age, and absolutly not with a black hole position: 'Show me, but you will get back nothing than further skeptical questions as long as i live'. Truth is to be true.

Thank you.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Arken
I'll be a guinea pig for this experiment.

Here are three possible birth dates, years and times. I will assume you have not seen my birthdate in my profile before and I have since delted it.

Here are the three:

June 27, 1977 at 2:13 a.m.

October 9, 1974 at 12:49 p.m.

July 14, 1979 at 11:51 p.m.

If a third party wishes, I will be happy to provide my real name for the purposes of looking up my actual birthday at anybirthday.com. Please read my post to Jesse.

echidna

July 28, 2003, 02:14 AM

IIRC Volker is more enthusiastic about predicting things retrospectively. Strangely enough I find that less impressive.

Jesse

July 28, 2003, 02:20 AM

Volker.Doorman
LOL. Why should I trust any person here, that the person is integer and honest? Why should a person agree on some deep lacks of his character if be stated? You read about that what bias people have, what disbelieve. Your suggested experiment lacks exact on this.

Even though the experiment might be worthless to you if you don't trust anyone here, it would be interesting to those of us who know in our hearts we are honest and believe we have fairly good insight into our own character. If you have a computer program to help you, I assume it's not too difficult to come up with profiles, so what's the harm in obliging us? You were willing to do it for lunachick, even though you have no guarantees she's being honest about her character either.

echidna

July 28, 2003, 02:31 AM

BTW Volker, suggest you get yourself a copy of ...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0940669420/103-7829172-9007861?vi=glance

You could particularly benefit from the "Be Good At It" part. At least the friends of mine who have interests in Cold Reading are honest enough to admit what it is and are not so disingenuous as to pretend it's anything else.

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by lunachick
Lunachick,

I have given some specific interpreting to you from your chart. You could have replied on that honest, but you have not, - and you have not said that those interpreting were wrong.I've led a rather eventful life, and had some major shit happen here and there. Sorry, but that is not precise in the range of 1%.
Should you accept that small challenge, then I wish you luck. I will be completely honest in answering true or false. :) No, thank you. I do not accept that small challenge. BH: "Tell us something about her which is only true of 1% or less of the species."
Yes, please, Volker.
I give you a complete interpreting of your chart. It is in German language and it is readable on doormann.org/lc1.txt for the next 48 hours.

I think it is senseless to play games on this. I have no intension to prove something to anyone. I know that you have a big load as fate and maybe my text is helpful to you.

Best

Volker

lunachick

July 28, 2003, 04:44 AM

Volker,

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by me. It wasn't my intention to insult you.

Actually, I had to digest a little of what you said about my chart. Yes, it rang true. BH deconstructed it, and that also rang true. So confusing.

Anyway, thank you for interpreting my chart. I will lookout for it on your site, and find a translator to help me understand it.

Thanks,
Petra :)

Oh, it's there already! Thank you. :)

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Bible Humper

Volker interpret lunachick birth chart: "you do hide your intentions"

Nope! Never ever ever! Thats a personal opinion without any meaning, but no proof. Lunachick has demonstrated, that she does hide facts: "I've led a rather eventful life, and had some major shit happen here and there." No clear 'Yes' or 'No' were to read, that has broken the hide, which is related to that what I have cited from her chart.

Stop this arrogant investigations, if you have nothing but your biased mind and no knowlegde why you was born here, and were you come from. If people perceive a help for their fate and live from astrology interpretation, you can ignore this, or can give better explanations to each individual fate without any ethical and/or psychical contradictions. I assume you cannot.

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by lunachick
Volker,

Actually, I had to digest a little of what you said about my chart. Yes, it rang true. BH deconstructed it, and that also rang true. So confusing.

Anyway, thank you for interpreting my chart. I will lookout for it on your site, and find a translator to help me understand it.

Thanks,
Petra :)

Oh, it's there already! Thank you. :) Hi Petra,
hope you find a translator. I had assumed, that you have learned German language from your parents, and that you could read it.

Thank you, that you show an agree in some interpretations.

I do not work as professional astrologer; I have developed the software for scientific research in astrology. But feel free to mail me for specific questions. I have taken a time of 12:00 CET for your chart, but it would changed some important interpretation, if the correct time was for example 11:30 CET. Did you have the correct birth time from the file in Bad Aibling? You can call for this by phone the relevant office is => 'Standesamt'. (p.e. Mars would change then from house 12 to house 1, and some more planets {Sun, Saturn, Neptun} would do change also to other houses).

Last, but not least. I think you are a greatful person, with a lot of forces and integrity, and I would like to give my respect and my acknowledge to you.

Best

Volker

Arken

July 28, 2003, 07:00 AM

Speaking of insults, I'm quite insulted with the implication that I'm a dishonest person. I take pride in my honesty. If you want to weasel out of the test, fine... but to do it by insulting my honesty is angering to say the least.

nogods4me

July 28, 2003, 07:28 AM

I do not work as professional astrologer; I have developed the software for scientific research in astrology.

and that research would be????? and the results have been published where? and your methodology is?

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by nogods4me
and that research would be? Scientifically based astrological research can be made if a tool is used, that delivers all time the same interpretations to a time of birth and a location of birth, and to all other times of birth and other locations of birth as well. Such a tool I have generated. If there is a competent person or a number of persons, who is, or are able to classify the character of a person correct, because of knowledge in psychology, psychotherapy, and a long experience with all kinds of character elements, and a specific knowledge about a testperson in deep clear honest communication with the testperson, this person or those persons may be also able to qualify the grad of matching of the output of such a tool. They can make statistics on their qualifying and significance calculations. Each one who has the competence, can get my tool for free, to start working. I have offered this tool since 1995, but no one has ask for it to check that tool using scientifically methods.

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Jesse
... it would be interesting to those of us who know in our hearts we are honest and believe we have fairly good insight into our own character. Jesse,
you speak about believe in forum of science and skepticism regarding a character, from which you say, you have a fairly good insight. But this is personal opinion, without any scientifically worth; you must be abel to show by proof, that that, what your insight may, is verificable or fasificable, for that it is nothing as fantasy. Show me that proof, acknowledged by the science community, and - the moderators of II, and I take you serious.

Volker

P.S. If you would like to read an output of my tool using your birth data, e-mail me.

ps418

July 28, 2003, 08:48 AM

Volker,

I seem to remember from the last thread you participated in that you were not willing to make any clear predictions at all about the future. Nor would you explain how various qualities are attributed to celestial balls of gas and rock. This time around, are you going to make any specific predictions about the future, or explain the method whereby qualities are atributed to celestial bodies?

Volker:
All astrologers in the world agree on the effect of 'boundary' concerning Saturn. Saturn can shield something, but it can also limit the freedom in several areas (p.e. father). 'You are well inside, but you cannot go out', may a sentence related to Saturn.

Back up for a minute, if you dont mind. What does Saturn "mean," astrologically, how was this meaning determined, and how would you resolve a dispute between individuals about the astrological meaning of a celestial object?

Patrick

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by ps418
Sorry - you are on my ignore list

ps418

July 28, 2003, 09:09 AM

Jesse:
Here's a possible experiment we could do here--people here could give you three or four different possible birthdays, one of which is their real birthday, then you could use your software to come up with personality profiles for each one, without saying which goes with which birthday. The person could pick the profile that matches best, and you could tell them which birthday that profile was for and see if it's correct.

Volker:
LOL. Why should I trust any person here, that the person is integer and honest? Why should a person agree on some deep lacks of his character if be stated? You read about that what bias people have, what disbelieve. Your suggested experiment lacks exact on this.

Jesse:
Even though the experiment might be worthless to you if you don't trust anyone here, it would be interesting to those of us who know in our hearts we are honest and believe we have fairly good insight into our own character. If you have a computer program to help you, I assume it's not too difficult to come up with profiles, so what's the harm in obliging us? You were willing to do it for lunachick, even though you have no guarantees she's being honest about her character either.

Volker:
you speak about believe in forum of science and skepticism regarding a character, from which you say, you have a fairly good insight. But this is personal opinion, without any scientifically worth; you must be abel to show by proof, that that, what your insight may, is verificable or fasificable, for that it is nothing as fantasy. Show me that proof, acknowledged by the science community, and - the moderators of II, and I take you serious.

Short translation: "No, I refuse to take part in such an objective test." Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Patrick

ps418

July 28, 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Sorry - you are on my ignore list

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/laugh.gif Smart move, Volker. Great way to avoid the unpleasant feelings associated with falsification of cherished beliefs.

Patrick

Jesse

July 28, 2003, 10:31 AM

Volker.Doormann
Jesse,
you speak about believe in forum of science and skepticism regarding a character, from which you say, you have a fairly good insight. But this is personal opinion, without any scientifically worth; you must be abel to show by proof, that that, what your insight may, is verificable or fasificable, for that it is nothing as fantasy. Show me that proof, acknowledged by the science community, and - the moderators of II, and I take you serious.

There is no "proof" of anything in science, but I'd just point out that virtually all scientific studies about personality (for example, studies which try to see how genes or childhood experiences influence personality) involve people evaluating whether various descriptions fit themselves or not, or their friends evaluating whether the statements describe the person. The astrological study by Edgar Wunder, which you mentioned approvingly, also involved such self-evaluations. The point is, even if people's evaluations of personality traits in themselves or others are not perfectly consistent, they should at least be slightly different than random chance, and that's all you need for these sorts of statistical studies.

Volker.Doorman:
P.S. If you would like to read an output of my tool using your birth data, e-mail me.

If I gave you three or four different birthdates, would you be willing to read the output of your program for each one, without initially telling me which was which?

Arken

July 28, 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Jesse
If I gave you three or four different birthdates, would you be willing to read the output of your program for each one, without initially telling me which was which?

I already offered this. (See above) He declined based on the insinuation that I am a liar.

Jesse

July 28, 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Arken
I already offered this. (See above) He declined based on the insinuation that I am a liar.

I know, but I wanted to know if he would feel differently if it was by email.

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Jesse
Volker.Doormann
Jesse,
you speak about believe in forum of science and skepticism regarding a character, from which you say, you have a fairly good insight. But this is personal opinion, without any scientifically worth; you must be abel to show by proof, that that, what your insight may, is verificable or fasificable, for that it is nothing as fantasy. Show me that proof, acknowledged by the science community, and - the moderators of II, and I take you serious.

There is no "proof" of anything in science, � Oh yes. If the light is direct ON if you switch the light knob, it is a proof, that this is DC (Direct Current); if not it is AC~. (!)

Jesse, I think it drops to absurd. .. The point is, even if people's evaluations of personality traits in themselves or others are not perfectly consistent, they should at least be slightly different than random chance, and that's all you need for these sorts of statistical studies. I do not understand your thoughts. There must be an intelligent decision about matching. But you have no idea, who that is. You can calc significance values of 10^-150 but you did not say who that is.

Volker.Doorman:
P.S. If you would like to read an output of my tool using your birth data, e-mail me.

If I gave you three or four different birthdates, would you be willing to read the output of your program for each one, without initially telling me which was which?

I understand nothing. I can run a 1000 birthdates and can read the output for each one, without initially telling you which was which, but I don�t see any reason in that. No. Why don�t you order this outputs not from a professional astro service for example astro.com and let read it by your wife?

Jesse, I am not an object of testing. If you have doubts in astrology, make your checks on the matter, not on persons. If you are able to decide whether a report about you is correct or not, and it differs from other reports with other data from the same year it is your fun and freedom.

(?)

Volker

ps418

July 28, 2003, 12:07 PM

In other words, save your breath, you astrology skeptics. As before, Volker hasn't the slightest interest in testing his method or answering any of your skeptical questions.

Volker: I understand nothing.

I admire your honesty.

Patrick

Jesse

July 28, 2003, 12:16 PM

Jesse:
.. The point is, even if people's evaluations of personality traits in themselves or others are not perfectly consistent, they should at least be slightly different than random chance, and that's all you need for these sorts of statistical studies.

Volker.Doormann:
I do not understand your thoughts. There must be an intelligent decision about matching. But you have no idea, who that is. You can calc significance values of 10^-150 but you did not say who that is.

I don't understand your question--who what is? Are you objecting that you don't know which profile actually describes your birthday? True, but the person doing the experiment knows, and he can see if the one you picked actually matches your birthday.

Instead of profiles being based on birthdays, let's say they were based on your friend's descriptions of you. If you were given five personality descriptions, one of which was a friend's description of you, while the other five were descriptions written about other people, don't you think there's a better-than-random-chance probability you'd be able to pick out which profile was written about you, even if you weren't told in advance? If astrology actually works, why shouldn't the stars and planets be like a "friend" whose description of you is more likely to be selected by you as accurate than some other random description?

Again, Volker, you mentioned the study by Edgar Wunder, which worked exactly in this way. The astrologer would write profiles of different birthdates, and the subject would pick which profile best matched him, and then the experimenter would see if that was actually the profile that had been based on the subject's birthday. It seems to me you are simply being inconsistent if you say Wunder's study is valid evidence of astrology but then say it would be "worthless" to do exactly the same kind of study using your own software. If you think there is an important difference between Wunder's study and the kind of test I am proposing, please explain it.

Jesse:
If I gave you three or four different birthdates, would you be willing to read the output of your program for each one, without initially telling me which was which?

Volker.Doormann:
I understand nothing. I can run a 1000 birthdates and can read the output for each one, without initially telling you which was which, but I don�t see any reason in that.

Because it would remove the possibility of bias, either for or against astrology, on my part. Also because I'm asking politely, so even if you don't see the point, as long as it would not take much effort on your part to use the software to come up with profiles, it would be nice of you to honor that request. If your software doesn't output complete profiles and it would take you a while to write each one up by hand, then it's more understandable if you don't want to.

Volker.Doormann:
Why don�t you order this outputs not from a professional astro service for example astro.com and let read it by your wife?

Would it cost money to get profiles from astro.com?

Volker.Doormann:
Jesse, I am not an object of testing. If you have doubts in astrology, make your checks on the matter, not on persons.

I don't understand what you mean--the only way to "check" astrology in a scientifically meaningful way is to see how accurate it is at predicting the personalities/lives of "persons" in blind tests. That's my understanding of what the Wunder test did, for example--is your understanding different?

Muad'Dib

July 28, 2003, 12:31 PM

Hi Volker,

If you don't mind, I'd like to go back to an earlier reply on page 1, and ask some general questions.

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
The important point is, that he, who is able to interpret the astrological signs correct, can match this with a person who is born on a known time and location.

My question earlier was concerning the methodology of astrology: is it about who does it, or can anyone do it if they do it properly?

More specifically, how do the methods of the Jewish astrologers you mention compare to the methods of the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Mayans, Chinese, and Arabs, most (if not all) of whom were unaware of Kabbalistic Jewish texts like the Sefir Yetzirah you mentioned? Are they all equally good? Or are the Jewish methods somehow superior, and if so why?

What heavenly bodies are relevant to astrology in general? Is it just the 12 constellations plus the planets? Are all nine planets in the solar system relevant?

Also, to what extent does astronomy inform astrology--that is, does the discovery of new stars affect astrological readings? Would dark matter influence the way you read someone? Do black holes play a role at all? Or is it the "knowledge of the full spectrum of human psyche (Unabomber, Charles Manson, Tourette syndrom guys, Losers, genies, musicians, dreamers, introverted sentimental, etc.)" that proves to be more important than improvements in our knowledge of the heavens?

Thanks,
Muad'Dib

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Jesse

... but the person doing the experiment knows, and he can see if the one you picked actually matches your birthday.
Yes, I understand.Again, Volker, you mentioned the study by Edgar Wunder, which worked exactly in this way. Correct. The astrologer would write profiles of different birthdates, and the subject would pick which profile best matched him, and then the experimenter would see if that was actually the profile that had been based on the subject's birthday. It seems to me you are simply being inconsistent if you say Wunder's study is valid evidence of astrology but then say it would be "worthless" to do exactly the same kind of study using your own software. If you think there is an important difference between Wunder's study and the kind of test I am proposing, please explain it. Its alright. The simple thing is, I have no intention to be involved in such test.

Volker.Doormann:
I understand nothing. I can run a 1000 birthdates and can read the output for each one, without initially telling you which was which, but I don�t see any reason in that.

Because it would remove the possibility of bias, either for or against astrology, on my part. Also because I'm asking politely, so even if you don't see the point, as long as it would not take much effort on your part to use the software to come up with profiles, it would be nice of you to honor that request. If your software doesn't output complete profiles and it would take you a while to write each one up by hand, then it's more understandable if you don't want to.
In short, Jesse. I can submit to you four chart interpretations in German language from four different valid birth datas (I wish to see all birth certificates as .jpg (!) ) of real persons you know personally, of your choice. OK?
Volker.Doormann:
Why don�t you order this outputs not from a professional astro service for example astro.com and let read it by your wife?

Would it cost money to get profiles from astro.com?AFAIK not for a short profile (online). Yes for a full profile.

Volker

Sorry Volker, I accidentally edited your post when I meant to reply, but I fixed it now--Jesse

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Muad'Dib
Hi Volker,

If you don't mind, I'd like to go back to an earlier reply on page 1, and ask some general questions.

My question earlier was concerning the methodology of astrology: is it about who does it, or can anyone do it if they do it properly?

More specifically, how do the methods of the Jewish astrologers you mention compare to the methods of the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, Mayans, Chinese, and Arabs, most (if not all) of whom were unaware of Kabbalistic Jewish texts like the Sefir Yetzirah you mentioned? Are they all equally good? Or are the Jewish methods somehow superior, and if so why?

What heavenly bodies are relevant to astrology in general? Is it just the 12 constellations plus the planets? Are all nine planets in the solar system relevant?

Also, to what extent does astronomy inform astrology--that is, does the discovery of new stars affect astrological readings? Would dark matter influence the way you read someone? Do black holes play a role at all? Or is it the "knowledge of the full spectrum of human psyche (Unabomber, Charles Manson, Tourette syndrom guys, Losers, genies, musicians, dreamers, introverted sentimental, etc.)" that proves to be more important than improvements in our knowledge of the heavens?

Thanks,
Muad'Dib Hi Muad'Dib,

that are a lot of questions. For most of them you can find answers in each textbook of astrology. But I think not for all.

Each one, who can perceive the psychic dimension in the psyche of humans, can learn to connect this dimensions with rational astronomical symbols.

It is not known to me what quality the astrology was about, the Jews or other ancient people have practice. I do know only, that they have proper knowledge of astrology regarding the planets, moon, sun its aspects, and the zodiac. I would say, that because of the intensive research in the field of astrology in the last century there was a big development in astrology next to a lot of nonsense written in colorful books. The keypoint is IMHO the grows of understanding of the sense of all that life and death, by the work of many individuals (C.G. Jung, Martin Schulman, Betty Lundsted, Steven Arroyo, and some thousand more).

BTW. To interpret the sings of time, astrology is only one, maybe the best tool, but you can interpret also coffee, bones, cards, and much more other symbols, because these symbols are in harmony with the age of time, they all exhibit the same meaning.

Relevant in astrology are to my knowledge: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptun, Pluto, 12 astrological houses aligned to the sky directions, the presence of these planets in this houses, the 12 houses the sun is running from the spring equinox through these houses (called zodiac), the four elements Fire (Plasma), Air, Water, Earth. Three qualities as cardinal, fixed and mutable. The moon's node on the ecliptic, the presence of planets in the four quadrants (west above horizon, west below horizon, etc.) The angle aspects of planets (0�, 30�, 45�, 60�, 90�, 120�, 135�, 150�, 180�). The relation of harmonic aspects to disharmonic aspects. The number of aspects. The number of aspects in a house. The position of a planet in house. Lack of aspects. And the relation of all this as a plot of no contradiction in hole, but in part. There are may some more, but this is standard and is related to about 1000+ discrete meanings describing a special mode of the human psyche.

It is not the mass of the bodies on the sky, which have any meaning. As the bodies all have a relation of 3:2 from Kepler's law between the potency of the radius and the time (no mass) it is also, that all bodies in our solar system have harmonic relations like the 3:2 frequency harmony of Pluto and Neptune, and the configuration of the planetary positions on the 2 Pi circle relating to the horizon of the birthplace is valid (time of day). You can observe this by yourself, if in August around 27th 2003, when the angles of the planets (Mars, Uranus Sun) are showing a time for earthquake, terror and similar crashes on our earth. In midnight Mars is in the south with Uranus, while some other objects are in Nadir. The new discovered planet Quaoar may be of interest, but I have no experience yet with that object running ahead of Pluto very slowly.

Hope that helps.

Volker

Jesse

July 28, 2003, 04:01 PM

Volker.Doormann:
Its alright. The simple thing is, I have no intention to be involved in such test.

So you admit that your previous objections about the results of such a test being meaningless were specious? Anyway, fair enough if you don't want to participate--I guess from your description below it'd take some time to translate them into english, so as I said I don't blame you for not wanting to do it if it isn't something you could just get out of the computer in a few seconds.

Volker.Doormann:
In short, Jesse. I can submit to you four chart interpretations in German language from four different valid birth datas (I wish to see all birth certificates as .jpg (!) ) of real persons you know personally, of your choice. OK?

I don't speak German so it wouldn't be very useful to me, nor could I easily get anyone's birth certificate (although my own birthday is listed on anybirthday.com). Thanks anyway though.

Jesse:
Would it cost money to get profiles from astro.com?

Volker.Doormann:
AFAIK not for a short profile (online). Yes for a full profile.

OK, if anyone still wants to do this test they can post three or four dates and I'll post the profiles in random order. BTW Volker, have you ever checked some of the profiles on astro.com to see if they're not too far off from your own interpretations?

Lobstrosity

July 28, 2003, 04:28 PM

I'll play along:

1) 7/19/79 @ 5:07 PM, White Plains, NY

2) 10/26/78 @ 8:22 PM, Salt Lake City, UT

3) 3/5/77 @ 2:15 AM, Kamuela, HI

4) 1/8/76 @ 4:16 PM, San Jose, CA

Volker.Doormann

July 28, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Volker.Doormann:
In short, Jesse. I can submit to you four chart interpretations in German language from four different valid birth datas (I wish to see all birth certificates as .jpg (!) ) of real persons you know personally, of your choice. OK?

I don't speak German so it wouldn't be very useful to me, nor could I easily get anyone's birth certificate (although my own birthday is listed on anybirthday.com). Thanks anyway though. I think there is a way to tanslate it to English. The certifcate is a must. I must be shure that the birth data are correct. BTW Volker, have you ever checked some of the profiles on astro.com to see if they're not too far off from your own interpretations? I have read some few. They are some different, but nevertheless excellent. The author is Liz Greene. She is an expert in Interpretation and Dr. Alois Treindl is physicist and has written the interpretation software inclusice the hole astronomical algorithm with NASA standard. I would say, that my interpretation is short, very honest (not smart) and direct, their interpretation is long and detailed in all aspects of the life of the born being. My interpretation belongs to prior lifes and its Karma and the job having one in this life as target, their intepretation belongs to the psyche of the character and how that can refined to master this life with a better knowledge of the own character. In any case there is a general interpretation of the key aspects of the individual character through the great number of specific elements in each individual chart.

Volker

Arken

July 28, 2003, 05:26 PM

Okay, since Volker seems to refuse to submit to the experiment, I did as he said and got my 'personal portrait' done at Astro.com. Here are the results along with my comments:

Sun in Cancer, Moon in Scorpio

You were born with the Sun in Cancer and the Moon in Scorpio. Your inner nature is more natural, sensitive, easy-going, and frank than your personality would indicate.

Bullshit. If anything, I'm far more easy-going on the outside and far more inwardly neurotic although admittedly the neurosis often comes to the surface.

You were born with the potential to live life simply, solely concerned with satisfying your pleasure-seeking impulses.

Again wrong. I don't live life simply at all and I am far from solely concerned with satisfying my pleasure-seeking impulses. In fact, I spend a lot of time trying to help others in all sorts of ways which I don't find pleasurable but necessary.

Others may view you as a very firm, self-reliant, determined, and strong personality.

That may be, but that doesn't say what I am and others may also view me as very weak, codependent, indecisive and shallow.

You are clear and abrupt, energetic, positive, and capable of carrying out projects that involve hard work and dedication.

I'm actually sometimes quite obfuscating and long-winded. I usually lack energy and I tend to be a realist. Sure I'm capable of carrying out such projects, but then who isn't? Capable doesn't mean anything.

On the same level, you are also fond of the good things of the world.

As opposed to all of those billions of people who hate good things I suppose? :rolleyes:

Your personality is irritable and you may be subject to fits of anger.

Wait a minute... at the top of this paragraph it said I was easy-going and later it said I was viewed as strong. That doesn't sound either easy-going or strong to me. What gives here?

Internally you are a very cautious person;

Yeah, I don't go jumping head-first into pools of bubbling lava so I guess that's true...

but externally the position of the Moon in Scorpio indicates sensuality. You are inclined to strong pleasures and sexual adventures.

I guess my life has sucked up to now then. ;)

You have a way of saying things that makes you appear skeptical and cynical.

Me? NEVER! (Okay, we'll call this one a hit.)

After this was an advice part which I'm skipping since it has nothing to do with predictions but on the other hand it was totally nonsensical and stupid.

You appear as a solid, secure, even slow person, fond of moving along tangible lines, disliking abstract speculation.

So I'm stupid? Fuck you, horoscope.

You are loyal and steadfast in your affections. Your overall attitude is amiable, exhibiting much patience in dealings with other people.

See last comment.

You are a sensuous person who likes to indulge in healthful but always pleasurable activities.

Actually, I'm kind of an out-of-shape guy who doesn't exercise much and eats poorly.

In spite of this, however, you have a tremendous capacity for exercising both will-power and physical strength.

Ha! Ha ha ha ha! This is a load of crapola.

A major difficulty you encounter in life is due to your inflexibility; once you have made up your mind, you are closed to all other suggestion or opinion.

Great... so not only am I stupid, I'm also inflexible. Is it going to tell me that I'm ugly next?

[More crap skipped]

You concentrate a great deal on your appearance and even if you are not especially beautiful or handsome, you have a quality of softness and friendliness, which endears you to many.

Why yes it is! Sort of anyway.

As far as my appearance, right now my hair has needed cutting for about a month, I'm wearing a dirty shirt, long pants with torn-up fake birkenstocks and I haven't shaved since last Friday. Sure I'm soft, but then most fat people are, right? :D Nice to hear that despite being stupid, ugly, inflexible and subject to fits of anger, I'm still a lovable guy.

You like to keep beauty and grace around you as much as possible.

Unlike all those people who only like ugly things around them.

You have a strong affinity with nature and prefer the quiet life of the country to the plastic constructions of city life.

I hate nature. I'm moving to L.A. and I can't wait because this town of 150,000 is too small. My wife always wants me to go camping but I never will because I hate it.

It is likely that you grew up in an atmosphere of warmth and congeniality. Now it is easy for you to project these same feelings to family and friends, and others often count on you to restore peace in difficult situations.

I guess that's basically true, at least the first part. I don't know who counts on me to restore peace but maybe someone does...

You have strong inclinations toward music, art and drama and you may wish to cultivate a form of artistic expression.

Admittedly, this is dead-on. I make my living in the arts. Still, if this is the most accurate it can get, I'm not impressed, especially since it says that I 'may wish to' and didn't know that I spend most of my time doing just that already.

You work very hard to get along with others, and you usually try to win arguments with diplomacy rather than force.

Okay, so I'm not an antisocial asshole. Thanks.

Relationships are important to you, and you often go out of your way to initiate them. It is vital that your associations remain harmonious, because quarrels and disputes affect you adversely.

Disputes affect me adverseley?! NO FREAKIN' WAY! I thought I was one of those people who liked it when everybody hated me! You mean I'm NOT?

Mars conjunct the Ascendant gives you an inexhaustible supply of energy. You are constantly in motion, but sometimes it is motion without meaning.

Nope. See tub o' lard comments from above. I spend most of my day in a chair in front of my desk and computer.

Lacking self-discipline, you take daring and unnecessary risks when challenged. You want most of all for people to recognize your superiority.

Wow. Talk about self-contradiction. It said at the beginning that I didn't take risks and that I was self-reliant and strong. Now I'm brash and weak-willed with a big ego.

The image you present hides a persistent inferiority complex.

Now I don't really think I hide that, do you? It's pretty out in the open.

You probably win your arguments by making the most noise and wearing out your opponents with unceasing harassment.

What the fuck? Did it not just say that was exactly what I didn't do?

There is a hell of a lot more to this but I'm getting tired of refuting it. All in all, it's pretty much wrong about me. Thanks for reaffirming my disbelief in astrology, Volker.

echidna

July 28, 2003, 05:51 PM

Dress it up in all the pseudo-science you want, but Volker is demonstrating clear examples of :

The Forer Effect (a.k.a. the P.T. Barnum effect and subjective validation)

http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html Psychologist B.R. Forer found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.

�You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. �

Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2. While sceptics ridicule the notion that �it only works if you believe it works�, there is an element of truth to the statement. Both Confirmation Bias and the Forer Effect will clearly only work when the subject has been fooled into believing that the whatever method actually works.

As such, whether they are fraudulent examples of Confirmation Bias & the Forer Effect or not, is simply evidenced by the fact that neither Astrology, nor Volker's earlier claims of astrological links to earthquakes work either predictively or when examined objectively. They work subjectively simply because they rely entirely on these 2 human phenomena helped along with a healthy dose of gullibility.

Volker's complex (but meaningless) explanations simply reflect the need for Astrology to complicate itself in the Modern Era to remain plausible to a more sophisticated audience.

Confirmation Bias

http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if one believes that during a full moon there is an increase in accidents, one will take notice when accidents occur during a full moon, but be inattentive to the moon when accidents occur during other times of the month. A tendency to do this over time unjustifiably strengthens one's belief in the relationship between the full moon and accidents. Worth noting that we are all subject to Confirmation Bias, but that the difference between Science & Pseudoscience, is that Confirmation Bias is a liability to Science, while an essential ingredient to Pseudoscience.

Cold Reading

http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html Here's another reading:

�People close to you have been taking advantage of you. Your basic honesty has been getting in your way. Many opportunities that you have had offered to you in the past have had to be surrendered because you refuse to take advantage of others. You like to read books and articles to improve your mind. In fact, if you're not already in some sort of personal service business, you should be. You have an infinite capacity for understanding people's problems and you can sympathize with them. But you are firm when confronted with obstinacy or outright stupidity. Law enforcement would be another field you understand. Your sense of justice is quite strong. �

The last one was from astrologer Sidney Omarr. He's never even met you and yet he knows so much about you (Flim-Flam!, 61). The first one was taken by Forer from a newsstand astrology book.

The selectivity of the human mind is always at work. We pick and choose what data we will remember and what we will give significance to. In part, we do so because of what we already believe or want to believe. In part, we do so in order to make sense out of what we are experiencing. We are not manipulated simply because we are gullible or suggestible, or just because the signs and symbols of the manipulator are vague or ambiguous. Even when the signs are clear and we are skeptical, we can still be manipulated. In fact, it may even be the case that particularly bright persons are more likely to be manipulated when the language is clear and they are thinking logically. To make the connections that the manipulator wants you to make, you must be thinking logically. Volker's examples which he uses in this thread are slightly less sophisticated versions of these. He draws on broad human stereotypes with a little selectivity no doubt gleaned from reading people's posts here. Creating these truisms of human nature may seem like magic to some, but in reality they are entirely possible, simply by resorting to a little common sense assisted with a willingness to deceive.

Jesse

July 28, 2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
I'll play along:

1) 7/19/79 @ 5:07 PM, White Plains, NY

2) 10/26/78 @ 8:22 PM, Salt Lake City, UT

3) 3/5/77 @ 2:15 AM, Kamuela, HI

4) 1/8/76 @ 4:16 PM, San Jose, CA

OK, got 'em. Each is about 3 pages long, and it took a while to edit out all the astrological references from each, so I probably won't want to do this for more than one or two other people, although anyone who's interested could probably find someone else to do it for them.

Anyway, I don't want to clutter up this thread too much...do you want me to email them to you, or start a new thread for "blind astrology tests" and post them there?

Lobstrosity

July 28, 2003, 06:02 PM

Why don't you post them in a new thread and I will attempt to publically assess them.

Autonemesis

July 28, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
The only superstition in relation to astrology is the superstition that astrology is superstition. No one who assert, that astrology is superstition has studied astrology.

I agree. Having studied astrology myself, and learned the art of casting a horoscope, I can tell you from my own experience that it is a con game, not a superstition. ;)

Jesse

July 28, 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Why don't you post them in a new thread and I will attempt to publically assess them.

OK, go to the thread Blind test of astrology (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59086) for the four profiles.

Bible Humper

July 28, 2003, 09:11 PM

Oh well, Volker, at least your material is much better than Astro.com's! (Judging by Arken's results)

Note the number of SPECIFIC "predictions" which all turned out wrong in Arken's "personal portrait". Your portrait of Lunachick had only 2 specifics (though they were doosies! Fearless and violent! hahaha!) so less of it could be asserted to be DEFINATELY unapplicable to her.

The manner in which you are conducting your defense of astrology speaks for itself, IMHO, so for anyone who wants the tough question answered which our friend Volker is dancing around, echidna's links should clean up any loose ends. (Thanks a lot for those, echidna! I really suck at finding GOOD sources for ANYTHING online.....)

Bible Humper

July 28, 2003, 11:05 PM

Actually, the book you recommended is not about "psychic" cold reading at all, Echidna.

It has something to do with acting auditions.

Not What I thought It was, August 9, 2000

Reviewer: A reader from Harrisburg, PA USA

I have carefully given this book a neutral review. I purchased this book while researching a paper on how psychics and mediums perform their art. This method is often called "cold reading." This book was recommended by Amazon when I purchased other similar books. However, this book is an instructional for actors who are going to auditions. If you are an actor, this book may be wonderful, please use your own judgement. If you are looking for a book relating to mind-reading, mentalism, Tarot, etc. this book is not for you.

echidna

July 29, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Bible Humper
Actually, the book you recommended is not about "psychic" cold reading at all, Echidna.

It has something to do with acting auditions. Heh, oh yes, entirely different. ;)

Volker.Doormann

July 29, 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Arken
... my comments:

Bullshit.

(Okay, we'll call this one a hit.)

So I'm stupid? Fuck you, horoscope.

I guess that's basically true, at least the first part.

Admittedly, this is dead-on.

Okay, so I'm not an antisocial asshole. Thanks.

Wow.

What the fuck? That's the reason I have given up discussing with such people. Tell them a truth about them and you get bullet. Why people think, that they are able to judge on their self correctly, Jesse? They buy a religion called skeptic and they are immune to arguments then, but nevertheless fucking back. Science and Skeptic is for such guys only a weapon to preserve the inner stupidity and not to give prove about the personal integrity. Nature? Fuck. Truth? Fuck. Each soul is a part of god. But shit is shit. Long time people have spoken in religions, that there must be a 'washing procedure' to find the soul behind shit. Now you can imagine what this was meant. People have mixed up shit and god, which is the own soul, while the shit is the character. Because the soul is able to perceive the character in general, but not the character the soul, it takes as long as the soul is cleaned from the dirt covering the inner soul by this colorful thoughts and speech. Astrology is exact a tool, to be aware - as soul - about the shit - if one is able to see some light through all the shit around him.

BTW. I have Mars below the ascending house as Arken and Lunachick it has also. My software outputs this with: "You have energy, you are dominant, fury comes and passes quick, sometimes you use to execute your arms in the fight for your undertakings." Well, this is only one aspect of many. But think about.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

July 29, 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
I agree. Having studied astrology myself, and learned the art of casting a horoscope, I can tell you from my own experience that it is a con game, not a superstition. ;) Autonemesis,
if you are interested in astrology but as well in astronomy, you may take a look on doormann.tripod.com/asssky.htm about Astronomy in Babylon. There are a lot of background information and some specific hints to the astrological character of the planets, mistaken as gods until now from scholars. The worship was only the respect to the character of the planets, because of the ruler for some human emotions and feelings. As the Jews had broken the knowledge of astrology (search for 'astarte' (=Venus in the bible), they have banned the planets as false gods or idols. This anathema will hold up until now as an part of education on high schools and in these skeptic brains here. Jupiter, the Marduk in Babylon, as the astrological principle of justice is converted in the Bible to 'Melchezedek' or 'Melechzedek' which means 'king of righteous' as a 'priest'. Until now it is believed, that the people in mesoptamia/Babylon are slaves of the planets as gods, but one can find, that it was an intelligent search for the truth in the spirital aere of nature. The Sumers in 2300 BCE have said: 'Into an open mouth, a fly enters'; and this may show, that coolness is not a patent of the people of this age.

Volker

echidna

July 29, 2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
The Sumers in 2300 BCE have said: 'Into an open mouth, a fly enters' Actually Australians say this quite a lot as well. But over here we mean "keep your trap shut when you're talking bullshit". You might consider it good advice !!!

Volker.Doormann

July 29, 2003, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by echidna
You are on my ignore list

Arken

July 29, 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
That's the reason I have given up discussing with such people. Tell them a truth about them and you get bullet. Why people think, that they are able to judge on their self correctly, Jesse? They buy a religion called skeptic and they are immune to arguments then, but nevertheless fucking back. Science and Skeptic is for such guys only a weapon to preserve the inner stupidity and not to give prove about the personal integrity. Nature? Fuck. Truth? Fuck. Each soul is a part of god. But shit is shit. Long time people have spoken in religions, that there must be a 'washing procedure' to find the soul behind shit. Now you can imagine what this was meant. People have mixed up shit and god, which is the own soul, while the shit is the character. Because the soul is able to perceive the character in general, but not the character the soul, it takes as long as the soul is cleaned from the dirt covering the inner soul by this colorful thoughts and speech. Astrology is exact a tool, to be aware - as soul - about the shit - if one is able to see some light through all the shit around him.

BTW. I have Mars below the ascending house as Arken and Lunachick it has also. My software outputs this with: "You have energy, you are dominant, fury comes and passes quick, sometimes you use to execute your arms in the fight for your undertakings." Well, this is only one aspect of many. But think about.

Volker

So you're looking past the core of my argument, that the prediction was almost totally incorrect, and just looking at the words I use? I'm not impressed. How about addressing the issue?

Also, as I already said, I don't have energy and my fury doesn't pass quickly when I have it althought I don't get furious all that often. I'm not sure what that arms part means. I've never been in a physical fight of any sort.

Volker.Doormann

July 29, 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Arken How about addressing the issue? If you would be taken seriously in a scientific forum then it is up to you to argue adquate. Bullshit is not a SI unit and Fucking is not a helpful dimension to evaluate truth. The difference between science and and pseudoscience is, that science distinguish beteen truth and untruth and pseudescience mixed it up and adding bias of any kind to it. Thruth does not need promotion or discredit, it needs a clean clear logic argumentation for them who listen to, to find this in their spirit and not in their emotional pelvis. The keypoint is, that your sayings and arguments are taken only for serious, if you do argue seriously. Why should I take you serious?

Volker

Arken

July 29, 2003, 08:05 AM

Good question. I certainly am having a hard time taking you seriously.

Volker.Doormann

July 29, 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Arken
Good question. I certainly am having a hard time taking you seriously. Thank you for the talk, Arken.

Arken

July 29, 2003, 09:17 AM

Thanks for the insults.

scombrid

July 29, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
If you would be taken seriously in a scientific forum then it is up to you to argue adquate. Bullshit is not a SI unit and Fucking is not a helpful dimension to evaluate truth. The difference between science and and pseudoscience is, that science distinguish beteen truth and untruth and pseudescience mixed it up and adding bias of any kind to it. Thruth does not need promotion or discredit, it needs a clean clear logic argumentation for them who listen to, to find this in their spirit and not in their emotional pelvis. The keypoint is, that your sayings and arguments are taken only for serious, if you do argue seriously. Why should I take you serious?

Volker

How about explaining why the horoscope for Arken contained contradictory statements. Might it be that the technique requires shutgunning where several predictions/characterizations are blindly made and the astrologer counts on the con victim only remembering the his and forgetting the misses? You only need separate contradictory statements by a few lines for the true believer to forget the wrong bits.

Arken's reply was more substantive than the bits you selected yet you only replied to the bits where arkens expressed frustration at the nonsense waded through. Why ddin't you address Arken's substantive replies? Have you no answer for legitimate criticism?

Volker.Doormann

July 29, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by scombrid
How about explaining why the horoscope for Arken contained contradictory statements. Might it be that the technique requires shutgunning where several predictions/characterizations are blindly made and the astrologer counts on the con victim only remembering the his and forgetting the misses? You only need separate contradictory statements by a few lines for the true believer to forget the wrong bits.

Arken's reply was more substantive than the bits you selected yet you only replied to the bits where arkens expressed frustration at the nonsense waded through. Why ddin't you address Arken's substantive replies? Have you no answer for legitimate criticism? A human psyche is not one bit. Depending on weather, hunger, time, environment the emotions can be different, because a human being is able to be smart in general, but also aggressive in general. This is not really a contradiction in the sense of philosophy, which would be taken, to reject contradiction sayings.

If you can follow this argumentation and you can agree on it, then this is a good base for a discussion. If you do not agree on this, and you do argue, that this is a contradiction of philosophy, and you have arguments, then this is a good base for a discussion.

While a discussion is mind war in general, but a dialog is more effective finding the truth, I prefer a dialog. Nobody must discuss with me, but I must discuss also not with each one, who has a dirty speech.

A dialog needs to relate to arguments in the reply. A dialog avoids to attack the person, moreover it serve the to be discussing subject.

This are common rules and if they are hurt, if one think, that this rules are not valid discussing astrology, god or anything else, then I switch off. I hope you can agree on that.

I am not responsible for the text from astro.com, but I am willing to give help - and my critical thoughts - if I can on exact that base on dialog.

There is nothing to determine in this world, but all to recognize. A personal opinion may be adequate in listen music, but in recognizing truth of nature - and astrology is part of nature and not created by Ron Hubbard - a personal opinion is of no need.

I have no intention to work on to interfere people who are arguing as persons of authority. There are a lot of empty space in the ignore lists here.

Volker

echidna

July 29, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
You are on my ignore list You've no idea how devastated that leaves me. Although at the same time I must thank you for breaking that rule to let me know.

I suppose it's an easier alternative to explaining why your consistently unsupported assertions aren't simply attempts at Cold Reading relying on the gullibility of believers. I mean it's not like we haven't offered you enough opportunities to demonstrate whether you're telling the truth or not ...

enrious

July 31, 2003, 04:22 PM

James Randi, in his book Flim Flam! points out four reasons why astrology is not science or anything other than make-believe.

1) The astrology symbols are arbitrary groupings of dots of light in the sky and given imaginative descriptions and shapes.

He reproduces a map of the night sky, with the various stars in them. He then challenges you to identify the various signs of the zodiac. He then points out how you can string together non "canon" stars to form other symbols, revealing the arbitrary nature of it. One man's scorpion is another man's Porche.

2) There's no scientific explanation for how the position of the stars can affect someone or how their position at the time of your birth could still have an effect.

This is further amplified by the fact that for most stars, where we see them in the night sky is *not* where they are today.

3) Assuming an argument were made that the stars (and planets) gravitational effect on you were the cause for such an effect, Randi points out something. If all of the planets and the sun were in perfect alignment with each other, and thus expected to exert the maximum gravitational effect on your body, do you know what it would take to counteract that effect using the Earth's gravitational effect on you?

Sit down.

Moving 12inches closer to the Earth is all that'd be required.

How much effect could the stars have on you again?

4) The arbirtrary nature is a clear indication of pseudo-science (or to put it another way, bullshit). There is no clear, consistent consensus of data for someone, using astrological methods.

By this, it's meant that if one person went to 10 seperate astrologers, the odds of the astrologers returning the same "diagnosis" does not exceed random chance.

And that's assuming they don't use equivicative/waffling language to hedge their bets.

Autonemesis

July 31, 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
blah blah blah... The Sumers in 2300 BCE have said: 'Into an open mouth, a fly enters'; and this may show, that coolness is not a patent of the people of this age.

Volker

Yes yes, I know all that. It's still a con game. Come on, Volker, I know how to play it from your side. Think of me as a Junior James Randi when it comes to astrology. I know exactly what I need to do to be convincing with this happy horseshit. I bet I could fool every one of your customers into believing that a chart I made up out of whole cloth applies to them.

Shadowy Man

July 31, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by enrious
James Randi, in his book Flim Flam! points out four reasons why astrology is not science or anything other than make-believe.

My understanding of astrology is that it is not the position of the stars that are important but the positions of the earth in its orbit and the positions of the planets relative to the earth. The stars just give a convenient backdrop to calculate these positions.

enrious

July 31, 2003, 05:02 PM

Yes, but even then they'd have to face the fact that the other planets do not affect us nearly as much as say...my laptop...or the table holding my laptop.

Shadowy Man

July 31, 2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by enrious
Yes, but even then they'd have to face the fact that the other planets do not affect us nearly as much as say...my laptop...or the table holding my laptop.

I don't believe in astrology, I'm an astrophysicist, but do yourself a favor and calculate the gravitational force on you by Jupiter at closest approach. I bet you'll be surprised. :)

enrious

July 31, 2003, 09:20 PM

Does it come close to the amount generated by the Earth?

Jesse

July 31, 2003, 09:53 PM

Jupiter's mass (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/DavidEngel.shtml) = 1.9 * 10^27 kg
Jupiter's distance from earth (http://www.powersof10.com/powers/space/station_25.html) when the two are lined up: 6.3 * 10^11 meters

So, using the formula http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/gimg297.gif from Newtonian gravity (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html), the force between a 1-kg mass on earth and Jupiter will be G*(1.9*10^27 kg)(1 kg)/(6.3*10^11 meters)^2 = (6.672*10^-11 Newtons meters^2 kg^-2)(1.9*10^27 kg^2)/(4.0*10^23 meters^2) = 3.2*10^-7 Newtons.

In comparison, the mass of the earth (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SamanthaDong2.shtml) is about 6.0 * 10^24 kg, your distance from its center (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci816253,00.html) is about 6.4 * 10^6 meters, so the force on a 1-kg mass from the earth at its surface will be about 9.8 Newtons, about three million times larger.

If you have a 2000 kg car sitting 1 meter away away, the force on a 1-kg mass from the car would be 1.3 * 10^-7 Newtons, only about 2 1/2 times less than that of Jupiter.

Because of the way the equation for gravitational force works, the ratios between these different forces would be the same regardless of whether you use a 1-kg mass or, say, the mass of your own body.

edit: corrected a mistake in the value of G and the wrong answers for the forces that resulted

Lobstrosity

July 31, 2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Jupiter's mass (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/DavidEngel.shtml) = 1.9 * 10^27 kg
Jupiter's distance from earth (http://www.powersof10.com/powers/space/station_25.html) when the two are lined up: 6.3 * 10^11 meters

So, using the formula http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/gimg297.gif from Newtonian gravity (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html), the force between a 1-kg mass on earth and Jupiter will be G*(1.9*10^27 kg)(1 kg)/(6.3*10^11 meters)^2 = (6.672*10^-13 Newtons meters^2 kg^-2)(1.9*10^27 kg^2)/(4.0*10^23 meters^2) = 3.2*10^-9 Newtons.

In comparison, the mass of the earth (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SamanthaDong2.shtml) is about 6.0 * 10^24 kg, your distance from its center (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci816253,00.html) is about 6.4 * 10^6 meters, so the force on a 1-kg mass from the earth at its surface will be about 9.8 * 10^-2 Newtons, about three million times larger.

Wait, something's wrong here. gravitational acceleration on the surface of the Earth is approximately 9.8 m/s�. The force on a 1-kg mass would then be F = ma = 9.8 kg m/s� = 9.8 N. You're off by two orders of magnitude, which seems to stem from the fact that the gravitational constant G is 6.672*10^-11 N m�/kg� (not 6E-13 as you state above). You comparisons should still be valid, however, as your error should cancel out when you take the ratios. In general I find it's better to talk about gravitational acceleration as opposed to gravitational force. All masses experience the same acceleration in a gravitational field, so why complicate things by making the scenario mass-dependent?

Jesse

July 31, 2003, 11:05 PM

Whoops, you're right about G...I got it from here (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalConstant.html) but I must have copied it down wrong.

Volker.Doormann

July 31, 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by enrious
James Randi, in his book Flim Flam! points out four reasons why astrology is not science or anything other than make-believe.

1) The astrology symbols are arbitrary groupings of dots of light in the sky and given imaginative descriptions and shapes.

He reproduces a map of the night sky, with the various stars in them. He then challenges you to identify the various signs of the zodiac. He then points out how you can string together non "canon" stars to form other symbols, revealing the arbitrary nature of it. One man's scorpion is another man's Porche.Astrology has nothing to do with arbitrary groupings of dots of light in the sky and given imaginative descriptions and shapes.

It is the fantasy of Randi to argue on this nonsense.
2) There's no scientific explanation for how the position of the stars can affect someone or how their position at the time of your birth could still have an effect. An missing explanation does not prove something wrong. We do not know also why there was a Big Bang.This is further amplified by the fact that for most stars, where we see them in the night sky is *not* where they are today. Irrelevant. S. above.
3) Assuming an argument were made that the stars (and planets) gravitational effect on you were the cause for such an effect, Randi points out something. If all of the planets and the sun were in perfect alignment with each other, and thus expected to exert the maximum gravitational effect on your body, do you know what it would take to counteract that effect using the Earth's gravitational effect on you?It is Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with gravity.4) The arbirtrary nature is a clear indication of pseudo-science (or to put it another way, bullshit). What is arbitray nature? There is no clear, consistent consensus of data for someone, using astrological methods. Negative proof. Stupid.By this, it's meant that if one person went to 10 seperate astrologers, the odds of the astrologers returning the same "diagnosis" does not exceed random chance.That may an argument against astrologers, but not against astrology.

Weak. Worshipping God Randi is also a worship.

If people are not able to do some significance calcs correct, or to argue ad hominem it it senseless to discuss with them seriosly.

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 12:49 AM

Randi:
If all of the planets and the sun were in perfect alignment with each other, and thus expected to exert the maximum gravitational effect on your body, do you know what it would take to counteract that effect using the Earth's gravitational effect on you?

Volker.Doormann:
It is Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with gravity.

Physicists have long believed there are only four fundamental forces in nature--gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. Any causal influence between two parts of the universe is thought to be conveyed through one or more of these forces, and all the forces we call by other names are ultimately manifestations of these basic forces (for example, the force of friction is due to electromagnetic forces between atoms). The strong and weak force are negligible except at very short range, so if the planets affect the brain in a way that's compatible with known physics, it must be through the gravitational or electromagnetic force. You say it's not gravity, but electromagnetism seems equally unlikely--I'm pretty sure that no matter what part of the electromagnetic spectrum you look at, the amount of radiation we recieve from the planets at that frequency is miniscule compared to the amount we recieve from other sources.

I suppose you could postulate a fifth, undiscovered fundamental force just to explain the results of astrology. But if you need to postulate radically new physical principles in order to explain astrology, along with radically new biological principles (like virtually the whole personality being created at the moment of first breath) that makes the theory inherently pretty implausible--some very strong evidence would be needed to get us to totally revamp existing science in such a basic way.

enrious

August 1, 2003, 02:49 AM

Isn't there some correlation between the likelihood of something being bullshit and the need to create new science that completely changes existing science to explain it?

Astrology has nothing to do with arbitrary groupings of dots of light in the sky and given imaginative descriptions and shapes.

Oh? Then what is it? Making fantastical drawings using a "connect the dots" kit and saying that these drawings happen to be clear dividers that tell you what you (and everyone else in the world) are like. Oh, but in order for it two work, you have to believe in it?

An missing explanation does not prove something wrong. We do not know also why there was a Big Bang.

Irrelevant. S. above.

<snicker> You saved one whole character by abbreviating "see" with "S." Though, you probably came out even because you capitalised the "S".

It's irrelevant that the heavenly bodies that are supposed to affect us aren't where you think they are?

Would you like a little argumentum ad ignoratum to go with your coffee?

What is arbitray nature?

When you have to rely on ad hoc explanations to perpetuate the bullshit.

Negative proof. Stupid.

Astrology? Finally, we agree on something. Or did you mean to call me "stupid"?

And despite you saying that the fact that virtually no astrologers can seem to agree on their readings is "weak", it does tend to clearly mark astrology as not being scientific.

I mean...real science has a certain "universal nature" to it - gravity, for example, works the same in both China and England. Scientists in both places can conduct the same experiment and be expected to come up with the same results. There's no need to come up with an ad hoc explanation of "Oh, that must be a weakness among the scientists."
As for the "rebuttal" you offered, I respectfully suggest you look into the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

If people are not able to do some significance calcs correct, or to argue ad hominem it it senseless to discuss with them seriosly.

I suppose it would be better to be selling fairy tales to people? Makes me want to found a Church. With big, neon lights.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Jesse
[b]Randi:
If all of the planets and the sun were in perfect alignment with each other, and thus expected to exert the maximum gravitational effect on your body, do you know what it would take to counteract that effect using the Earth's gravitational effect on you?

Volker.Doormann:
It is Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with gravity.
[...]
Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with the gravitational effect from the mass of the planets on the earth gravity potential.

Astrology deals with angles, times, cycles of planets, but not with gravity. As Kepler has shown, the gravity or mass of a planet is (nearly) irrrlevant to the cycles of time oscillating with the sun.

I have not said, that gravitational effects are excluded in general. I have said that it is Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with gravity (in those his imaginations).

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 03:41 AM

Volker.Doormann
Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with the gravitational effect from the mass of the planets on the earth gravity potential.

Astrology deals with angles, times, cycles of planets, but not with gravity.

It's true that astrologers are not ordinarily concerned with the question of how the planets can influence personality, they just assume that they can, and have a system which describes the relationship between planetary positions and personalities; but if astrology is really true, there must be some kind of mechanism or explanation for how this works, no?

Volker.Doormann:
As Kepler has shown, the gravity or mass of a planet in (nearly) irrrlevant to the cycles of time oscillating with the sun

Nearly irrelevant? I have no idea what you mean here--all of the rules Kepler found can be derived as necessary consequences of Newtonian gravity. See this page, for example:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/phys/people/vdhillon/teaching/phy105/phy105_derivation.html

Volker.Doormann:
I have not said, that gravitational effects are excluded in general. I have said that it is Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with gravity (in those his imaginations).

Look, if the planets influence the brain in some way, you basically only have three options as to how they can do this:

1. Through one of the known forces (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong, weak)
2. Through an undiscovered fundamental force (would require a radical revision of known physics)
3. A form of "influence" which is not a force at all (an even more radical revision of known physics)

Which of these do you think is most likely? Can't option #1 be ruled out by examining how weak the gravitational/electromagnetic influence of planets on objects on earth is, as Randi was doing?

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by enrious
Making fantastical drawings using a "connect the dots" kit and saying that these drawings happen to be clear dividers that tell you what you (and everyone else in the world) are like.
Astrology has nothing in common with pictures, which people might believe to see in the night sky. Astrology make use of 12 absolute equal 30� angle distances counted from the so called astronomical spring equinox, which is moving with the motion of the earth�s axis from gravitational torque effects from the moon. These 12 angle distances have names, which are also used for �fix star pictures�, but they have nothing to do with that objects or pictures. Nothing. This is well known to all, who have read some books on astology. I mean...real science has a certain "universal nature" to it - gravity, for example, works the same in both China and England. Scientists in both places can conduct the same experiment and be expected to come up with the same results. You can read an article about �Astronomy in Babylon� doormann.org/asssky.htm . I that you can find some astrological qualities of the planets (Sun Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn). Mercury is mentioned for example with �Messenger� or Saturn with �boundary�. All astrologers in the world agree on all these astrological qualities since Babylon (!). This is the universal nature of astrology ignored only by the fundamentalist�s in science called them self the believer and follower of �Skeptic� and �Humanism�; fantasies, no one ever could have shown as more than superstition in the brains of fundies of science.

Secular Pinoy

August 1, 2003, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I that you can find some astrological qualities of the planets (Sun Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn). Mercury is mentioned for example with �Messenger� or Saturn with �boundary�. All astrologers in the world agree on all these astrological qualities since Babylon (!).How were these qualities known? What was the method? How can it be tested?

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by Jesse
It's true that astrologers are not ordinarily concerned with the question of how the planets can influence personality, they just assume that they can, and have a system which describes the relationship between planetary positions and personalities; but if astrology is really true, there must be some kind of mechanism or explanation for how this works, no?
Sure, that there must be a causality, but it is not a must, that for this causality must exist an explanation. There are many things in the world, which are used, and there is no explanation. You use for example logic. But you cannot give an explanation, how logic works. Yes or yes? (Maybe some of your four forces are involved in the working of logic?).

Volker.Doormann:
As Kepler has shown, the gravity or mass of a planet in (nearly) irrrlevant to the cycles of time oscillating with the sun

Nearly irrelevant? I have no idea what you mean here..

The force of gravitation includes the mass of the sun, as well as the mass of the specific planet. But because the mass of a planet is several orders minor to the mass of the sun, I have said �nearly�.

Volker.Doormann:
I have not said, that gravitational effects are excluded in general. I have said that it is Randi's Assume and fantasy dealing with gravity (in those his imaginations).
Look, if the planets influence the brain in some way, you basically only have three options as to how they can do this: ..

If you speculate on a working mechanism regarding the physics of astrology, it is your freedom.

I have replied to the Randi�s disproving astrology claims, which was shown to be irrelevant to the science of astrology.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
How were these qualities known? What was the method? How can it be tested?
I dont know. Is that important?

Test? How can? Take your scientific tools od go on it.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Yes yes, I know all that. It's still a con game. Come on, Volker, I know how to play it from your side. Think of me as a Junior James Randi when it comes to astrology. I know exactly what I need to do to be convincing with this happy horseshit. I bet I could fool every one of your customers into believing that a chart I made up out of whole cloth applies to them. This is a forum were it counts to have arguments.

How about science?

The following 24 interpretations calculated from astronomical symbols out of the time and location were accepted as matching from a person, who was born exact at this time and location. I cite from his post:

�DEFINITE HITS:
You want to fathom mysterious things because they attract you magically.
You have a serious interest in religion, philosophy and higher formation. (I'm assuming higher formation is like science? And I think religion is crap, but I do have many reasons why I think it's crap, so obviously I think about it.)
You attach big value to your moral reputation.
Your feelings are vulnerable.
You are pedantic in some things...
You are rather sober and real in your basic attitude.
You are silent and wait to seize the word about well thought-out and in shapely sentences to given time (I'm not 100% sure what this means, but I think it might be me)
On the basis of your parents, you are somewhat inhibited and shy.
And you are attached very much to your parents. (well, I was, though this doesn't seem to know that my mother is dead)
You deal with reason and can talk sensibly about everything.
You has can communicate meaningfully...
You possess a big sensitivity and have a romantic, but not disorganized imagination, which you bring in a logical context.
You are unbiased and convincing in your expression.
You have an awake mind, expresses you well, and all things can clarify for the public.
You are a serious personality and are cautiously in relationships.
You have an ability to enjoy unorthodox joys.
You are unsatisfied.
Your mother crushes you! (well, she did back when I lived at home, but then I left for school and she died, so does this still count?)
Often, you hush up your intents.
On the basis of your inflexible strength and your insight ability, you could give the mankind big, new and important realizations in the area of the sciences.
You can work well in groups and can have also success there.
You love it, that to explore you surrounding wonderland of knowledge and to read about it, and your life is a permanent thirst after more understanding.
Nevertheless it will be your biggest unconscious wish one day to become a wandering encyclopedia so that you never don't come into the situation to have the correct information to the hand in the correct moment.
You would like to hurt other people by no means, and it costs you much effort to develop the ability to say what you feel real.
�

Each of this matching interpretation�s is not only one bit, because an amount of specific details enhance this to an amount of bits, as a picture of 1 Mb has more details, as a picture of 1kb.

It was the amount of bits in these interpretations, which have been voted as significant.

Well, as I have argued, and what is ignored here, a significant matching has a value of at least 0.05. For 24 significant matching this counts to 5.9X10^-32 as significance value, because each of the single interpretations must be multiplied, because all this relates to one and the same person.

This means simple, to understand by each layman, that the chance, that this 24 interpretations are created randomly is 1 : 5.9X10^-32.

One can argue, that some of the single significant matching interpretations must not defined with a significance value of 0.05, it could be taken greater, that does change the grad of this significance value, but not the significance itself.

But the fact is, that these interpretations are calculated precisely and repeatable with astronomical algorithms and a data base including a big expert knowledge of astrology interpretations, loading a time and a location only, which has in common with that voting person only, it was born exact to that time and location, which was given as data to the algorithm.

This is the plot, Junior James Randi.

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 10:37 AM

Volker.Doormann:
Sure, that there must be a causality, but it is not a must, that for this causality must exist an explanation. There are many things in the world, which are used, and there is no explanation. You use for example logic. But you cannot give an explanation, how logic works. Yes or yes? (Maybe some of your four forces are involved in the working of logic?).

Complete non sequitur. Logic is just a part of math, it's not a theory postulating that one physical object in the universe is having a causal influence on another object in the universe. Astrology is. Can you think of any theories of causal influences between objects where scientists would not care if there is no known mechanism to transmit that influence, and where in fact it seems we can rule out all known physical mechanisms?

Volker.Doormann:
As Kepler has shown, the gravity or mass of a planet in (nearly) irrrlevant to the cycles of time oscillating with the sun

Jesse:
Nearly irrelevant? I have no idea what you mean here..

Volker.Doormann:
The force of gravitation includes the mass of the sun, as well as the mass of the specific planet. But because the mass of a planet is several orders minor to the mass of the sun, I have said �nearly�.

Sure, this is similar to how objects which are small compared to the earth fall at the same rate (if air resistance is ignored) in the earth's gravity, even if their own masses are quite different. But this sounds like another non sequitur--what does this have to do with the fact that the gravitational influence of a planet on a baby's brain is miniscule compared to the gravitational influence of the earth, and similar to that of cars, nearby buildings, etc.?

Volker.Doormann:
If you speculate on a working mechanism regarding the physics of astrology, it is your freedom.

I have replied to the Randi�s disproving astrology claims, which was shown to be irrelevant to the science of astrology.

Showing that no force known to science could be the mechanism by which astrological influences are transmitted is certainly not irrelevant--it makes astrology inherently less plausible as a scientific hypothesis. This is similar to how, for example, the lack of a plausible mechanism for translating changes in an animal's body into changed gene sequences makes Lamarckism inherently less plausible as a theory, and is one of the main reasons scientists reject it. Randi is just subjecting astrology to the same standards as any scientific theory.

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 10:45 AM

Well, as I have argued, and what is ignored here, a significant matching has a value of at least 0.05. For 24 significant matching this counts to 5.9X10^-32 as significance value, because each of the single interpretations must be multiplied, because all this relates to one and the same person.

This means simple, to understand by each layman, that the chance, that this 24 interpretations are created randomly is 1 : 5.9X10^-32.

First of all, most of those statements would probably be counted as "hits" by more than 5% of the population. Second, you cannot look just at the hits on a list of hits and misses and calculate the "significance value" from the hits alone--this would be like if I claimed to be able to influence the outcome of a coinflip, then flipped a coin twenty times, and said "well, I was trying to make the coin come up heads, and flips #3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 20 all did come up heads--the chance that all those flips would all come up heads is only 1 in 2^10, or 1 in 1024!" You must include both hits and misses in your significance level, otherwise you're just cherrypicking the data. This is elementary statistics.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Volker.Doormann:
Sure, that there must be a causality, but it is not a must, that for this causality must exist an explanation. There are many things in the world, which are used, and there is no explanation. You use for example logic. But you cannot give an explanation, how logic works. Yes or yes? (Maybe some of your four forces are involved in the working of logic?).

Complete non sequitur. Logic is just a part of math, it's not a theory postulating that one physical object in the universe is having a causal influence on another object in the universe. Astrology is. Can you think of any theories of causal influences between objects where scientists would not care if there is no known mechanism to transmit that influence, and where in fact it seems we can rule out all known physical mechanisms?The one who is postulating [xyz] is you. The question is, whether one can make use of something, which is not explained or one can not make use of it. And to this question your imaginations are irrelevant.Volker.Doormann:
If you speculate on a working mechanism regarding the physics of astrology, it is your freedom.

I have replied to the Randi�s disproving astrology claims, which was shown to be irrelevant to the science of astrology.

Showing that no force known to science could be the mechanism by which astrological influences are transmitted is certainly not irrelevant--No one has stated that. Randi has dealt with gravity potential only. But gravitational effects are not limited to this. A gravitational energy also can transmitted for example (!) by gravitational waves and in addition to this amplified, by planetary mass ('lens') and geometrical effects of interfering gravitational waves. This shows, that beyond the imaginations of Randi, there are well known forces to science exist, which have not taken into account regarding the building of brain structures in a baby. This does not mean, that this must be the case, but it is wrong to claim, that there are no known effects in science next to gravity potential.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
... most of those statements would probably be counted as "hits" by more than 5% of the population. This is an opinion without any scientific prove. .. you cannot look just at the hits on a list I can, and I do. I have said, that significance cannot made untrue by fails. It is simple boolean logic. If you not agree, we can close.

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 01:37 PM

Volker.Doormann:
The one who is postulating [xyz] is you.

What does "xyz" stand for? All I'm postulating is that there must be a causal influence between a baby's brain and a planet for astrology to work. Do you disagree with this?

Volker.Doormann:
The question is, whether one can make use of something, which is not explained or one can not make use of it.

What do you mean, "the" question? I hope you'd agree that that's not the only question scientists look at when evaluating a theory--if there is no plausible mechanism for a purported influence of one thing on another, that's a strike against the theory from a scientific point of view.

Maybe astrologers don't feel the same way, but Randi was evaluating astrology's status as a scientific theory, so his criticism is completely valid.

Volker.Doormann:
Randi has dealt with gravity potential only. But gravitational effects are not limited to this. A gravitational energy also can transmitted for example (!) by gravitational waves and in addition to this amplified, by planetary mass ('lens') and geometrical effects of interfering gravitational waves.

You're grasping at straws here. If the gravitational force from a planet is miniscule, the effects of gravitational waves from that planet will be miniscule as well, since these waves should diminish as a function of the square of the distance just like the ordinary gravitational force. To speculate that "interference" or "lensing" (from what? The gravitational lensing from another planet will be tiny, and there are no black holes floating around in the solar system) could somehow radically amplify the gravitational force from another planet is exactly like suggesting that the light (electromagnetic waves) from the planets could temporarily create a light in the sky as bright as the sun due to interference/lensing. It just doesn't work that way, as I'm sure any quantitative analysis of the effects of lensing/interference on gravitational waves from the planets would show.

Volker.Doormann:
This shows, that beyond the imaginations of Randi, there are well known forces to science exist, which have not taken into account regarding the building of brain structures in a baby. This does not mean, that this must be the case, but it is wrong to claim, that there are no known effects in science next to gravity potential.

I didn't say anything about "gravity potential", I said "the force of gravitation". Gravitational waves are included as part of the modern theory of the gravitational force, and as I said, these waves obey an inverse-square law of diminishing strength with increasing distance just like the Newtonian gravitational force (and I'm not sure if planets travelling in elliptical orbits emit gravitational waves at all--I seem to recall that general relativity says objects moving in uniform circular orbits don't emit gravitational waves, so the same might be true of elliptical orbits). There's just no way that effects like lensing would alter the basic conclusion that the gravitational effects from the earth and earthbound objects swamp the gravitational effects from the planets. Same with the force of electromagnetism, whether you're talking about electromagnetic waves or just the ordinary coulomb force. Like I said, imagining that gravitational waves from planets can occasionally radically increase in strength due to interference/lensing is exactly analogous to imagining that the light from planets can occasionally outshine the sun due to interference/lensing. Any actual calculation, as opposed to just vague handwaving, will show this is not plausible.

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 01:54 PM

Jesse :
... most of those statements would probably be counted as "hits" by more than 5% of the population.

Volker.Doormann:
This is an opinion without any scientific prove.

As was your statement that they would not be counted as "hits" by more than 5% of the population. Do you honestly believe that no more than 5% of the population would count "your feelings are vulnerable" as a hit?

Jesse:
.. you cannot look just at the hits on a list

Volker.Doormann:
I can, and I do. I have said, that significance cannot made untrue by fails. It is simple boolean logic.

No Volker, you flunk basic statistics here--if you cherrypick the data in retrospect, throwing out "misses" and counting "hits", you can get an arbitrarily high significance level for any conclusion you like. What you are doing is exactly analogous to my coinflip example--do you think, in that case, that because the coin came up heads on flips #3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 20, I am free to ignore the fact that it came up tails on the other ten flips and say that the conclusion "I have the psychic power to make the coin come up heads" is supported with a significance level of 1 in 1024? If not, please explain why you think the coinflip example is different from what you have done.

Here's another example. Let's say I live in a country where the following statements each apply to exactly half the population:

1. You have brown eyes
2. You have dark hair
3. You are a male
4. You own a car
5. You are an extrovert
6. You are overweight
7. You are over five feet nine inches tall
8. You prefer chocolate to vanilla
9. You prefer rap to rock 'n' roll
10. You eat out at least once a week

Now, knowing that each statement applies to half the population, you would expect that if you give this profile to a random person in this country, about half the statements will apply to them, correct? So let's say I give the profile to Bob, and he finds the following "hits":

2. You have dark hair
3. You are a male
4. You own a car
6. You are overweight
8. You prefer chocolate to vanilla

By your "simple boolean logic", it would be valid to say that the significance level here is 1 in 2^5, or 1 in 32. And yet, as I said, it seems obvious that about one half of all people will have five or more statements apply to them, even if they're not the same five statements that applied to Bob. Would you give every single such case a significance level of 1 in 32 (or higher)? This would make nonsense of the whole notion of "significance level", since the point of a significance level of 1 in 32 is that you should only obtain such a level of success 1 in 32 times by random chance. This is exactly like what you're doing when you only count the hits in the "significance level" of an astrological profile.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Volker.Doormann:
All I'm postulating is that there must be a causal influence between a baby's brain and a planet for astrology to work. Do you disagree with this? You have read, what I have written to causalitiy. And you have read, what I have written to the 'many things in the world, which are used, and there is no explanation'.Volker.Doormann:The question is, whether one can make use of something, which is not explained or one can not make use of it.

What do you mean, "the" question?
? I do make use of logic (some times). I think no one can explain logic by natural science, its nature and cause.

From this (!) I think one can make use of astrology, also if there is no explanation available (yet).

But - Mr. Randi has claimed, that there is no explanation to astrology, and this shold prove, that astrology should not be a valid system.

If this would have a meaning, than logic would also not be a valid system, because no one can explain the nature of logic.

It is not my intention to discuss here the possible physical mechanism of astrology. It was my intention only to reply on Randis fantasy claims.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Jesse

I do not agree with you. I close.

Lobstrosity

August 1, 2003, 02:49 PM

By the way, those were two very good examples, Jesse. Maybe I should make a poll to see what percentage of the people here would have regarded my hits as hits for themselves.

Also, Volker, it should be obvious that you can't just count the "hits" when doing statistics. If you could, then an astrological profile that essentially says everything it is possible to say about a human being could be considered perfectly accurate for any one particular human being. For example:

"You are often happy. You are often sad. You are often angry. You had very strict parents. You had very easy-going parents. You were in a car accident when you were six. You were in a car accident when you were seven. You have never been in a car accident."

Upon looking at this, someone might register as hits: am often happy
had strict parents
never in car accident
By ignoring the misses and internal contradictions, you completely misconstrue the actual impressiveness of the profile. Obviously you can see how this is invalid. It's elementary statistical analysis we're talking about here.

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I do not agree with you. I close.

It's not a question of agreeing with me, it's a question of the valid way to determine the probability of getting a certain number of hits in statistics. If you have a series of N events which each have a probability p of being a "hit" by random chance, then the probability of getting n hits is given by the Binomial distribution (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BinomialDistribution.html) (which you can find in any statistics textbook and on hundreds of webpages):

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/bimg2100.gif, where http://mathworld.wolfram.com/bimg2102.gif is the binomial coefficient (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BinomialCoefficient.html) given by http://mathworld.wolfram.com/bimg2030.gif

The details of this formula are not important, but what is important is that it includes both the sum of hits and misses (N) and the number of hits (n). If you throw out the misses and set N equal to n, you'll get a very different answer for the total probability. If you disagree with this equation, it's not me you're disagreeing with, it's the whole field of statistics--it'd be a bit like disagreeing with F=ma or E=mc^2.

Of course, if you would actually think for a moment about my example of a profile with 10 traits, each of which has a 50% chance of describing a randomly-selected member of the population, you'd see intuitively why throwing out the misses on a large collection of trials is obviously invalid. If I wrote 1000 different random traits that each apply to about 5% of the population, and 40 of them happened to be hits when I gave the profile to someone, would you say this was a resoundingly successful proof of my ability to predict a person's character, since the significance (counting only the hits) is 0.05^40 or about 1 in 10^54? If you don't feel like replying in detail to this post that's fine, but please at least answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no".

Autonemesis

August 1, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
This is the plot, Junior James Randi.

I can reproduce those results. No problem. I'll take your astrological program, shuffle up all the blurbs that it spits out when a particular astrological symbol or relationship is encountered, and produce a random set of them. I will present this set of randomly selected interpretations to any person or persons you designate, including your best customers if you dare, so long as you do not tell them what the test is all about, that I have not actually cast a horoscope based on their birth data. I'll go through all the motions, show them a chart, talk about this that or the other thing, only it's all bogus, you see. The interpretations are selected randomly from all the interpretations your program is capable of selecting.

At the end, my results will be as good as your results. I will be able to get just as many people to agree that my randomly selected interpretations apply to them, as you can get to agree that your interpretations derived from meticulously plotted charts apply to them.

Care to accept that challenge?

By the way, I have never heard Volker, or any other astrologer for that matter, claim that gravity was the force that mediated astrological influence. Attacking this idea is attacking a strawman, even if Randi does it.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
I can reproduce those results. No problem. Fine.

Volker.Doormann

August 1, 2003, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Jesse If you don't feel like replying in detail to this post that's fine, but please at least answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no". Jesse,

the kernel of our disagreement is that I claim, that the truth that 'a dog who do recognize his master out of ten men' is not to be changed in any way by fails of the dog, 'recognizing democratic politicians correctly', while you do claim, that this fails must be taken into account, measuring the dogs abilities using statistics.

We must not agree on this. But I am tired to argue on this further.

Volker

Lobstrosity

August 1, 2003, 04:49 PM

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 04:50 PM

Jesse

August 1, 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Jesse,

the kernel of our disagreement is that I claim, that the truth that 'a dog who do recognize his master out of ten men' is not to be changed in any way by fails of the dog, 'recognizing democratic politicians correctly', while you do claim, that this fails must be taken into account, measuring the dogs abilities using statistics.

By the way, the reason this analogy is fallacious is because we can identify in advance two totally different categories the dog is being tested on, identifying its master vs. identifying politicians; so, it would be simple to do a new test where we only tested the dog on identifying its master. Although you are not ever allowed to throw out data on a test you've already performed when computing the significance level (I promise you that all statisticians would agree with me on this), you certainly are allowed to redesign the test in a way that you think will result in a higher proportion of hits the next time around.

In contrast, with astrology I'd argue that you can find no consistent difference between "hit" statements and "miss" statements that would allow you to redesign the test in a way that would make the horoscopes have a higher rate of success. If we were finding that all the "hits" were about personality while all the "misses" were about other things like family, money, love life etc., then we could make new profiles that talk only about personality, and hope that the ratio of hits to misses would be higher next time around. Can you spot any such pattern in the hits and misses in Lobstrosity's profile, Volker? Can you think of a way to edit astrological profiles so that if we picked a new person and gave them an edited profile, you'd predict the fraction of hits would be much higher?

Secular Pinoy

August 2, 2003, 12:36 AM

Volker, Patrick wants you to answer this:Why are the angular relationships of the celestial bodies at the moment of birth so influential? For instance, my daughter was delivered via caesarian section, about a week before her 'due date.' If she had been born on or after her due date, she would have been born under a completely different astrological sign. Does astrology predict that her personality was changed dramatically by beeing born a week early? Could parents tweak the birth dates of their children in order to engineer their personalities? For instance, junior's due date is March 21, but we prefer an Aries over a Pisces, so we'll induce labor on March 20?

Volker.Doormann

August 2, 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
Volker, Patrick wants you to answer this:

Why are the angular relationships of the celestial bodies at the moment of birth so influential? For instance, my daughter was delivered via caesarian section, about a week before her 'due date.' If she had been born on or after her due date, she would have been born under a completely different astrological sign.
Patrick? Tricky Patrick? Hmmm ... OK.

The character of a person is stamped from (='in harmony with') the planetary pattern of the moment of birth. The moment of birth is the moment, when the baby takes its first breath.

A calculated 'due date' has no meaning in astrology.

Of course is the character stamp different to a stamp that happens to an other time as the real time of birth, because the neuron structures building the character are initialized in the moment of birth.

That what is stamped prior birth is the physical structure of the body from DNA, but not the structures of the mentality of the person. No one can show by scientific prove, that a character of a person is determined in DNA. It is pure fantasy of scientists.Does astrology predict that her personality was changed dramatically by beeing born a week early? The character of a person which is being born a week earlier is different to that later date, because the geometrical planetary configuration at the birthplace is different. One cannot say neither this happens in dramatically changing nor in minor changing. Some structures given by slow moving planets may change not, but other structures given by the phase of the earth rotation can change in great.

More than the astrological sign, which means the angular position of the sun measured from the spring equinox vector position in one of twelve 30� ranges, the angles between the celestial bodies at the moment of birth have a meaning. In my interpretation software, I spend only one short sentence to the sun sign, from about 25kbyte text for the individual analysis in total. There are only twelve sun signs, and this is not very meaningful. Why are the angular relationships of the celestial bodies at the moment of birth so influential?It is not known, why. It is only known, that. Only planetary angle distances, which have integer values of i = 4*cos^2(angle) seems to be relevant to a specific ability of the character, and the relative angle position to the earth horizon is related to specific areas of life (For example, if most of the planets are above the horizon in the 6 houses this is very different to that, if they are below the horizon. From this a birth in the night is related to very different operational field's, as a birth at noon).Could parents tweak the birth dates of their children in order to engineer their personalities?Yes. For instance, junior's due date is March 21, but we prefer an Aries over a Pisces, so we'll induce labor on March 20?
For an Aries Sun, a birth in the year 2004 must be later then March 20th 06:49 AM UTC; prior to this the Sun is in Pisces.

BTW. Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric
planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 2, 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Jesse
Volker, that was not the question I asked. What I asked was this: [...] Please, answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no" Jesse,

I claim, I can specify a character of a born human from the laws of nature each time repeatable in a reasonable understandable order by meaningful words to be right. I have given a prove to this here, and this prove is acknowledged by the test person in about 24 specific properties as true. I claim this because of knowledge about the true nature of this relations. Because the relations are reasonable and understandable from the laws of nature and are each time repeatable, it is obvious, that this relations also can computed by a simple algorithm processor, and indeed, that what was analyzed in that prove, is evaluated 100% from fixed rules (except some minor editions on words etc.). Astrologers do claim such similar claims since ever.

One can have interest in the nature of this laws or not. It seems you have no interest in this part of laws of nature, as many here, although no one here is able to give a scientific prove about the cause for an individual character of a person. Science has no knowledge about it, and no individual here is able to relate his/her character to a causality in nature, no individual has any knowledge about it.

Science can learn, that next to the physical nature there exist a nature of mentality and character not spoken about the spiritual nature of truth and love, and science can learn, that this part of nature has an reasonable understandable order alike the nature of the 4 physical forces without any contradiction in principle.

To evaluate an individual human character adequate and an analysis to this, it needs more that statistics and the blue eyes of skeptic test persons. I think it is senseless to discuss on this matter further, as long as there is absolute no acknowledgement to any of that output claimed from astrology rules, and as long as no one ask, why astrology can make such detailed interpretations, acknowledged by a test person to be true.

Thank you

Volker

Arken

August 2, 2003, 03:06 PM

I feel this point that since I haven't seen anyone else do it, I should point out volker's 'debate' style which is to argue with someone until he cannot possibly refute what they say and then refuse to talk to them for a convoluted reason. It's getting a bit silly.

Jesse

August 2, 2003, 04:12 PM

Volker.Doormann:
Jesse,

I claim, I can specify a character of a born human from the laws of nature each time repeatable in a reasonable understandable order by meaningful words to be right. I have given a prove to this here, and this prove is acknowledged by the test person in about 24 specific properties as true

This "proof" is meaningless if you ignore the number of statements that were not true. Volker, surely you'd agree that if I come up with enough statements (say, 1000, as in my original scenario) off the top of my head, each of which applies to 5% or more of the population, then at least 24 are likely to apply to any given person just by random chance? Or would you deny that? If you refuse to answer this very simple question "yes" or "no", I will conclude that you are not interested in having a respectful discussion with me.

The real question here is whether the ratio of hits to misses in Lobstrosity's profile is more than would be expected by random chance. That's an issue open to debate. But as long as you continue to deny that the number of misses is even relevant in evaluating the significance of the 24 hits, you are displaying gross ignorance of the most basic ideas of statistics. The idea that you can't throw out negative results on a test you've already performed when computing the significance level (although you can redesign the test in a way that you think will raise the number of hits on future tests, as I mentioned) is as basic in statistics as the idea that you can't divide by zero in arithmetic--there is no room for debate on these issues. This issue has nothing to do with astrology, it's just basic math.

Volker.Doormann

August 2, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Arken

... I should point out volker's 'debate' style ... How about clear (scientific) arguments and free speech on the subject, without arguing on the person?

Lobstrosity

August 2, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
How about clear (scientific) arguments and free speech on the subject, without arguing on the person?
That would be lovely, Volker. Just let me know when you actually plan to start making clear (scientific) arguments. Every post of yours is simply a failure to address the points others have made coupled with obfuscation tactics and a mind-bogglingly poor grasp of both science and statistical analysis. It eventually gets to the point where someone has to call you on this as your posting style makes it impossible to debate the real issues with you.

Volker.Doormann

August 2, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
Jesse,

I claim, I can specify a character of a born human from the laws of nature each time repeatable in a reasonable understandable order by meaningful words to be right. I have given a prove to this here, and this prove is acknowledged by the test person in about 24 specific properties as true

This "proof" is meaningless if you ignore the number of statements that were not true. Wait, wait. Who has given a proof, that there are a number of statements, that should not true?

A blue eye skeptic? Or a man, who agree on. " it costs (me) much effort to develop the ability to say what (I) feel real.". (?)

No Sir. We can discuss on that. But prior to your fantasy about 'proofs' were not true, we must discuss on that. This is not done until now. There is no discussion on the matter. Subdiscussion on statistics, Randi, physics instead, and final words to fails on the remote side.

You take that, what the test person is telling about fails for true, and that, what the test person is telling for true for 'meaningless'.

You do not take in account, that this blue eye test person can be biased in its answers. That is a serious lack of competence in judging on this plot.

You know, that in the German set up of testing astrology the astrologers have eliminated test persons, who are recognized as biased.

You are unable to serve an adequate professional statistical evaluation on this plot, but you criticizes my ideas about significance values.

You have not given a reasonable explanation about, why a true descriptions about a person should be taken as untrue or meaningless.

This is not science, this is religion. Religion of ignorance. And this is meaningless.

I have written in the analyses of the test person #3 :"On the basis of your inflexible strength and your insight ability, you could give the mankind big, new and important realizations in the area of the sciences."

This was one of 24 statements, that the test person has accepted as true. I have argued and claimed, that this statement is a result of reasonable rules. You have ignored this in total. You want not to know what the rule is. Not, what the rationality of this is.

But you claim - knowing the test person and his great investigations in natural science - that exact this truth 'must' be taken as 'meaningless'.

Sure, not all of the thousand+ of interpretations are perfect in the description and formulation, and clearness. Translation filtering, culture understanding or anything else. But what I wonder is, why there is ignorance here in total about that, what most people acknowledge as evident.

Astrology must be a terrible thing, that it is ignored by skeptics in total.

Volker

Lobstrosity

August 2, 2003, 06:12 PM

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

echidna

August 2, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Astrology must be a terrible thing, that it is ignored by skeptics in total. This is kinda funny from someone whose "Ignore List" covers a sizable proportion of S&S posters & ends most conversations by adding another name.

Jesse

August 2, 2003, 07:38 PM

Volker.Doormann:
Wait, wait. Who has given a proof, that there are a number of statements, that should not true?

I was just responding to your own words:

I have given a prove to this here, and this prove is acknowledged by the test person in about 24 specific properties as true

I assumed you meant "proof", since "prove" is a verb but here you were using it as a noun. But if you prefer, you could change that sentence in my post to "This 'evidence' is meaningless if you ignore the number of statements that were not true".

Anyway, my last post wasn't about astrology at all, it was solely about the narrow question of whether it's OK to throw away results when calculating the probability (or significance value) of getting a given number (like 24) of hits on a test. You responded with another long soliloquy about issues unrelated to the topic of my post (my post had nothing to do with the general validity of astrology, skepticism, etc.), and once again ignored the simple yes/no question I've repeated in my last 3 or 4 posts. To me, ignoring the contents of the post you're responding to and refusing to answer a simple question is a sign of a lack of respect for your discussion partner, so unless you plan to at least answer that one question, I won't waste my time with someone who's more interested in sermonizing than a two-way dialogue.

Volker.Doormann

August 3, 2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Jesse I think, I have leyed down my arguments and an example of astro_logical work.

Thank you, Jesse, spending your time to this.

Volker

Secular Pinoy

August 3, 2003, 04:42 AM

And the dear astrologer has yet again evaded direct questions regarding his craft.

Volker.Doormann

August 3, 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
And the dear astrologer has yet again evaded direct questions regarding his craft. dannybhoy1.tripod.com/paranormal.htm :
"Despite a 130-year record of scientific research on parapsychology, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extra sensory perception, mental telepathy, or "mind over matter" exercises. - National Research Council, 1988"

"Paranormal encompasses several distinct phenomena. In fact, most of the subjects criticized in this web site can be considered as Paranormal. But allow me to restrict it to certain subjects that are usually thought of when we think of the word paranormal. These are ESP, telepathy, ghosts, astrology and divination."

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html
"THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS
Jessica Utts and Brian D. Josephson
... Debunkers of parapsychology are fond of showcasing the very few experiments that have been found to have serious problems. But that ignores the fact that the vast majority of experiments were done using excellent protocols, paying close attention to potential subtle cues, using well-tested randomisation devices and so on. For the past decade the U.S. government experiments were overseen by a very high-level scientific committee, consisting of respected academics from a variety of disciplines, all of whom were required to critique and approve the protocols in advance. There have been no explanations forthcoming that allow an honest observer to dismiss the growing collection of consistent results.
What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect? These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas might be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account? Two such concepts are those of the observer, and non-locality. The observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics, if taken literally, imply a universe that is constantly splitting into separate branches, only one of which corresponds to our perceived reality. A process of "decoherence" has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other, but this still does not answer the question of why our experience is of one particular branch and not any other. Perhaps, despite the unpopularity of the idea, the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors.
This idea perhaps makes sense in the light of theories that presuppose that quantum theory is not the ultimate theory of nature, but involves (in ways that in some versions of the idea can be made mathematically precise) the manifestations of a deeper "subquantum domain". In just the same way that a surf rider can make use of random waves to travel effortlessly along, a psychic may be able to direct random energy at the subquantum level for her own purposes. Some accounts of the subquantum level involve action at a distance, which fits in well with some purported psychic abilities.
These proposals are extremely speculative. What needs to be done, in any event, is to integrate mental phenomena more thoroughly into the framework of science (including the quantum level) than is presently the case. The research of Lawrence LeShan (as described in his book The Medium, the Mystic and the Physicist), where interviews with psychics disclosed that they were aware of a "hierarchy of meaningful interconnections", perhaps provides a hint of what might be involved. Science has a poor handle on ideas such as meaningful interconnections since they are alien to its usual ways of thinking. Perhaps it will need to overcome its current abhorrence of such concepts in order to arrive at the truth."

www.parapsych.org/members/j_m_utts.html Jessica Utts is professor of statistics, University of California, Davis, and was one of two experts commissioned by the CIA to review the two-decade U.S. government psychic research programme in the Summer of 1995. She has recently published a book, Seeing Through Statistics, Duxbury Press, 1996, designed to improve understanding of statistical studies. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate, is professor of physics, University of Cambridge, and heads the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge."

dannybhoy1.tripod.com/religion.htm
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
- Gautama Buddha "

You never have realized this, little debunker.

Godot

August 3, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
You know, that in the German set up of testing astrology the astrologers have eliminated test persons, who are recognized as biased.
And the technical term for this folks, is a ludicrously high sampling error. Opportunistic sampling is one thing, so long as the sub-group selected is approximately randomised and representative of the greater population. But to intentionally exclude people in order to beef up your results is an inexcusably poor tactic! And you wonder why the scientific community has no respect for pseudoscience.
You are unable to serve an adequate professional statistical evaluation on this plot, but you criticizes my ideas about significance values.
Translation: you're not a statistician, so your poignant and precise criticisms of my methodology are invalid.
You have not given a reasonable explanation about, why a true descriptions about a person should be taken as untrue or meaningless.
But Volker, since you are the one making the positive claim here, such parameters are yours to make (and substantiate).
Astrology must be a terrible thing, that it is ignored by skeptics in total. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this something of a non-sequitur? Skeptics in general are likely to be ambivalent towards astrology. I tend to ignore it simply because the underlying concept of my life being controlled by planetary alignment to be ... well, idiotic and self-centered.

Secular Pinoy

August 3, 2003, 11:13 AM

Wake me up, dear astrologer, when you have given actual evidence for your craft. All these running around ignoring pointed criticisms and engaging in voodoo statistics are getting boring real fast. BTW, thanks for visiting my site.

Volker.Doormann

August 3, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Godot
But Volker, since you are the one making the positive claim here, such parameters are yours to make (and substantiate). No one is able to recognize truth without own cognition on the matter. You cannot reject GR without following the relations in detail with your own consciousness, but you do it on astrology. There is no reason, why. Opportunistic sampling is one thing, so long as the sub-group selected is approximately randomised and representative of the greater population. But to intentionally exclude people in order to beef up your results is an inexcusably poor tactic! And you wonder why the scientific community has no respect for pseudoscience.Please checkout to know more then this politic argument:
home.arcor.de/p.goemmel/astrology.htm First results:
www.anomalistik.de/0512.htm I'm not involved in anyway in this test.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 3, 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Godot
Skeptics in general are likely to be ambivalent towards astrology. I tend to ignore it simply because the underlying concept of my life being controlled by planetary alignment to be ... well, idiotic and self-centered. The typical skeptic is skeptical of the paranormal, other people, and is not skeptical of skepticism. The true skeptic is skeptical of the normal, himself, and of skepticism.
Deborah Frisch

There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn�t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.
S�ren Kierkegaard (1813-55)

It�s one thing not to see the forest for the trees, but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest is a more serious matter.
Paul Weiss

The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788-1860)

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Charles Darwin, Introduction, The Descent of Man (1871).

There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism.
Friedrich Nietzsche

I am attacked by two very opposite sects - the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me - calling me �the frogs� dancing-master.� Yet I know that I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature.
Luigi Galvani, Italian physicist (1737-1798)

Skeptics in general are likely to be ambivalent towards astrology. I tend to ignore it simply because the underlying concept of my life being controlled by planetary alignment to be ... well, idiotic and self-centered.
Godot

Godot

August 3, 2003, 07:32 PM

Thanks for the links Volker! I had a brief look at the first one and wasn't too impressed. The second one is of no use to me since I only know enough german to swear at you or ask for more beer. Thanks anyways.

I also appreciate your gesture of including me on your list of rather august personages. I'm touched to be found in such a rarefied environment.

If you agree with any of the quotations you posted, I would suspect you might be something of a nihilist....

Godot

August 3, 2003, 07:44 PM

Another thought:
with regard to the significance of Lobstrosity's results, would you care to provide us with the mathematics preformed that prove that 24 positive "hits" out of 40 statements is significant to any degree?
The veracity of each statement (as ambiguous as they are) can be summarised as simply "yes" ("hit") or "no" ("miss") responses. You now have a 50% chance of being either right or wrong on each individual item. Random chance in a binary system should get a "hit" on average 50% of the time.
On a 40 statement list, pure chance should get 20/40 "hits" most of the time.
Volker: how were you able to determine that 24/40 was significantly different from 20/40 in this circumstance? Hint: you can't.

In order to test the variability of responses, all you need is a random number generator. I doubt that 24/40 will be considered significantly different from 20/40 even at p< 0.001 (assuming you could provide sufficient data to achieve this level of significance).

Jesse

August 3, 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Godot
On a 40 statement list, pure chance should get 20/40 "hits" most of the time.

No, "pure chance" does not mean a 50-50 probability, it just means that events follow some probability distribution. For example, if each statement applied to about 25% of the population, then we'd expect a ratio of 10/40 hits by "pure chance", on average.

Anyway, Volker doesn't care about the ratio of hits to misses, just the raw number of hits. He apparently thinks 24 hits has the same significance regardless of how many misses there were (whether 16 or 1,000,000). He's a mathematical ignoramus, in other words.

Godot

August 3, 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Jesse
No, "pure chance" does not mean a 50-50 probability, it just means that events follow some probability distribution. For example, if each statement applied to about 25% of the population, then we'd expect a ratio of 10/40 hits by "pure chance", on average.
I should have clarified. I was thinking along the lines of your earlier coin flip analogy. Flip a coin 40 times, odds are you'll get 20 heads and 20 tails (simplified, I know). If the 40 statements are taken as hit or miss, then we should get 20/40 if performed a sufficient number of times. The fact that these statements are intentionally nebulous and many are contradictory increases the likelihood of a >20/40 result. Of courser, I'm also approaching this from the perspective of an undefined, general population that was properly sampled. ;)
Anyway, Volker doesn't care about the ratio of hits to misses, just the raw number of hits. He apparently thinks 24 hits has the same significance regardless of how many misses there were (whether 16 or 1,000,000). He's a mathematical ignoramus, in other words. I guess context is irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Godot
In order to test the variability of responses, all you need is a random number generator. Please give a proof of your claim evaluating the hole plot adequate.

Because I think, that it is stupid to believe in, that a random generator is all one needs to distinguish truth from untruth, I have given up discussing. If one can show by evidence, that a random generator is all one needs to discriminate the truth from untruth in this plot, please e-mail me.

Volker

Godot

August 4, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Please give a proof of your claim evaluating the hole plot adequate.

Because I think, that it is stupid to believe in, that a random generator is all one needs to distinguish truth from untruth, I have given up discussing. If one can show by evidence, that a random generator is all one needs to discriminate the truth from untruth in this plot, please e-mail me.

Volker
It appears as though you will not be bothering to read this Volker, but I will post nevertheless.
My suggestion of using a random number generator would be to simulate a larger sample size in order to obtain a mean as well as to obtain a standard curve. It was suggested to work within the constuct of Jesse's analogy coin flips. From this, it would not be difficult to judge whether or not a response of 24/40 would differ significantly from the mean.
No more, no less. I purport to make no statement of claim regarding "distinguish[ing] truth from untruth" so that is something of a strawman on your part.
Besides, statistics has nothing to say about truth or untruth, only mathematics.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Godot
... Besides, statistics has nothing to say about truth or untruth, only mathematics. But this is the point. The private personal view has no meaning in science. A personal disbelieve is as irrelevant as a believe, also, if this is a belief in science, skepticism or nothing.

It seems, that no one here does recognize a correlation between both, the statements given by the test person #3 in contrast to the given astrological analyses of its birth dates, or even a correlation, which may significant. If so, I think it should be easy to workout a professional evaluation that proves this result by the work of science and scientific methods. I think it would be helpful if anyone here comes up with a scientific professional work evaluating this. If skeptic is not only ignorance, then skeptics can show by scientific methods, that these astrological interpretations are without any meaning. It is obvious, that this evaluation examine each single used astrologic/psychological relation as known expert knowledge in astrology, to be quit sure that rational astronomical facts and its known astrological meaning were taken, because this logic is essential, as it gives proof of a reasonable understandable relations.

Volker

Relative Newcomer

August 4, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
You can observe this by yourself, if in August around 27th 2003, when the angles of the planets (Mars, Uranus Sun) are showing a time for earthquake, terror and similar crashes on our earth.
For those interested, +/-23 days and counting... :eek:

Arken

August 4, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Relative Newcomer
For those interested, +/-23 days and counting... :eek:

Don't bother. On that date, there will be SOME sort of disaster as there is a disaster virtually every day of the year and so Volker will claim victory. It won't matter that the disaster was not as colossal as he implied... just one fire or minor quake will do.

Autonemesis

August 4, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
dannybhoy1.tripod.com/religion.htm
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
- Gautama Buddha "

You never have realized this, little debunker.

What about me? I have practiced it. I have learned how to cast a horoscope. I have shown people their charts and given them my interpretation, and they have said that it pertained to them, and was helpful. I also know how to do Tarot. Same thing.

And yet it is all bunk. I know from personal experience. I know how to "do" astrology. I have done it. It's pure fantasy. I've even directly told people I just gave an interpretation to that it's all fantasy. They choose instead to believe that I am the unwitting channeller of unknown powers.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
And yet it is all bunk. I know from personal experience.It is of no scientific relevance, if one knows from personal experience. Neither if one knows about experience, which is rated as bunk, nor if one knows about experience rated as evident, because there is in none of both cases a scientific reference. You can tell your grandmother, Mr. Randi, the people in IIDB about your experience, but it is as scientifically worthless, as a knowing from a personal experience about Mother Mary. Science needs more then statements about personal experience.

If you skeptic about this, ask Skeptics.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Relative Newcomer
For those interested, +/-23 days and counting... :eek: It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date' cura.free.fr/xv/13brianj.html.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Arken
... just one fire or minor quake will do.
It seems, that you take your knowlede out of fantasy. I look at the planetary configuration. In January 2001 there was a high chance on the 26th of January for an earthquake at 03:15 UT, because at this time an index calculated from the planetary configuration for each 5 minutes was maximum.
http://doormann.tripod.com/260101.gif.
And it was.

Volker

Autonemesis

August 4, 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
It is of no scientific relevance, if one knows from personal experience. Neither if one knows about experience, which is rated as bunk, nor if one knows about experience rated as evident, because there is none of both cases a scientific reference.

Wonderful. Thanks for clearing that up. I now leave the scientists in this thread to rip astrology a new asshole, and don't you come back with any anecdotes to refute them, as you have tried to do before. You just agreed that personal experience - anecdotes - are scientifically useless. And I agree. Thanks for allowing me to establish that point.

Autonemesis

August 4, 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
And it was.

Volker

Elucidate a mechanism for this action-at-a-distance and you may be onto something. Until you can propose a mechanism, there is no reason to believe that this is not coincidence.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
You just agreed that personal experience - anecdotes - are scientifically useless. And I agree. Why have you posted then your experience?

Lobstrosity

August 4, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
It seems, that you take your knowlede out of fantasy. I look at the planetary configuration. In January 2001 there was a high chance on the 26th of January for an earthquake at 03:15 UT, because at this time an index calculated from the planetary configuration for each 5 minutes was maximum.
And it was.
Oh please, you're only finding an earthquake sometime in the past and then going back to say that astrology would have predicted it exactly. If that's not what you're doing, please tell us why you haven't given us the exact day and time of this upcoming disaster (if it was possible back in 2001, it's possible now). Also inform us as to why you can't even tell us what kind of disaster it will be (you say it might be an earthquake or it might be something else). Since either an earthquake or something else happens every day at least somewhere on Earth, right now your entire prediction is completely worthless. Why don't you use your astrology to tell us something worthwhile, like date, time, nature of disaster, and location of disaster. Put your money where your mouth is.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
... Until you can propose a mechanism, there is no reason to believe that this is not coincidence.
No one must believe in anything.

Arken

August 4, 2003, 03:27 PM

I think it would be more interesting for Volker to find us a horoscope predicting a day when an earthquake did not occur since, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html) there are up to 50 earthquakes detected every day, or 20,000 a year.

In other words, it wasn't even a coincidence. It was expected that there would be an earthquake since there are always multiple earthquakes every day of the year.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Oh please, you're only finding an earthquake sometime in the past and then going back to say that astrology would have predicted it exactly. If that's not what you're doing, ...
Quack, quack, quack.
I talk about an algorithm. With an astronomical algorithm one can calculate as well geocentric planetary positions in the past, but also in the future. Believe or not. This is done here. Nothing else. Qualified critique is to prove this algorithm and the data wrong, that show that the index is highest in a 5 minute time interval out of a hole moth, in that the quake has occurred. Same result can be shown for the quake in Kobe, Japan. There is no need to discredit persons, and no need to discredit person with such wrong assertions. Please argue on the matter, if you have any.

Arken

August 4, 2003, 03:48 PM

If about 50 earthquakes happen per day, one earthquake should happen about every 30 minutes making the chance to predict one within five minutes as you say about 1 in 6 or a single roll of the dice... in other words, I could just as accurately predict earthquakes by rolling a single six-sided die than you could with your complicated software.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Arken
... there are up to 50 earthquakes detected every day, or 20,000 a year. In other words, it wasn't even a coincidence. It was expected that there would be an earthquake since there are always multiple earthquakes every day of the year. The maximum in the data relates and coincide in time to a Mw7.6 Bhuj earthquake. In other words, this happens not 20,000 times a year.

It seems you are skeptic. (?)

Arken

August 4, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
It seems you are skeptic. (?)

If you remember, I'm not a skeptic, I'm a liar... at least, that's what you called me earlier in this thread.

Lobstrosity

August 4, 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Please argue on the matter, if you have any.
I did, as have others. You just ignore it when we do, bringing up straw men and red herrings. My assertions are not wrong, they are supported by the fact that these quakes are only retroactively predicted by astrology even though astrologers should easily be able to predict the precise moment and location of these disasters years ahead of time. Please respond to this:

If that's not what you're doing, please tell us why you haven't given us the exact day and time of this upcoming disaster (if it was possible back in 2001, it's possible now). Also inform us as to why you can't even tell us what kind of disaster it will be (you say it might be an earthquake or it might be something else). Since either an earthquake or something else happens every day at least somewhere on Earth, right now your entire prediction is completely worthless. Why don't you use your astrology to tell us something worthwhile, like date, time, nature of disaster, and location of disaster. Put your money where your mouth is.

What five-minute interval is highest for the month of August, Volker? What will happen at that moment and where will it happen? If you can tell that my mother was over-protective, you should be able to tell where a major disaster will occur. Make a real prediction so that we can actually test your beloved pseudo-science.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Arken
.. than you could with your complicated software. There is no complicateted software; the algorithm is listed an the graph. Make a cross check (and relax).

Arken

August 4, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
There is no complicateted software; the algorithm is listed an the graph. Make a cross check (and relax).

I'm perfectly relaxed.

Of course, since you've labeled me as a liar that means I'm not relaxed at all... so I guess I'm not relaxed... oh wait, I'm a liar. That means I am relaxed but we already established that I'm not! :eek:

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
Please respond to this:

If that's not what you're doing, please tell us why you haven't given us the exact day and time of this upcoming disaster (if it was possible back in 2001, it's possible now). Its useless, because there is no earth location to say (time UTC only), and because an quake event seems not compelling in any case. Forget predictions, and forget this relations, if you do not see any significance. I do claim nothing, but the shown results.

Relax on this month and perceive news then.

Volker.Doormann

August 4, 2003, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Arken
If you remember, I'm not a skeptic, I'm a liar... at least, that's what you called me earlier in this thread.
Please stop this arguing on a person. I never have called you a liar.

echidna

August 4, 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Quack, quack, quack.
I talk about an algorithm. With an astronomical algorithm one can calculate as well geocentric planetary positions in the past, but also in the future. Believe or not. This is done here. Nothing else. Qualified critique is to prove this algorithm and the data wrong, that show that the index is highest in a 5 minute time interval out of a hole moth, in that the quake has occurred. Same result can be shown for the quake in Kobe, Japan. There is no need to discredit persons, and no need to discredit person with such wrong assertions. Please argue on the matter, if you have any. Oh good grief, VD, you might have learnt a glimmer of intelligence from that last earthquake thread but apparently not.

You claim your algorithms can calculate planetary positions relevant to earthquakes in the future. We asked you to demonstrate this claim by using these algorithms to predict a future earthquake.

For 2 or 3 days you ducked and weaved, ultimately admitting that astrology cannot predict earthquakes. Then an earthquake hit Turkey, and while the aftershocks are still rumbling, you�re busy showing how your algorithms prove the relations between planetary angles and earthquakes.

I utterly fail to see how this can be interpreted as anything but pathetic charlatanism.

Apparently you have little or no concept of causality. Volker�s �proof� of astrology runs as follows :

P1. As the planets orbit, their relative positions form many angles. Some of these angles can be selected to be within 5 (or more) degrees of the positions 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 �
P2. Earthquakes happen.
C1. Therefore the planetary angles are astrologically linked to earthquakes.

An analogy with Volker�s reasoning :

P1. Polar bears fart on a daily basis.
P2. Earthquakes occur on a daily basis.
C1. Therefore earthquakes only happen when polar bears fart.

Volker�s reasoning is appealing from a Monty Python perspective but he�s in the wrong forum to be appreciated. No doubt painful for someone who seems to have invested so much effort into chasing moonbeams, but that's the price you pay for digging too deep.

Relative Newcomer

August 4, 2003, 06:34 PM

originally quoted by Volker.Doormann
Correct astrology needs the study of all the thousand+ of possible different symbols by experience and own check of validity inclusive knowledge about all the correct astronomical calculations for each time and location.
I'm assuming this is why you need to verify birth certificates - place of birth, date, and time.
For example, lunachick responded with:
Incidentally, I was born in Bad Aibling, Germany, on the 11th May 1963, at approx 12 noon. Go for it!
Point being - place, date and time of occurance in a must for accuracy.
...but then when you are questioned by Lobstrosity about the exact whereabouts and time of the upcoming "disaster" you respond with:
Its useless, because there is no earth location to say (time UTC only), and because an quake event seems not compelling in any case. Forget predictions, and forget this relations, if you do not see any significance. I do claim nothing, but the shown results.
So what's the deal? You claim that in order for you to do a reading you need the following information verified : PLACE, DATE, and TIME, yet when you are asked about the impending earth disaster, you "claim nothing".
Is it just me, or is there something fishy going on here?

Volker.Doormann

August 5, 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Relative Newcomer
You claim that in order for you to do a reading you need the following information verified : PLACE, DATE, and TIME, yet when you are asked about the impending earth disaster, you "claim nothing". Is it just me, or is there something fishy going on here? It's you. You have ignored the facts, that a chart is calculated out of three values (time, latitude and longitude) but an extreme in an 'earthquake index scan' give only one value (time), but no latitude and no longitude of the event. To solve more then one unknown value in general, you need more then one valid equation. For example, to solve three unknown values, you need three independent equations. If you have only two equations, you cannot solve three unknown values. It is no need to talk about fishy; it's simple the rules of math. In detail a chart is defined by a time, and TWO coordinate values of spherical coordinates: Longitude and Latitude of the event. That counts to three unknown values. Scanning the 'earthquake index', and it shows an 'big' extreme, you have one value - the time only. It seems, that it is possible in some cases (from the nature of the relation) to select a number of meridians (~4-8) - that means longitudes -, but not ONE specific longitude. In addition to this, this longitudes must superimposed to known boundaries of the plates, where such quakes only can occour. It lacks on this bitter truth, for that its not possible in general to solve a location, defined by TWO values (Longitude and Latitude), as long as no other two independent values can be found.

Volker.Doormann

August 5, 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Volker�s reasoning is appealing from a Monty Python perspective but he�s in the wrong forum to be appreciated. I think not. You have avoided to give an explanation, why for two independent big earthquake events (India, Kobe), the geometric configuration, which is computed to an index value, is correlated with one 5 minute time interval out of many in one calendar month, in that these quakes have taken place. From statistical math i count for this two independent cases a significance value of ~0.0000001.

Please give an explanation to this significance in this forum and please do not argue on the person. If you like to argue on a person, i assume, that you are wrong in this forum. The math doesn't change, if I give up writing in this forum. BTW. It was not my decision to move this astrology thread into this forum. I have argued here often, that it is the spiritual nature of astrology, which is important to me, as it is known by priests and astrologers for long, and as it is hidden in the bible, where the zodiac was changed into the twelve tribes of Israel. No one must believe, that such personal attacks are posted in a scientific forum, I take easy.

echidna

August 5, 2003, 01:25 AM

Please derive where your significance value of ~0.0000001 comes from.

And please explain why, with such an astounding significance value, prediction is still impossible.

Volker.Doormann

August 5, 2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Please derive where your significance value of ~0.0000001 comes from. There are about 8640 5 minutes intervals in a 30 day month. If there is a coincidence of the event and an extreme maximum value out of 8640 values the chance, that this is random is 1:8640. If there is a second independent coincidence of this in an other month, the chance that this is random is 1/8640 * 1/8640 = 1/74649600 = 1.3*10^-8 = 0.000000013 ~ 0.0000001 and describs the significance value of this two independent events.

echidna

August 5, 2003, 02:20 AM

How exactly does your algorithm decide on 5 minute intervals and a 30 day month ?

Volker.Doormann

August 5, 2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by echidna
How exactly does your algorithm decide on 5 minute intervals and a 30 day month ? ? Exact in time or exact in what? I do run the algorithm from 01.01.2001, 00:00:00 UTC to 01.02.2001, 00:00:00 UTC in steps of 5 minutes. For each of this times the geocentric ecliptic length of ten planets will be calculated then - with an accuracy of < 1 arc minute - and saved on the array pos[1..10]. Each of this steps outputs an index number I, which you can see yourself from the curve plotted on a semi log graph, were the ordinate is log10 scaled. There is no decision made in the algorithm.
==============================================
for i := 1 to 10 do
for k := 1 to 10 do
begin
alpha := diff(pos[i],pos[k]);
{diff(a,b) computes the angle distance of 2 bodies}
if (k<>i) and (k>i) then
begin
y := 4 * sqr(cos(alpha));
y0 := abs(0-y); { 90� }
y1 := abs(1-y); { 60� + 120� }
y2 := abs(2-y); { 45� + 135� }
y3 := abs(3-y); { 30� + 150� }
y4 := abs(4-y); { 0� + 180� }
z0 := 1/(y0+0.005); {The value of 0.005 limits the peak height}
z1 := 1/(y1+0.005);
z2 := 1/(y2+0.005);
z3 := 1/(y3+0.005);
z4 := 1/(y4+0.005);
I := I + (z0+z1+z2+z3+z4);
end;
end;
===============================================
Fact is, that the index value corresponding to the time of 03:15:00 UTC is greater then the index value I corresponding to the time of 03:10:00 UTC and/or 03:20:00 UTC, and greater as all other index values I in that month, while the event was at 03:16:41 UTC. on the 26th. The algorithm is loaded with an arbitrary epsilon of 0.005, which limits the peak height, if a single planetary angle distance is precise. This epsilon determines also the width of the peak. From this other values of epsilon will do change the index values, but not the character of the peak function in general.

There was a Mw7.4 quake last May in Bingol, Turkey, on 2003.05.01 00:27 UTC. The geocentric planetary lengths, angle distances were:
===============================================
Sun 10�14' ta - Jupiter 9�10' le = 88�56' = 90� - 1�04'
Mars 5�23' aq - Moon 4�55' ta = 89�32' = 90� - 0�28'
Sun 10�14' ta - Venus 11�18' = 28�56' = 30� - 1�04'
Sun 10�14' ta - Moon 4�55' ta = 5�19' = 0� + 5�19'
Jupiter 9�10' le - Mars 5�23' aq = 176�23' = 180�- 3�37'
Jupiter 9�10' le - Neptun 13� 07' aq= 176� 03' = 180�- 3�56'
Moon 4�55' ta - Uranus 2�16' pi = 62�39' = 60� + 2�39'
Sun 10�14' ta - Saturn 26� 1' ge = 45�47' = 45� + 0�47'
Mars 5�23' aq - Pluto 19 34'sa = 45�57' = 45� + 0�57'
Jupiter 9�10' le Saturn 26� 1' ge = 43�09' = 45� - 1�51'
Sun 10�14' ta - Neptun 13�07' aq = 85�07' = 90� - 4�53'
Sun 10�14' ta - Mars 5�23' aq = 94�37' ' = 90� + 4�37
Jupiter 9�10' le - Moon 4�55' ta = 94�15' = 90� + 4�15'
===============================================

From this aligned angle distances one can calc for example some index values for that day:
http://doormann.tripod.com/bingol3.jpg
one can identify a peak at 00:30 AM.

This geometric relations can be found not only in a big number while big earthquake events, but also to sun flares, if one relates this to the heliocentric ecliptically lengths of the planets.

Arken

August 5, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Please stop this arguing on a person. I never have called you a liar.

Oh really?

I said:

Originally posted by Arken
I'll be a guinea pig for this experiment.

Here are three possible birth dates, years and times. I will assume you have not seen my birthdate in my profile before and I have since delted it.

Here are the three:

June 27, 1977 at 2:13 a.m.

October 9, 1974 at 12:49 p.m.

July 14, 1979 at 11:51 p.m.

If a third party wishes, I will be happy to provide my real name for the purposes of looking up my actual birthday at anybirthday.com.

And then you said:

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
LOL. Why should I trust any person here, that the person is integer and honest?

In response.

That is calling me a liar.

Volker.Doormann

August 5, 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Arken
Please note the thread 'statements' in the ~elswere~ forum on personals.

Arken

August 5, 2003, 11:20 AM

No. If you can't admit your insult, I see no reason to discuss it with you.

Volker.Doormann

August 6, 2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by echidna
You claim your algorithms can calculate planetary positions relevant to earthquakes in the future. It seems, that some people don't can believe, that I can calculate planetary positions in the future, which have a relevance to earthquakes.
Then an earthquake hit Turkey, and while the aftershocks are still rumbling, you�re busy showing how your algorithms prove the relations between planetary angles and earthquakes. I utterly fail to see how this can be interpreted as anything but pathetic charlatanism. If I understand this correctly, then you fail to acknowledge, that planetary positions in the future are well known from astronomical algorithm, and that you fail to acknowledge, that the 'earth quake index' is significant. Volker�s �proof� of astrology runs as follows :

P1. As the planets orbit, their relative positions form many angles. Some of these angles can be selected to be within 5 (or more) degrees of the positions 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 �
P2. Earthquakes happen.
C1. Therefore the planetary angles are astrologically linked to earthquakes.

Yes, mostly correct. But I know people, who can perceive a possible relation of planetary angles and earthquakes without to link this to astrology. For example one can acknowledge a relation of the position of the sun to the local seasons. But - important - in your above logic you ignore the significant high number of angle distances. The number of such 'earthquake relevant angle distance while the Mw7.4 quake last May in Bingol, Turkey, on 2003.05.01 00:27 UTC, was 14,
===============================================
Sun 10�14' ta - Jupiter 9�10' le = 88�56' = 90� - 1�04'
Mars 5�23' aq - Moon 4�55' ta = 89�32' = 90� - 0�28'
Sun 10�14' ta - Venus 11�18' = 28�56' = 30� - 1�04'
Sun 10�14' ta - Moon 4�55' ta = 5�19' = 0� + 5�19'
Jupiter 9�10' le - Mars 5�23' aq = 176�23' = 180� - 3�37'
Jupiter 9�10' le - Neptun 13� 07' aq= 176� 03' = 180� - 3�56'
Moon 4�55' ta - Uranus 2�16' pi = 62�39' = 60� + 2�39'
Sun 10�14' ta - Saturn 26� 1' ge = 45�47' = 45� + 0�47'
Mars 5�23' aq - Pluto 19 34'sa = 45�57' = 45� + 0�57'
Jupiter 9�10' le Saturn 26� 1' ge = 43�09' = 45� - 1�51'
Sun 10�14' ta - Neptun 13�07' aq = 85�07' = 90� - 4�53'
Sun 10�14' ta - Mars 5�23' aq = 94�37' ' = 90� + 4�37
Jupiter 9�10' le - Moon 4�55' ta = 94�15' = 90� + 4�15'
===============================================
and as the upper graph shows, this results in an index value out of the algorithm, which is highest at 00:30 UTC on that day, and is therefore significant.

An analogy with Volker�s reasoning :

P1. Polar bears fart on a daily basis.
P2. Earthquakes occur on a daily basis.
C1. Therefore earthquakes only happen when polar bears fart.

I think this is not a valid analogy. It is a stupid analogy. Your analogy ignores the significance of the relation.

Because of silence I assume there are some crosschecks running.
If so, I'm thankful. If not, who cares. Silence has its own worth.

Volker

echidna

August 6, 2003, 01:10 AM

Volker, you have selected 10 celestial objects (8 planets, moon, sun). So at any point in time, these 10 objects form a total of 45 angles between them. Of these 45 possible angles, you have selected 13 which are �significant� to within 5 degrees (I�ll omit the sun-moon angle which is outside this by 19�, but no matter).

But taking a 5 degree window around 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 covers an envelope of 40 degrees out of 90, hardly statistically significant in itself, but maybe that�s not your point.

Based on probability, around 20 of these 45 angles might have appeared equally �significant� (within 5 degrees of 0, 30, 45, 60, 90), but you only list 13. What was the full list of 45 angles formed at the time of that event ? And how did you come to only arrive at this 13 ?

echidna

August 6, 2003, 01:15 AM

Two further questions :

Given that your probability index was based on an entire month, can you expand that graph for an entire month to acurately demonstrate that the spike marks a month-long high point.

You still haven't explained why, with the planets' orbits so well understood, this methodology is incapable of predicting future earthquakes instead of explaining past ones. It's an entirely logical expectation.

Volker.Doormann

August 6, 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Volker, you have selected 10 celestial objects (8 planets, moon, sun). So at any point in time, these 10 objects form a total of 45 angles between them. Of these 45 possible angles, you have selected 13 which are �significant� to within 5 degrees (I�ll omit the sun-moon angle which is outside this by 19�, but no matter).

But taking a 5 degree window around 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 covers an envelope of 40 degrees out of 90, hardly statistically significant in itself, but maybe that�s not your point.

Based on probability, around 20 of these 45 angles might have appeared equally �significant� (within 5 degrees of 0, 30, 45, 60, 90), but you only list 13. What was the full list of 45 angles formed at the time of that event ? And how did you come to only arrive at this 13 ? Out of your argumentation, one can recognize, that you do think in classes of 5� valids. But that thinking is wrong. As you can check in the algorithm, there is absolutly no 5� class sorting.
But you can see from the algorithm, that a high precision and many of them enhance the index. From this it is properly a peak function or somthing like this, which is the nature of this.

The high index while the event of Kobe, Japan results also from the fact, that for example the time of full moon (sun 180� moon) was 20 minutes in time (!) next to the event. Two of the planetary angle distance were then:
Sun-Moon = 91.71�-(-88.126)=179.836� ! ~180�
Uranus-Moon = 91.85�-(-88.126)=179.976� ! ~180�

Your calulations suggest a rectangel function of 5� along all angle distances, but such function is not natural.

echidna

August 6, 2003, 02:26 AM

If you�ll bear with me, I�m trying to fathom your methodology. From your earlier post, I was under the impression that the outputs for those angles were � Sun 10�14' ta - Moon 4�55' ta = 5�19' = 0� + 5�19'
Moon 4�55' ta - Uranus 2�16' pi = 62�39' = 60� + 2�39' Where did your angles come from ... un-Moon = 91.71�-(-88.126)=179.836� ! ~180�
Uranus-Moon = 91.85�-(-88.126)=179.976� ! ~180� Actually I wasn�t trying to calculate or suggest anything, just trying to follow.

If I�m on the right track, then your post on the previous page was far from a complete explanation. For instance it didn�t include mention of the relevance of a full moon. What precise influence does that have on the calculations ?

Volker.Doormann

August 6, 2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by echidna
From your earlier post, I was under the impression that the outputs for those angles were:

Sun 10�14' ta - Moon 4�55' ta = 5�19' = 0� + 5�19'
Moon 4�55' ta - Uranus 2�16' pi = 62�39' = 60� + 2�39' You have cited planetary angle distances of the Turkey quake. Where did your angles come from ...

Sun-Moon = 91.71�-(-88.126)=179.836� ! ~180�
Uranus-Moon = 91.85�-(-88.126)=179.976� ! ~180� You have cited planetary angle distances of the Kobe quake. The two angle distances on the left are measured distances to the local meridian of Kobe, but there are also seven or nine other matching longitudes, so the Kobe longitude cannot not be calculated, as I have written here. If I�m on the right track, then your post on the previous page was far from a complete explanation. For instance it didn�t include mention of the relevance of a full moon. What precise influence does that have on the calculations ? A full moon has a relevance, because the geocentric angle distance between the sun and the moon is 180� then, and this is one of the relevant angles in the algorithm, because 4*sqr(cos(180�)) is an integer of 4.

1.) I have argued to your idea of sorting classes of angles.
2.) In this I have said, that the precision of an angle distance results in an index I, which is high.
3.) To explain this on an example, I have given an example to this from the Kobe Quake, Japan, because the index value operates with two angles, which deviate in the case of Sun/Moon 0.146� from 180.0 �, and in the case of Uranus/Moon 0.024� from 180.0�.
4.) Because in the algorithm these two deviations from the reference angel (here: 180.0�) is very small, the division over this ( 1 / y4 ) outputs a high value, from the grade of precision.
5.) This can be understood as an argument, that your statistical idea of 5� classes of angle distances < 5� is a mistaken of that, what in real is computed by the algorithm.
6. If this is understood, then your arguing on 5� classes is irrelevant to this algorithm.

The quake in Kobe, Japan was January 16th 1995 at 20:46:52.1 UTC -
http://doormann.tripod.com/19950116.gif
and the algorithm we talk about outputs a maximum for the 16th at 20:45:00 UTC (5 minutes steps).

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 6, 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Two further questions :

Given that your probability index was based on an entire month, can you expand that graph for an entire month to acurately demonstrate that the spike marks a month-long high point. It seems, that you believe in the existence of black swans only, if one can show you more then 99, because of statistical considerations.

I cannot climb mountains well, but i can other things well. Thats not the point. First we must negotiate on that, what is on the table. You still haven't explained why, with the planets' orbits so well understood, this methodology is incapable of predicting future earthquakes instead of explaining past ones. It's an entirely logical expectation. I have written to that.

I think it is helpful to argue precise, what is meant.

i.) Here it was (not from me) seriously expected to solve equations of nth grade (n>2), with only one value is known. Stupid. ii.) One must distinguish extrapolations of well known functions (as planetary motions), from other forms of information processing. Calculating planetary positions for future dates is not a 'prediction' it is an extrapolation of knowledge in the past. Same is with astrology. It is simple an extrapolation of the past or from knowledge from the past, using extrapolations of the known astronomical functions. iii.) I do not agree, that it is logical to expect the same knowledge from future processes as one can have from past processes, because of the given arguments about extrapolation. All weather calculations are extrapolations (!), and the results from that extrapolations are not much better, as if you expect the very same weather for the next day, as it the present day is. If you would be right, then this weather people could say some specific weather data to each day in the future month, year, century, because we have data knowledge about all locations and times since 200 years iv.) It is senseless to discuss about prediction, yes or not. I think it is necessary to discuss logical arguments and not fighting a senseless belief war. If one is not interested in possible phenomena, that�s OK, but the truth or the untruth of a phenomena is only to be found by study, not by putting labels on brain �The one and only God is Random Randi� and I am his first Apostel'.

Volker

Shadowy Man

August 6, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by echidna

You still haven't explained why, with the planets' orbits so well understood, this methodology is incapable of predicting future earthquakes instead of explaining past ones. It's an entirely logical expectation.

True, that would be useful, but what I would like to see is a chart like he made fo the Kobe quake for every major earthquake in the world for the past 10 years (all the dates of times of which are well known) and see how many of those occur at spikes in his charts.

Volker.Doormann

August 6, 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
... what I would like to see is a chart like he made fo the Kobe quake for every major earthquake in the world for the past 10 years (all the dates of times of which are well known) and see how many of those occur at spikes in his charts. I think it is only a question of money, if one would like to see something.

Arken

August 6, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I think it is only a question of money, if one would like to see something.

How did I see that coming? :rolleyes:

Must have been in the stars. ;)

Shadowy Man

August 6, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
I think it is only a question of money, if one would like to see something.

How much money could it possibly take? You already have a computer program that produces the plots, right? You just need to get the list of dates for the earthquakes. You can probably find that on the web using Google in about 15 minutes.

Then you can show a strong correlation between the position of the planets and major earthquakes around the world. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who would like to see that. Then all one need do is look for the causal connection.

Volker.Doormann

August 6, 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
You already have a computer program that produces the plots, right? You just need to get the list of dates for the earthquakes. You can probably find that on the web using Google in about 15 minutes.

Then you can show a strong correlation between the position of the planets and major earthquakes around the world. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who would like to see that. Then all one need do is look for the causal connection. I'm sure you have a computer program, that can calculate planetary positions. You have an algorithm from the graphs to generate the data. You have a computer program to plot the data. Great earth quakes you can find from neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/significant.html. Then you can show a strong correlation between the position of the planets and major earthquakes around the world. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who would like to see that. Then all one need do is look for the causal connection.

Volker.Doormann

August 6, 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Shadowy Man

echidna: "You still haven't explained why, with the planets' orbits so well understood, this methodology is incapable of predicting future earthquakes instead of explaining past ones. It's an entirely logical expectation."

True, ... The people of reason and logic I know, do not expect that a PC program outputs 4 weeks after an earthquake different data as 4 weeks prior to that quake using the same known source text.

Godot

August 6, 2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
The people of reason and logic I know, do not expect that a PC program outputs 4 weeks after an earthquake different data as 4 weeks prior to that quake using the same known source text. A post hoc explanation of events is an attempt to justify the validity of astrology through the shoehorning of data into preconceived notions.

There is a really big difference between producing data to fit your hypothesis and adjusting your hypothesis to fit your data. One of these is a validated scientific process, the other is pseudoscientifc gobbledy-gook. Care to guess which is which?

Volker.Doormann

August 7, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Godot
Volker.Doormann: "The people of reason and logic I know, do not expect that a PC program outputs 4 weeks after an earthquake different data as 4 weeks prior to that quake using the same known source text."

A post hoc explanation of events is an attempt to justify the validity of astrology through the shoehorning of data into preconceived notions.

There is a really big difference between producing data to fit your hypothesis and adjusting your hypothesis to fit your data. One of these is a validated scientific process, the other is pseudoscientifc gobbledy-gook. From my post it is obvious, that the data are produced with a PC program using a to you known checkable source code, are independent of the time of generating; it outputs the very same data all the time; for time spans - for example month - in past and/or in the future (!)

There is a simple arithmetic relation to verify, nothing else. Please verify the given data with the given algorithm, argue on the subject, for example on the significance of the relation of planetary angle distances and earthquakes, and stop your loud fantasies about I fitting data. You do assert, that I fit data, that i adjust something, in reply to my post, without any proof or need.
Strange understanding of science. I have learned, that verificition is an adequate tool in science to examine phenomena on significance. In this case it needs a simple verification using given math and logic.

Volker.Doormann

August 7, 2003, 04:35 AM

In the beginning of this month, I have given some answers to Patrick, who was interest in engineering the sun sign of a baby. In addition to that, I have given a hint to him, because I know, he is interested on earthquakes, etc. : � BTW. Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes.� I have given him this hint, because it seems, that some special geometric configurations of the sky objects of the solar system, have coincidences with such events. This is based on some known significant correlations to me, one can verify by science methods. To inform some skeptics here, I have given examples of such significant relations through a simple algorithm, which can calculate an arbitrary index value of such geometries, and through some graphs showing this through the coincidence in time of a high index value and a major earthquake. AFAIR, no one, who is reading here, has replied he/she likes to verify that stuff seriously using scientific methods, what is mainly math.
Because of this truth, I close on this. Thank you.

Volker

Relative Newcomer

August 7, 2003, 10:52 PM

It would have been more timely if I'd found this a few days ago...
Mars' extraordinarily close approach to Earth will culminate on 27 August 2003, when the red planet will come within 35 million miles (or 56 million kilometers) of Earth, its nearest approach to us in almost 60,000 years. At that time, Mars should appear to be approximately 85 times brighter in the sky than it does ordinarily.
http://www.snopes.com/science/mars.asp (http://)

By the way, disaster of some type looms in +/-20 days for those keeping watch.

echidna

August 8, 2003, 04:37 PM

Apologies for being otherwise preoccupied for a day or two. Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
You have cited planetary angle distances of the Turkey quake.
Yes, that was because my questions on the last page were obviously with respect to your immediately prior post regarding the Turkey quake.

My fault that I missed that you replied to my Turkey-quake questions with a Kobe-quake reply.

Can we stick with the Turkey quake because it�s substantially more recent, and can you please include a vertical scale on your graph. There doesn�t appear to be a full moon factor in the Turkey event. Are there any such adjustment factors for Turkey ?Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
It seems, that you believe in the existence of black swans only, if one can show you more then 99, because of statistical considerations.

I cannot climb mountains well, but i can other things well. Thats not the point. First we must negotiate on that, what is on the table. I don�t understand your reply to my earlier request for an expanded 30 day graph for the Turkey quake (with vertical axis scale of course). Can you produce such a graph ? Apparently you can for the 1995 Kobe quake ?

Of course I realise that these requests mean time for you, but I trust that you should understand that they�re pretty common sense requests to achieve understanding.

For the Turkey quake, can you please list

a) your inputs
b) the presumably 45 angular outputs
c) the 30 day graph with vertical scale

Hopefully that's not too much trouble.

echidna

August 8, 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
In the beginning of this month, I have given some answers to Patrick, who was interest in engineering the sun sign of a baby. In addition to that, I have given a hint to him, because I know, he is interested on earthquakes, etc. : � BTW. Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes.� Volker, can you please post your graph for that period, say a ten day window before and after 2003.08.27. Thanks.

If you haven't based the estimation on such a graph, can you please explain your reasoning. Cheers.

echidna

August 8, 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
The number of such 'earthquake relevant angle distance while the Mw7.4 quake last May in Bingol, Turkey, on 2003.05.01 00:27 UTC, was 14,
===============================================
Sun 10�14' ta - Jupiter 9�10' le = 88�56' = 90� - 1�04'
Mars 5�23' aq - Moon 4�55' ta = 89�32' = 90� - 0�28'
Sun 10�14' ta - Venus 11�18' = 28�56' = 30� - 1�04'
Sun 10�14' ta - Moon 4�55' ta = 5�19' = 0� + 5�19'
Jupiter 9�10' le - Mars 5�23' aq = 176�23' = 180� - 3�37'
Jupiter 9�10' le - Neptun 13� 07' aq= 176� 03' = 180� - 3�56'
Moon 4�55' ta - Uranus 2�16' pi = 62�39' = 60� + 2�39'
Sun 10�14' ta - Saturn 26� 1' ge = 45�47' = 45� + 0�47'
Mars 5�23' aq - Pluto 19 34'sa = 45�57' = 45� + 0�57'
Jupiter 9�10' le Saturn 26� 1' ge = 43�09' = 45� - 1�51'
Sun 10�14' ta - Neptun 13�07' aq = 85�07' = 90� - 4�53'
Sun 10�14' ta - Mars 5�23' aq = 94�37' ' = 90� + 4�37
Jupiter 9�10' le - Moon 4�55' ta = 94�15' = 90� + 4�15'
===============================================
and as the upper graph shows, this results in an index value out of the algorithm, which is highest at 00:30 UTC on that day, and is therefore significant. Again from the Turkey quake, I�m failing to understand the significance of these angles you�re posting. You post only 13 of 45 angles. I take it that your highlighting of 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 isn't meaningful ? If the 5 degree window isn�t relevant, then what is the relevance of these selected 13 angles. Statistically there is nothing at all special or significant about them per se.

Volker.Doormann

August 9, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Apologies for being otherwise preoccupied for a day or two. Its OK, echidna.

My fault that I missed that you replied to my Turkey-quake questions with a Kobe-quake reply.

Can we stick with the Turkey quake because it�s substantially more recent, and can you please include a vertical scale on your graph. There doesn�t appear to be a full moon factor in the Turkey event. Are there any such adjustment factors for Turkey ?
Echidna,

I do study this relations more than 12 years now. It is not as simple as the relations of voltage, current and resistance in a material having a lot of electrons. It is naiv to think, that planetary angle distances and earthquake's have a relation as assumed for the law of Mr. Ohm (ignoring, that in cases of lack of electrons his law fails because of nonlinearity).

I could tell you some volumes of books about this phenomen and it's character. It is simple inadequate to lecture here on this object, in this kind of inquiring. You are informed about the significant relations of verifiable data, and it should be a good scientific practice to verify the data in question. It is not important, what I tell you, because you cannot know about the correctness of any of it.

I have closed this discussion on how and if, and it is senseless to continuo this.

Of course I realise that these requests mean time for you, but I trust that you should understand that they�re pretty common sense requests to achieve understanding.

If the 5 degree window isn�t relevant, then what is the relevance of these selected 13 angles. Statistically there is nothing at all special or significant about them per se.

They are only listed for the records as proof of fulfilling the conditions to create high index values. If there would be 45 angles all of exclusive 40� distances, this would be result in the algorithm in very low index values.

I think, it is more helpful give you some thoughts on the background of this area.

If you make an analysis on harmonic modes of some elastic material, the deformation is always an integer number of such modes. It is well known from the sun, that such modes of integer number oscillating the hole sun. Because of an interaction of gravitational waves created by moved mass from this, it cannot be excluded, that such interactions are impossible to the celestial bodies, and moreover, that such interactions are sensitive to the geometry of the bodies.

On February 23rd 1956, in the beginning of the sun spot cycle, which has reached in October 1957 a maximum number of 250, there was the greatest ever recorded class 4 flare on the sun at 03:33 UT. To this time some planets has had heliocentric angle distances matching to some of the here discussed ones.

23.2.1956 03:33:00 UTC
Planet ecl. long.
Mercury 20 sc 57'19.5866"
Mars 20 sc 9'51.1322"
Jupiter 27 le 4' 3.7459"
Saturn 26 sc 49'58.4526"
Uranus 0 le 41'54.4496"
Neptune 28 li 43'10"
Pluto 27 le 24' 4.3791"

The angle distance of Jupiter and Pluto was 0.33� ('0�'), both of them have angle distances 90� +- 0.2� - 0.5� ('90�') to Saturn. The angle distance of Mercury and Mars was 0.07� ('0�'), Uranunus/Neptun was 90� - 1.98� ('90�') and have distance of 30� angles.

http://doormann.tripod.com/560223b.jpg

In this graphic using polar coordinates these configuration is shown. The radius is related to the distance Sun/planet in AU log scaled (+Sun's equator). Assuming a 'mode 12' one can find a matching of planetary positions and the maximum of a 12 mode function. The sun rotates on an axis pitched 7.25� to the ecliptic, and as it is known from Jack Eddy sun spots do not occur, if some planets have harmonic angle distances to the suns equator (for example in the 'Maunder Minimum' 1645 to 1715 CE) (I have seen yet that the position of the earth in the above graph is wrong).

This coincidence of the geometry and celestial 'noise' on the sun and on earth can be found in many of planetary constellations while great earthquakes. From this it is not the question, whether there is a connection, but of what quality is the connection.

The physics of moving plates is well known to the scientists, but there is absolute no knowledge about the physics of the causes of triggering the stress forces at specified times.

If there is triggered a quake from the stress forces, then there is much knowledge about later chain effect etc., which make additional noise, and this noise must not be correlated to a initial trigger process. This means, that one must distinguish accurate initial trigger processes from later chain processes. From this thoughts it is obvious, that a linearity of all earthquakes and a planetary constellation is an illusion.

I have given some hints about this nonlinear correlation, and it is easy to show (much stuff on data) on many events of great earthquakes, that there is a significant geometry involved.

A word to the algorithm. There is to my knowledge no indicia about the mass of the celestial bodies, and about the real relations of the different angles. It seems, that some 60� geometry has a meaning as well as some 45� geometry. The listed algorithm is ignorant of all this possible depending functions, and runs idiotic it's angle distances without any weighting at all.

It is obvious, that each planetary constellation is unique. It is not repeatable. From this no one can do statistic on this. Nevertheless shows the algorithm, that the evident angle distances while big quakes, are able to output a significant index.

The history of this is, that I have studied the valid characteristics (angle distances and geometric configuration at the location of big quakes in history), and have implemented this characteristics in this algorithm. And as two different independent outputs of a month using the very same algorithm are showing, there is a coincidence of peak and event in time very precisely. No one here was interested, able and willing to verify on this.

It is clear to me, that no one of any skeptic is impressed by this thoughts. Nevermind. I only have written this as information of the background of this matter as my understanding it is in imperfection, and any one can make his own philosophy on it.

Sometimes I think, that anyone is verifying the given time of full moon while the Kobe quake, and is saying: 'Hey Volker, I did make a search on the exact time of full moon in January 1995, and it differ only 20 minutes form the quake. So it is true, that the angle distance of sun and moon is very precisely to 180.0�.'. But this has never happened. Silence. Not one concession. Not one. In an area of math.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 14, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann I have seen the news. I'm feeling sympathy with all the people having serious trouble from that collaps - and I'm feeling with the people in Greece having an EQ today Mw 6.2 . "BTW. Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric
planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. "

"It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date' "

"I have given him this hint, because it seems, that some special geometric configurations of the sky objects of the solar system, have coincidences with such events. This is based on some known significant correlation's to me, one can verify by science methods." Volker

echidna

August 14, 2003, 11:15 PM

Volker, I take it you are using that as an example of your prediction. Are you aware that annually there are 18 quakes between 7.0 & 7.9 ? That�s one every three weeks, and the frequency increases of course as one goes down the magnitude scale. A typical year for earthquakes consists of 18 major temblors (magnitude 7.0 to 7.9) and one great quake (8.0 or higher), according to the USGS. To date, no great quakes have occurred, but 20 major earthquakes shook the world in 1999. However, this figure is far below the 41 major and great earthquakes recorded in 1943. Now, going back, you indicated that earthquake likelihood peaked 28/07/03, with stress building from mid-August.

Volker, are you aware how many earthquakes occur daily ? These are simple things to check for and to predict a likelihood for earthquakes to occur over even a two week period is exactly as spectacular as managing to predict that the run will rise over that same period.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000103045936.htm The USGS estimates that several million earthquakes occur in the world each year. Many go undetected because they hit remote areas or have very small magnitudes. The USGS now locates about 50 earthquakes each day, totaling 20,000 a year. Real-time information about earthquakes can be found at http://www.neic.cr.usgs.gov/. How does your astrological prediction differ from what high school probability already tells us ? You need to be a whole lot more specific to claim the Greece quake.

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Volker, I take it you are using that as an example of your prediction. Are you aware that annually there are 18 quakes between 7.0 & 7.9 ? That�s one every three weeks, and the frequency increases of course as one goes down the magnitude scale. Now, going back, you indicated that earthquake likelihood peaked 28/07/03, with stress building from mid-August.

Volker, are you aware how many earthquakes occur daily ? These are simple things to check for and to predict a likelihood for earthquakes to occur over even a two week period is exactly as spectacular as managing to predict that the run will rise over that same period.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000103045936.htm How does your astrological prediction differ from what high school probability already tells us ? You need to be a whole lot more specific to claim the Greece quake. I have written:

"BTW. Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric
planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. "

"It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date' "

"I have given him this hint, because it seems, that some special geometric configurations of the sky objects of the solar system, have coincidences with such events. This is based on some known significant correlation's to me, one can verify by science methods."

This means, that I do claim a natural relation. I have spoken from mid August and an energeticful crash + EQ, because that, what you ignore: planetary angle distances. You have ignored, that there was a crash of the energy in NY on the 15th of August in 2003.

If you can serve an adequte statistical evaluation on this, what you ignore permanently, we can talk on that.

Volker

echidna

August 15, 2003, 01:54 AM

Volker, was there an answer to my post somewhere in that ?

There are millions of earthquakes each year. How is predicting that there will be an earthquake over a two week period, at all significant ?

Above what magnitude do you consider to be astrologically significant ?

(BTW, I'm afraid I'll be away for the weekend so I won't be able to check this thread until Monday. Cheers.)

Secular Pinoy

August 15, 2003, 04:04 AM

=====================
Originally posted by echidna
=====================

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
You are on my ignore list

July 29, 2003 05:27 PM (GMT +8)Hey, Volker's not ignoring you anymore echidna! Congrats, or condolence. :D

Doctor X

August 15, 2003, 05:14 AM

What disappoints me the most has been learning that Volker is a Coward (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1126548#post1126548)

An honorable poster would debate and not simply ignore anyone who contradicts him.

Maybe he does not need One Million Dollars. . . .

--J.D.

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Volker, was there an answer to my post somewhere in that ? It is your problem. If you are interested in physical science, then do your job (verification); if you interested in Inquisiton on astrologers to burn them alive because they speak in public: �Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. " "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date', while it is well known to all, that �the energy collapse yesterday on the 15. day of August, was the biggest ever happend in U.S.A. history�, I identify this magician hunting as a method practiced by The Catholic Church of Rom, but not as an acknowledged method in science. What you are unable to grasp is, that the arguments given to you, are reasonable arguments from verifiable astronomical data and knowlede. It is science; no reason to burn the knower. Because of learnresistant, EOD.

Volker

Doctor X

August 15, 2003, 05:40 AM

Echidna:

I am sure you recognize the "LA!LA!LA!LA!LA! IMNOTLISTENING!!!" that post represented.

For some reason, Volker is afraid to confront the information that debunks astrology. I wonder why?

--J.D.

Armchair dissident

August 15, 2003, 08:49 AM

Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. " "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date', while it is well known to all, that �the energy collapse yesterday on the 15. day of August, was the biggest ever happend in U.S.A. history�

:eek:

Right. So it was all to do with geometric planetary geocentric configurations? Nothing to do with a fire in a power station? And certainly nothing whatsoever to do with you being 12 days out?

Incidentally, I'm curious as to how your algorithm works. I've had a look at it, and maybe it's just my maths screwing with my head, but I just can't seem to get it. You have an array which is apparently populated with a 3 dimensional position of 10 bodies in space, but I thought arrays could only hold a single value for each element of the array?

Now, I know I'm only a programmer, and my astronomy is frequently out of date, but I've never heard of the "geocentric ecliptic length" that's apparently being stored there - and google was less than helpful. Perhaps you could enlighten me. If it's something exotic, could you also let us know what diff( ) does to calculate the angles?

Finally, and I know this is a trifling point: is your program written in pascal? It appears to me that it may be (certainly the syntax is consistent).

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
Right. So it was all to do with geometric planetary geocentric configurations? Nothing to do with a fire in a power station? And certainly nothing whatsoever to do with you being 12 days out?
I do argue on the base of natural astronomical relations given in the thread to verify, for those, who interested. Incidentally, I'm curious as to how your algorithm works. I've had a look at it, and maybe it's just my maths screwing with my head, but I just can't seem to get it. You have an array which is apparently populated with a 3 dimensional position of 10 bodies in space, but I thought arrays could only hold a single value for each element of the array? I have explained that in this thread. The algorithm calculates one index value, which is related to a time. The time is related to geocentric elliptical spherical coordinates of 10 bodies. These coordinates have two dimensions; length and width of the body. Because the width of a body is max 17� (Pluto) away from the plane of the ecliptic, but in most cases only some degree, astrologers take only the length of the body on the ecliptic plane in account to measure the angular distance of two bodies. The error that is created actually by this practice is mostly neglectable, but it is an error. But it seems, that the actual width of the body has no meaning. So, we have only one dimension left - the elliptically length of the body, and this is the single value, what is hold in one element of the array. Now, I know I'm only a programmer, and my astronomy is frequently out of date, but I've never heard of the "geocentric ecliptic length" that's apparently being stored there - and google was less than helpful. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Sure. Astronomy make use of an hypothetical sphere.

http://doormann.tripod.com/hiku02.jpg

In this graph the earth is in the center of the sphere. From this the perspective is �geocentric�. This differs to a perspective were the sun is in the center, and which is called �heliocentric�.

While astronomers measure the coordinates of the bodies from the projected earth equator, astronomers call their system 'geocentric equatorial coordinate system'. In this the two relevant spherical coordinates are �equatorial length� and �declination�. The term then is �geocentric equatorial length�. Astrologers take the ecliptically plane as reference (on the red circle around the hypothetical sky sphere are placed the bodies of our sun system), and this is called the geocentric ecliptically length, in opposite to the equatorial length measured on the sky equator. If it's something exotic, could you also let us know what diff( ) does to calculate the angles? diff(a,b) is a function, that results the absolute angular distance between two bodies; for example: a = 15� , b = 354�, diff = 21�. But if you ask for the calculation of the ecliptically length of the 10 bodies, this is done by taking the astronomical data from each planet (for a defined epoch) and by solving the astronomical algorithm for each of the 10 bodies. I have written that code some 10 years ago from an astronomical book about astronomical algorithm. Finally, and I know this is a trifling point: is your program written in pascal? Yes. The code is written in Borland Pascal 7; about 50 kbyte executable DOS code.

Armchair dissident

August 15, 2003, 12:50 PM

I do argue on the base of natural astronomical relations given in the thread to verify, for those, who interested.

So, if I understand you correctly, you can show no actual causal relationship between Mars' position in space, and a fire in a power station? Indeed you can't actually demonstrate that 27th August is in anyway connected with 15th?

The time is related to geocentric elliptical spherical coordinates of 10 bodies. These coordinates have two dimensions; length and width of the body.

Sorry, you'll have to excuse my ignorance here - this makes no sense to me. When you discuss length and width - to what precisely are you referring? Are you referring to the distance of each body along and imaginary y and x axis from the Earth's centre?

So, we have only one dimension left - the elliptically length of the body, and this is the single value, what is hold in one element of the array.

I'm still not sure I follow. You appear to be stating that the length is a simple distance from the centre of the geocentric sphere, in which case I really can't see:

diff(a,b) is a function, that results the absolute angular distance between two bodies; for example: a = 15� , b = 354�, diff = 21�. But if you ask for the calculation of the ecliptically length of the 10 bodies, this is done by taking the astronomical data from each planet (for a defined epoch) and by solving the astronomical algorithm for each of the 10 bodies. I have written that code some 10 years ago from an astronomical book about astronomical algorithm.

Here you appear to be stating that diff() measures an angular distance, not between two points but between two distances. Now, again, forgive my lack of mathematical knowledge - but I understood that this was not possible.

Yes. The code is written in Borland Pascal 7; about 50 kbyte executable DOS code

In which case, and again, perhaps you know more coding than I, do you realise that the code you posted simply cannot work. Pascal, as I understand it, is a case-insensitive language, yet you have two definitions of 'i': once for a loop variable, and once ('I") as an accumulator. Pascal sees both these variables as one and the same thing.

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident

Volker: "The code is written in Borland Pascal 7".

In which case, and again, perhaps you know more coding than I, do you realise that the code you posted simply cannot work. Pascal, as I understand it, is a case-insensitive language, yet you have two definitions of 'i': once for a loop variable, and once ('I") as an accumulator. Pascal sees both these variables as one and the same thing. Correct. You are right. Sorry for this. Variable i is an integer, and I is reduced in the graph only from the origin I1 in the source text, which is a double precision (real) variable.

Shadowy Man

August 15, 2003, 01:42 PM

If I am understanding correctly, his "length" is the Right Ascension and his "width" is the declination difference from the ecliptic.

Is this correct?

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
So, if I understand you correctly, you can show no actual causal relationship between Mars' position in space, and a fire in a power station? Indeed you can't actually demonstrate that 27th August is in anyway connected with 15th? The hint on energeticful crashes in this month was based on long experience with planetary configurations. 61,800 Megawatts, supplying 50 Mio people were lost on the 14th of August for several hours in the mid of August 2003. This is a fact.
I do not write here for fun. Nobody must be impressed. The full nature of this relations is not to be explained in some words. Maybe it helps you, that in the end of this month Uranus, Jupiter, Mars, Sun and Venus in opposition from earth. On 2003.08.27 Moon is added. In the mid of the month Pluto has some stress angles. Each of this angular relation is relevant and this relevance is intensified by the number of relevant angles (see algorithm). I have no knowledge about which specific planets have special relations to earthquakes, but I have knowledge (as all astrologers in general) about the quality of the planets next to earthquakes. And this knowledge is the base for the interpretation of 'energeticful crashes'. I have no idea about causes of this. When you discuss length and width - to what precisely are you referring? Are you referring to the distance of each body along and imaginary y and x axis from the Earth's centre? No. Spherical coordinates - like used on the surface of earth - have a longitude and a latitude. The longitude relates to the length and the latitude relates to the width. Because this are all angles, there do not exist distances at all. Two values of spherical coordinates defines a location on the sphere perfectly. I'm still not sure I follow. You appear to be stating that the length is a simple distance from the centre of the geocentric sphere, in which case I really can't see:

Here you appear to be stating that diff() measures an angular distance, not between two points but between two distances. Now, again, forgive my lack of mathematical knowledge - but I understood that this was not possible.
I think it is best that you take look in a book on spherical trigonometry. As the name speaks, there are angles involved, but absolute no real lengths in meters. The lengths and distances are ever angles and angle distances.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
If I am understanding correctly, his "length" is the Right Ascension and his "width" is the declination difference from the ecliptic.

Is this correct? Nearly yes. But this is not my length and width, it is the common standard designation in astronomy used for ecliptically coordinates to avoid mistakes, and to distinguish them from the RA and Declination of the equatorial coordinate system.

Armchair dissident

August 15, 2003, 02:50 PM

Correct. You are right. Sorry for this. Variable i is an integer, and I is reduced in the graph only from the origin I1 in the source text, which is a double precision (real) variable.

You'll forgive me if I can't quite understand this. You see: you posted your algorithm source before you posted the graph. They both contained the same error. If I assume (which I believe is reasonable) that the source code embedded as an insert in the graph was intended to provide an aura of authority by presenting the precise code that generated the graph (overlooking the fact that the code does not, and cannot generate a graph), then I have to ask why you would try to present such a blatantly false impression of authority.

Incidentally: could you provide me an answer to my other questions.

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
.. you posted your algorithm source before you posted the graph. They both contained the same error. If I assume (which I believe is reasonable) that the source code embedded as an insert in the graph was intended to provide an aura of authority by presenting the precise code that generated the graph (overlooking the fact that the code does not, and cannot generate a graph), then I have to ask why you would try to present such a blatantly false impression of authority. Really? You have? Incidentally: could you provide me an answer to my other questions. I think I have neither an answer to your first question nor to your other questions.

Armchair dissident

August 15, 2003, 03:14 PM

The hint on energeticful

Energeticful is not a word. Define the word.

crashes in this month was based on long experience with planetary configurations. 61,800 Megawatts, supplying 50 Mio people were lost on the 14th of August for several hours in the mid of August 2003. This is a fact.
It wasn't "lost" - that's simply your interpretation. A fire in a power station simply brought down generation of power. There was a lack of supply of electricity; not a drop in energy. And it didn't happen on 27th August. So far, you are wrong.
Maybe it helps you, that in the end of this month Uranus, Jupiter, Mars, Sun and Venus in opposition from earth. On 2003.08.27 Moon is added
Unless by opposition you mean "nowhere near each other, and not aligned anywhere around the earth": No, it doesn't.

In the mid of the month Pluto has some stress angles.

What's a stress angle? On my copy of Starry night, I put the date at 1st Aug 2003, and 31st Aug 2003. Guess what: no visible change. The problem with Pluto is that it has a very slow orbit. It'll have the same "stress" angle for a few years to come.

Your algorithm is bunk and hokum, and the rest of your statement is nonsense.

Armchair dissident

August 15, 2003, 04:10 PM

I think it is best that you take look in a book on spherical trigonometry. As the name speaks, there are angles involved, but absolute no real lengths in meters. The lengths and distances are ever angles and angle distances.

Thanks for the advice - unfortunately I've already read a number of books on spherical co-ordinates. The problem is, that you're stating spherical co-oridnates on a fixed radius. Unfortunately each planet orbits at a different radius from the Earth, and that radius is constantly changing from a geocentric point of view. So, unfortunately you can only express the direction of another body from the centre of the Earth with longitude and latitude, not it's actual position. Indeed during planetary conjunctions (which happen with alarming regularity) many planets occupy the same longitude and latitude; but still occupy different locations in space.

Volker.Doormann

August 15, 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
It wasn't "lost" - that's simply your interpretation. You are wrong. It is said yesterday on the cnn.com page. Your algorithm is bunk and hokum, and the rest of your statement is nonsense. That may be, but it is only an opinion without any meaning, and does not change any thruth and facts. 'Energeticful crash' means 'full energy crashs' and a full energy crash is a downfall of a lot of energy - 61,800,000,000 Watts lost for several hours in the mid of August 2003, diverted from astronomical data and ignored by you.

EOD

Armchair dissident

August 15, 2003, 05:47 PM

It is said yesterday on the cnn.com page
Did they look down the back of the sofa? It wasn't lost, the electricity was not available, but it was not lost.

That may be, but it is only an opinion without any meaning,

It's an opinion with a very specific meaning: You cannot demonstrate that your algorithm is founded on any truthful principal. You cannot demonstrate that your basic mathematics is based on any truthful principle. The software you posted cannot work - even if you did complete it. You do not understand spherical co-ordinates, but base your assumptions upon your misunderstanding of them.

I fail to see where there is room for "opinion" here.

'Energeticful crash' means 'full energy crashs' and a full energy crash is a downfall of a lot of energy - 61,800,000,000 Watts lost for several hours in the mid of August 2003, diverted from astronomical data and ignored by you.

First: Energeticful is not a word.
Second: You made a prediction regarding the 27th August: the day when Mars is closest to the Earth. The 15th is not that date.
Third: A fire in a power station cannot be attributed to a planetary alignment that will occur 12 days hence, except in your imagination. You have failed to demonstrate that it can
Forth: You're premise that "energeticful crash" (a nonsense term) around the 27th August means "61,800,000,000 Watts lost for several hours" on the 15th August is a post hoc fallacy.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to which aspect of your truth I've missed here.

Secular Pinoy

August 15, 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
Energeticful is not a word.Ah, but that's the hallmark of pseudoscientists, to coin neologisms in an attempt at plugging holes in their arguments. Martin Gardner something about it in his historic book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486203948/internetinfidels):

A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways: <snip> (5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.

Soul Invictus

August 16, 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by echidna
This is kinda funny from someone whose "Ignore List" covers a sizable proportion of S&S posters & ends most conversations by adding another name.

Where is this oh so popular list? I've seen via recent posts that you, Doctor X, Secular Pinoy, ps418 and Oolon Colluphid are several on the list. What gives?

Volker.Doormann

August 16, 2003, 07:10 AM

Armchair dissident: "Now, I know I'm only a programmer, and my astronomy is frequently out of date, but I've never heard of the "geocentric ecliptic length" that's apparently being stored there - and google was less than helpful."

Volker.Doormann: " ... From this the perspective is �geocentric�. This differs to a perspective were the sun is in the center, and which is called �heliocentric�. While astronomers measure the coordinates of the bodies from the projected earth equator, astronomers call their system 'geocentric equatorial coordinate system'. In this the two relevant spherical coordinates are �equatorial length� and �declination�. The term then is �geocentric equatorial length�. Astrologers take the ecliptically plane as reference (on the red circle around the hypothetical sky sphere are placed the bodies of our sun system), and this is called the geocentric ecliptically length, in opposite to the equatorial length measured on the sky equator."

Armchair dissident: "When you discuss length and width - to what precisely are you referring? Are you referring to the distance of each body along and imaginary y and x axis from the Earth's centre?"

Armchair dissident: "unfortunately I've already read a number of books on spherical co-ordinates. The problem is, that you're stating spherical co-oridnates on a fixed radius. Unfortunately each planet orbits at a different radius from the Earth, and that radius is constantly changing from a geocentric point of view.

Armchair dissident: "You do not understand spherical co-ordinates, but base your assumptions upon your misunderstanding of them."

Sadowyman: "If I am understanding correctly, his "length" is the Right Ascension and his "width" is the declination difference from the ecliptic.

Is this correct?"It seems to me, that here is expressed a big lack of knowledge about the basics in astronomy:

The Ecliptical Coordinate System

In the ecliptical coordinate system, the fundamental reference plane is chosen to be the ecliptic, i.e. the orbital plane of the Earth around the Sun. Earth's revolution around the Sun defines an orientation and thus the North and the South Ecliptic Pole.
The ecliptic latitude (be) is defined as the angle between a position and the ecliptic and takes values between -90 and +90 deg, while the ecliptic longitude (le) is again starting from the vernal equinox and runs from 0 to 360 deg in the same eastward sense as Right Ascension.
The obliquity, or inclination of Earth's equator against the ecliptic, amounts eps[ilon] = 23deg 26' 21.448" (2000.0) and changes very slightly with time, due to gravitational perturbations of Earth's motion. Knowing this quantity, the transformation formulae from equatorial to ecliptical coordinates are quite simply given (mathematically, by a rotation around the "X" axis pointing to the vernal equinox by angle eps):
cos be * cos le = cos Dec * cos RA
cos be * sin le = cos Dec * sin RA * cos eps + sin Dec * sin eps
sin be = - cos Dec * sin RA * sin eps + sin Dec * cos eps
and the reverse transformation:
cos Dec * cos RA = cos be * cos le
cos Dec * sin RA = cos be * sin le * cos eps - sin be * sin eps
sin Dec = cos be * sin le * sin eps + sin be * cos eps
Ecliptical coordinates are most frequently used for solar system calculations such as planetary and cometary orbits and appearances. For this purpose, two ecliptical systems are used: The heliocentric coordinate system with the Sun in its center, and the geocentric one with the Earth in its origin, which can be transferred into each other by a coordinate translation.

The Equatorial Coordinate System

In principle, the celestial coordinate system can be introduced in the simplest way by projecting Earth's geocentric coordinates to the sky at a certain moment of time (actually, each time when star time is O:00 at Greenwich or anywhere on the Zero meridian on Earth, which occurs once each siderial day); the reader will hopefully understand this statement after reading this section. These coordinates are then left fixed at the celestial sphere, while Earth will rotate away below them.
Practically, projecting Earth's equator and poles to the celestial sphere by imagining straight half lines from the Earth's center produces the celestial equator as well as the north and the south celestial pole. Great circles through the celestial poles are always perpendicular to the celestial equator and called hour circles for reasons explained below.
The first coordinate in the equatorial system, corresponding to the latitude, is called Declination (Dec), and is the angle between the position of an object and the celestial equator (measured along the hour circle). Alternatively, sometimes the polar distance (PD) is used, which is given by PD = 90 deg - Dec; the most prominent reference known to the present author using PD instead of Dec is John Herschel's General Catalogue of Non-stellar Objects (GC) of 1864, but this (equivalent) alternative has come more and more out of use since, so that virtually all current astronomical databases use Dec.
It remains to fix the zero point of the longitudinal coordinate, called Right Ascension (RA). ... As a longitudinal coordinate, RA can take values between 0 and 360 deg. However, this coordinate is more often given in time units hours (h), minutes (m), and seconds (s), where 24 hours correspond to 360 degrees (so that RA takes values between 0 and 24 h); the correspondence of units is as follows: 24 h = 360 deg 1 h = 15 deg, 1 m = 15', 1 s = 15" 1 deg = 4 m, 1' = 4 s.

Hope that helps to fit the lacks in basic knowledge on astronomy.

More on this subject is to be read from: www.seds.org/~spider/spider/ScholarX/coords.html from what the above text is taken.

I have no further comments on that post, written by Armchair.

I think there is no need in scientific argumentation to attack persons. Moreover, it is a sign of lack of understanding the difference between valid and invalid arguments. Relations may be wrong, arguments may be wrong, but persons never are wrong. No little nice fire burning astrologers alive does solve any scientific questions. No one must take care of such shown relations. But if, only valid scientifically arguments on the subject proves a scientific competence in the field. This competence is not shown here in this thread; no one was willing and able to verify the shown significant relations. Still hypocrisy questions abusing answers to discredit persons with irrelevant assertions. QED.

Volker

Secular Pinoy

August 16, 2003, 07:21 AM

From Michael Shermer's article in Scientific American:Hermits and Cranks (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000547F6-C50D-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2)

How can we tell if someone is a scientific crank? Gardner offers this advice: (1) "First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues." Cranks typically do not understand how the scientific process operatesthat they need to try out their ideas on colleagues, attend conferences and publish their hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals before announcing to the world their startling discovery. Of course, when you explain this to them they say that their ideas are too radical for the conservative scientific establishment to accept. (2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:

(1) He considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.... (3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work.... (4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein.... (5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.

Volker.Doormann

August 16, 2003, 03:11 PM

I like to place some thougths in here to think about.

"It�s one thing not to see the forest for the trees, but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest is a more serious matter. -"
Paul Weiss

-

"The vast majority of skeptics often write about the plausibility of various alternative hypotheses, but they almost never test their ideas. This �armchair quarterbacking� is especially true of the current generation of psi skeptics, the vast majority of whom have made no original research contributions to this topic.
Their reasoning is simple: If you start from the position that an effect cannot exist, then why bother going to all the time and expense to actually study it? It makes more sense to use every rhetorical trick in the book to convince others that your opinion is correct, and that all the evidence to the contrary is somehow flawed. This may seem like a perfectly reasonable strategy, but it is not science. It is much closer to an argument based on faith, like a religious position. The fact that most skeptics do not conduct counter-studies to prove their claims is not well known. For example, in 1983 the well known skeptic Martin Gardner wrote the following:

How can the public know that for fifty years skeptical psychologists have been trying their best to replicate classic psi experiments, and with notable unsuccess [sic]? It is this fact more than any other that has led to parapsychology�s perpetual stagnation. Positive evidence keeps coming from a tiny group of enthusiasts, while negative evidence keeps coming from a much larger group of skeptics.

As Honorton points out, �Gardner does not attempt to document this assertion, nor could he. It is pure fiction. Look for the skeptics� experiments and see what you find.� In addition, there is no �larger group of skeptics.� There are perhaps 10 to 15 skeptics who have accounted for the vast bulk of the published criticisms. Beyond the �century of failure� argument, some skeptics still stubbornly insist that parapsychology is not a �real science.�

-

"The reception of unconventional or extraordinary claims in science has come under increasing attention by sociologists and historians. Scientific anomalies have sparked scientific revolutions, but such claims have had to fight prejudices within science. This essay offers scattered reflections on the adjudication process confronted by protoscientists (science "wannabes") wishing admission into the scientific mainstream. My comments here are not intended in support of proponents of the paranormal (for I remain a skeptic, as defined below) but to help produce a more level playing field and a greater fairness that might help all scientists.

Equilibrium in Science.

Philosopher Paul Feyerabend asserted that in a free society, science is too important to be left entirely to scientists. He had a point, for institutionalized Big Science has brought with it increased vested interests, some of which may threaten scientific growth itself. Though many historians and philosophers of science remind us that science needs to remain a tentative and open system, both fallible and probabilistic, science may, as do other human institution, develop orthodoxies and even dogmas.
Historian Thomas Kuhn spoke of the "essential tension" in science between its conservative need to accumulate a body of tested knowledge and its progressive need for innovations from theory and data that might lead to new paradigms. So, a successful scientist performs like a circus wire-walker, engaged in a balancing act with closed minded arrogance weighted at one end of the balancing pole and open minded credulity weighted at the other. If either end pulls too far, a fall may follow.
Today, I think the balance has shifted too far towards arrogance. The emergence of a new and quasi-religious dogmatism, usually termed Scientism, has been examined and criticized from diverse standpoints in recent years, particularly those of Tom Sorell, Mary Midgley and Bryan Appleyard. Though some critics of Scientism take an anti-science stance, we need not go so far to recognize some current excesses. And though some postmodernists and others question the basic epistemology of science, my concern here is only with metaphysical debates over what phenomena science should judge to be "real," especially controversial claims for the reality of anomalies (ranging from alleged processes like extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis --the claims of the parasciences-- to bizarre physical things like bigfoot and UFOs -- the claims of the cryptosciences). My complaints here, then, are only with scientists' violations of their own professed method; in fact, I agree with those who contend that science fundamentally IS its method rather than its tentative substantive content.

On Impossibilities and Errors.

In their "Introduction" to No Way: The Nature of the Impossible, mathematician Philip J. Davis and physicist David Park concluded that although we may have conceptions of the impossible, we cannot have absolute knowledge of it, for "There is no criterion of impossibility." In line with this, philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce earlier argued that our first obligation must be to do nothing that might block inquiry. Yet, some, claiming to speak in the name of science now demand doors be closed on many subjects. Although science can only assert that extraordinary events are highly improbable, some critics speak of "laws of denial" as though we can prejudge some empirical events impossible so unnecessary to investigate. Such defenders of the status quo often engage in ridicule and sarcastic rhetoric that is deemed uncivil in normal scientific discourse, and sociologists of science Harry M. Collins and Trevor J. Pinch have gone so far as to characterize some such activities as scientific "vigilantism."
Such defenses of orthodoxy are not surprising, and they typically stem from an honest desire to avoid mistakenly thinking something special is happening when it really is not (what statisticians have termed a Type I Error). This error is embodied in the aphorism "all that glitter is not gold." However, proponents of esoteric claims are often more concerned with avoiding the mistake of thinking nothing special is going on when it actually is (the statistician's Type II Error). Their attitude is exemplified by the folk maxim that we "should not throw the baby out with the bath water." These contrasting types of error, and our need to follow a path avoiding both, are central to Kuhn's "essential tension" in science; and I think much of the difference between proponents and critics of extraordinary claims in science may center on which of these two types of error is designated as the more dangerous. The Chinese character for "crisis" consists of combining the symbols for "danger" and "opportunity." Such is the case with the paradigm crisis inherent in an extraordinary science claim, usually consisting of an alleged anomaly (a fact in search of theory). Conservatives in science typically view anomalies as dangers (threats to currently accepted theories) whereas progressives (proponents) of such claims see them as "opportunities" (stimulants for theory reconstruction).

On Heresy, Scientism and Discrediting the Paranormal.

As conservative science confronts the threat of anomalies, it may defend itself with excessive zeal. So much so that some organized critics of anomalies have even been characterized as a "New Inquisition" seeking to stamp out the heresies against an orthodoxy of Scientism. Ironically, since he was himself a prominent critic of many anomaly claims, Isaac Asimov distinguished between "exoheretics" (outsiders to a field)) versus "endoheretics" (insiders or professional colleagues) in science. Endoheretics are usually accorded greater courtesy than are exoheretics. Thus, I have found, endoheretics are more likely to be described as "cranks" (tenacious) and as making "errors," while exoheretics are openly called "crackpots" (crazy) and are accused of "fraud." The strongest pejorative labels such as "pseudoscience" and "pathology" tend to be ascribed to the claims and methods of exoheretics.
In the effort to discredit anomaly claims, critics often characterized them as "miracles," and any connections with past religious or occult support tends to get them labelled "supernatural" or "magical." This is particularly unfortunate, because terms like "paranormal" were originally introduced to naturalize the supernatural. Protoscientific proponents of the paranormal insist that the paranormal is part of the natural order and consists of anomalies amenable to scientific investigation and possible verification. While occultists and theologians have recognized this difference between the paranormal and the supernatural, many "scientific" critics merely lump them together as "transcendental nonsense." Because of this, many critics of the paranormal mistakenly invoke David Hume's famous argument against miracles when dealing with claims of the paranormal. In fact, Hume distinguished between merely extraordinary events and miracles (which must involve divine volition and a suspension of the laws of nature). Most critics of the paranormal seem unaware of the voluminous literature distinguishing "marvels" (anomalies of nature) from "miracles." A major practical consequence of such semantic confusion is the false impression that anomalies can largely be discredited a priori so need no further investigation. Such rhetoric thus blocks inquiry.
As psychologist Ray Hyman has noted, many scientists may be more interested in discrediting than in disproving claims of the extraordinary. This can lead to poor scholarship and methods below normal professional standards, and it also results in ad hominem attacks and rhetorical tricks rather than solid falsification. Hyman noted it can also lead to the use of "hit men" (nonscientists such as journalists or even magicians) encouraged to discredit the claimants. Such nonscientists have argued about the need to "fight fire with fire" and the advantages of "horselaughs" over arguments and evidence. Such counterattacks themselves constitute a form of pathology within science. As philosopher (and critic of the paranormal) Mario Bunge put it: "the occasional pressure to suppress it [dissent] in the name of the orthodoxy of the day is even more injurious to science than all the forms of pseudoscience put together."

Skeptics or Scoffers?

Perhaps the most insidious rhetorical trick has been the misappropriation of the label "skeptic" to describe what are actually scoffers . As sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed out, organized skepticism is a fundamental norm in science. However, the term skepticism is properly defined as doubt, not denial. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim, so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts a negative claim, so the burden of proof science places on any claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape from their burden to prove a negative position.
Perhaps the greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics' attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about anomalies are true is characterized as a case not proven. A skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been disproved. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty or innocent, and not proven.) Scoffers use a similar foreshortening towards issues of evidence. It is common to hear statements to the effect that "there is no evidence supporting a claim" when in fact it is merely inadequate evidence that has been presented. Evidence is always a matter of degree, some being extremely weak; but even weak evidence can mount up (as shown by meta-analysis) to produce a stronger case. Weak evidence (most commonly anecdotal rather than systematic and experimental evidence) is often discounted, however, by assertions that it falls below some threshold of what science should consider evidence at all. This, of course, eliminates the evidential basis for most of clinical medicine and the social sciences, but that seems to hold no terror for the scoffer who invokes such criteria.

Shifting Goal Posts and Rubber Rulers.

As proponents of anomalies produce stronger evidence, critics have sometimes moved the goal posts further away. This is especially clear in the case of parapsychology. To convince scientists of what had been merely been supported by widespread but weak anecdotal evidence, parapsychologists moved psychical research into the laboratory. When experimental results were presented, designs were criticized. When protocols were improved, a "fraud proof" or "critical experiment" was demanded. When those were put forward, replications were demanded. When those were produced, critics argued that new forms of error might be the cause (such as the "file drawer" error that could result from unpublished negative studies). When meta-analyses were presented to counter that issue, these were discounted as controversial, and ESP was reduced to being some present but unspecified "error some place" in the form of what Ray Hyman called the "dirty test tube argument" (claiming dirt was in the tube making the seeming psi result a mere artifact). And in one instance, when the scoffer found no counter-explanations, he described the result as a "mere anomaly" not to be taken seriously so just belonging on a puzzle page. The goal posts have now been moved into a zone where some critics hold unfalsifiable positions.
Scoffers are typically quick to demand good methodology when dealing with extraordinary claims, insisting on such things as replications, control groups, double-blind experiments, and the rule of parsimony (Ockham's Razor). They often write of the cognitive fallacies committed by paranormalists. In the process, however, they overlook the same need for rigor in many areas they defend. Thus, alternative medicine is denounced for its failure to demonstrate claims with proper experiments, ignoring the absence of experimental evidence in many areas of orthodox medicine (for example, in surgery). And scoffers denounce "psychic" counsellors but don't bother to do controlled experiments comparing them to orthodox advisors such as psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and social workers.
Psychologists who complain about inadequate replication levels in parapsychology seem unaware of the dismal record of replication with conventional psychology. They also fail to note that what constitutes a replication is itself often a matter of controversy, and, as Harry Collins has shown, often involves social negotiation.
Astronomers who inveigh against neo-astrology seem unbothered by the nonfalsifiability of many current fashions in their own cosmological theories, and they seem to have forgotten that gravity was once rejected by Newton's fellow scientists over the assertion that there could be "action at a distance." Scoffers seem to assume a unity in science, forgetting that history reveals many disagreement among science's branches, such as physicist Lord Kelvin's (then reasonable) arguments against Darwin's theory of evolution since the sun was too young to allow the time Darwin's theory required (fusion had not yet been discovered).
The rule of parsimony asserts that the simplest adequate theory should be preferred, but, as Mario Bunge has shown in his book on the subject, the concept of simplicity is far from a simple matter. In addition, the presumption that conventional explanations adequately cover extraordinary claims is usually the very issue at hand, so invoking parsimony can sometimes beg the question.
When criticizing the paranormal, scientists who are scoffers usually fail to bring the same professional standards expected of them in their own fields. This is particularly evident when one looks at their praise for articles reporting experiments on the paranormal that obtained negative results. Some of these articles contain questionable methods and conclusions and probably would never have passed peer review had they shown positive results.

Extraordinary Claims versus Extraordinary Proof.

In his famous 1748 essay Of Miracles, the great skeptic David Hume asserted that "A wise man...proportions his belief to the evidence,"and he said of testimony for extraordinary claims that "the evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more unusual." A similar statement was made by Laplace, and many other later writers. I turned it into the now popular phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" (which Carl Sagan popularized into what is almost the war cry of some scoffers). As anomalistic psychologists Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones observed, this demand "may be not only used but misused to the point where no amount of evidence of a paranormal claim will avail against a skeptic who has already prejudged the issue." The central problem however lies in the fact that "extraordinary" must be relative to some things "ordinary." and as our theories change, what was once extraordinary may become ordinary (best seen in now accepted quantum effects that earlier were viewed as "impossible"). Many now extraordinary claims may become more acceptable not when they are replicated but when theoretical contexts change to make them more welcome.

A Catch-22 in the Burden of Proof?

In criminal law, the burden of proof is assigned to the prosecution; in the court of science, it is placed on the defender of the deviant science claim. Whereas, in our British-based legal system, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, in science the maverick scientist is presumed "guilty" (of error) until proven "innocent." This is appropriate since science must basically be conservative in its own defense against myriad would-be invaders. But it is important to remember that the proponent of the paranormal has an uphill battle from the start. The chips are stacked against him, so his assault is not so threatening to the fabric of science as scoffers often characterize it. In a sense, conservative science has "the law" on its side.
In law, we find three varieties in the weight of burden of proof:
1. proof by preponderance of evidence,
2. clear and convincing proof, and, in criminal law,
3. proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In conventional science, we usually use (1), but when dealing with extraordinary claims, critics often seem to demand (3) since they demand all alternative explanations must be eliminated before the maverick claim is acceptable. This demand sometimes becomes unreasonable and may even make the scoffer's position unfalsifiable. Since the anomaly proponent is already saddled with a presumption of "guilt," it would seem to me that (2), clear and convincing proof, might be the best standard, though proponents may reasonably wonder why standard (1) should always be denied them.

A Recommendation.

In addition to recognizing and working through the issues I have raised above, we need scaled terms to deal with levels of evidence for the best of the extraordinary claims put forth by protoscientists. Scientists might well distinguish between extraordinary claims that are: suggestive, meaning interesting and worthy of attention but generally of low priority; compelling, meaning the evidence is strongly supportive and argues for assigning a higher scientific priority for greater investigation; and convincing, meaning most reasonable scientists examining the evidence would agree at least a preponderance of evidence supports the claim. Using such graded language might help us turn from our present debates, with room only for winners and losers, into dialogues between peers, all of whom should want to see science judiciously progress. We can all be winners.

Marcello Truzzi

This article was published in slightly edited form in:
Edward Binkowski, editor, Oxymoron: Annual Thematic Anthology of the Arts and Sciences, Vol.2: The Fringe, New York: Oxymoron Media, Inc., 1998."

My experience and studies on this forum is related to such thoughts. Why do we work to exchange religious belief dogmatics with individual knowledge and free cognition, if dogmatic skepticism belief claims to be the master of world, like well known from the Catholic church of Rom 400 years ago?

"The typical skeptic is skeptical of the paranormal, other people, and is not skeptical of skepticism. The true skeptic is skeptical of the normal, himself, and of skepticism. " (Deborah Frisch)

"Some people trying to put their head in the sand, not perceiving, that there isn't anymore sand, actually" (Volker Doormann)

Volker

Armchair dissident

August 17, 2003, 04:47 AM

There is no uphill struggle for a paranormal claim if the claim is valid, sound and can be consistently replicated. In the several thousand years that astrology has been around it has failed to meet this simple criteria.

The idea that the position of the planets in the solar system can - and does - predictably influence daily lives of people here on Earth should be simple to demonstrate as fact. All you need to do is consistently provide clear, and accurate predictions on future events. Astrology - along peddlers of psychic abilities, ghosts, perpetual motion, homeopathy etc etc - consistently fail to do this. :banghead:

Of course, if you feel like you're being unfairly treated, you could always take a trip to the USA, prove your claims, and grab a million dollars (http://www.randi.org) in the bargain.

Volker.Doormann

August 17, 2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
There is no uphill struggle for a paranormal claim if the claim is valid, sound and can be consistently replicated. In the several thousand years that astrology has been around it has failed to meet this simple criteria.

The idea that the position of the planets in the solar system can - and does - predictably influence daily lives of people here on Earth should be simple to demonstrate as fact. All you need to do is consistently provide clear, and accurate predictions on future events. Astrology - along peddlers of psychic abilities, ghosts, perpetual motion, homeopathy etc etc - consistently fail to do this. :banghead:

Of course, if you feel like you're being unfairly treated, you could always take a trip to the USA, prove your claims, and grab a million dollars (http://www.randi.org) in the bargain. Your have not shown, that you are competent to argue scientifically adequate to the science of astrology. You have shown, that you are believing, that astrology is a belief system. But if one do not belief in French, this affects not the function of a language and the knowledge, which can be transmitted with French. Your disbelief is as worthless as a belief, it affects not the function of astrology and the knowledge, which can be transmitted with astrology. You cannot show, that your 'black hole' position is science or an acknowledged method in science; there is nothing else as ignorance - and a master/slave imagination, were you are the master of decision - to the given evidence of astrological outputs in this thread, as it is described in the above article about the lacks of understanding science by many skeptics.

This shown evidences in many cases - you can read them back - are facts, skepticism like Randi or Gardener never have given proofs of their claims; it is pure fiction, a sect in science and a pure belief system without any natural base. What is the worth of a belief? 'I am xyz!'. Where is the proof, that this xyz is no belief, but science on a natural base?

There is no - as you can see from the silence to this questions here.

Volker: "Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. " "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August .. " (The energy collapse on 2003.08.14 - called now a 'desaster' - was biggest ever happend in U.S.A. history).

Volker

Godot

August 17, 2003, 08:54 AM

Are you seriously suggesting that the power outage was caused by the present (relative) proximity of Mars to Earth?:eek:
I'm sure there's a few astrophysicists out there that would be keen to hear about if that were the case.

Armchair dissident

August 17, 2003, 12:07 PM

Your have not shown, that you are competent to argue scientifically adequate to the science of astrology
It is not a science. It fails to meet the criteria central to all sciences: ergo, it is not a science.
You have shown, that you are believing, that astrology is a belief system. But if one do not belief in French, this affects not the function of a language and the knowledge, which can be transmitted with French.
This is a false (and quite frankly, somewhat surreal) analogy. French is a language; one that when learnt to a sufficient degree enables one to converse with other people who understand French. Astrology is not a language - it is a pseudo-science which - even should one learn the structure and terminology will not enable anyone - astrologers included - to make any reliable accurate verifiable prediction. No amount of saying "but it does!" changes the fact that it does not work.
You cannot show, that your 'black hole' position is science or an acknowledged method in science; there is nothing else as ignorance - and a master/slave imagination, were you are the master of decision - to the given evidence of astrological outputs in this thread, as it is described in the above article about the lacks of understanding science by many skeptics.

If I understand you correctly, you're claiming that I should give astrology the same credibility as I give the existence of black holes?:eek: Have you read Stephen Hawkings? Do you have any understanding whatsoever about the scientific process? When the theory of black holes was first postulated, a number of predictions were made that would be true only if, and only if black holes existed. Similarly, when general and special relativity were postulated, predictions were made that would be true if, and only if relativity was a valid scientific theory. Astrology cannot do this. Astrology can make no specific predictions (energeticful?), and fails consistently to demonstrate it's truthfulness.

This shown evidences in many cases - you can read them back - are facts, skepticism like Randi or Gardener never have given proofs of their claims; it is pure fiction, a sect in science and a pure belief system without any natural base. What is the worth of a belief? 'I am xyz!'. Where is the proof, that this xyz is no belief, but science on a natural base?

James Randi is not making a claim. You are stating that astrologer can do something. All you're being asked to do is prove it. In other words, you're being asked to do precisely what science expects of any claim. Astrologers cannot prove their claim.

"Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. " "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August .. " (The energy collapse on 2003.08.14 - called now a 'desaster' - was biggest ever happend in U.S.A. history).

This is not a validated prediction - it's a post hoc falacy. If you had stated "On 15th August 2003, there will be a major power cut in the USA and Canada, caused by a fire in a power station" this would have been a validated prediction. Instead you used "geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes". The cop-out clauses and nonsense phrases and words are underlined. Furthermore, you originally bought this "prediction" up in regard to earthquake prediction - thus the term earthquake. You were not predicting a power cut on the 15th, you were predicting an earthquake on the 27th!

Volker.Doormann

August 17, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Godot
Are you seriously suggesting that the power outage was caused by the present (relative) proximity of Mars to Earth?:eek:
I'm sure there's a few astrophysicists out there that would be keen to hear about if that were the case. If you read back in this thread about Mars proximity to Earth in this month and crashes, you will find absolute nothing claimed by me on this fact! The distance fact was assumed from Relative Newcomer to play a role here: Relative Newcomer wrote an 2003.08.08:

" It would have been more timely if I'd found this a few days ago... [ qoute ] Mars' extraordinarily close approach to Earth will culminate on 27 August 2003, when the red planet will come within 35 million miles (or 56 million kilometers) of Earth, its nearest approach to us in almost 60,000 years. At that time, Mars should appear to be approximately 85 times brighter in the sky than it does ordinarily. http://www.snopes.com/science/mars.asp [ /quote ].

I never have spoken about this distance relations.
But i have spoken a great number of times in this thread about angular distances,, what are angles in degrees and no distances in meters, for that this angular distances have a meaning in astrology (and earthquake triggering).

I have written this: "�Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes." .. "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date'"

The interpretations, which can be made, are related only to the geometric configuration regarding the so called opposition of several planets, where the opposition of Mars as a measured angle of 180� to the Sun is included. The planets, which are involved additionally in oppositions around days of 2000.08.27 are Mars, Uranus on the one direction and Moon, Sun, Jupiter and Venus on the opposite direction. This amount of oppositions are known by astrologers as a configuration, which is related to that above given interpretation; not the proximity of Mars.
Because of the slow movement of planets, this configuration is also valid since the mid of August and as I have argued on this I have nothing as basis as this astronomical data:

14.8.2003 22:00:00 UT delta t: 65.308608 sec jd (ET) = 2452866.417423
Ecl. obl. 23�26'25.2917 23�26'19.7543 (true, mean)
Nutation -0� 0'12.6085 0� 0' 5.5373 (dpsi, deps)
ecl. long. ecl. lat. Dist (AU)
Sun 21 le 41'49.8873 -0� 0' 0.6674 1.012903271
Moon 24 pi 44'31.5735 -4�21'56.2235 0.002621589
Mercury 19 vi 4'20.0266 -1�51'13.6471 0.900780503
Venus 20 le 38'24.7362 1�14'57.9231 1.730408612
Mars 8 pi 23'52.5419 -6�38'14.7965 0.383563707
Jupiter 27 le 16'46.8525 0�48'47.7757 6.377495518
Saturn 8 cn 55'53.9028 -0�45'13.2054 9.748235468
Uranus 1 pi 12'59.9688 -0�47'28.2382 19.030013581
Neptune 11 aq 30'29.5170 -0� 0' 2.5577 29.081230329
Pluto 17 sa 17'19.5768 9�14'47.9875 30.237137768
sid. time : 14:35:38 armc : 218�54'30"

... where the distances (Dist) in AU have no astrological meaning. But some planetary aspects in this mid of August - drawn from this data - have a meaning (for example Sun/Venus Conjunction, Pluto/Mercury Square). This, and only this angular aspects were the base of that, what I have written: "�Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes." .. "It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date'" .

I have no idea, what in detail will happen next days until the end of the month, but it will be stress and all that crashes as an effect known as related to this planetary configuration .

Volker

Volker.Doormann

August 17, 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
Volker: "Your have not shown, that you are competent to argue scientifically adequate to the science of astrology."

It is not a science. It fails to meet the criteria central to all sciences: ergo, it is not a science.I think, that before you can claim this, you must show any competence to judge on this. Because you not have shown this competence, who cares about.Volker:" You have shown, that you are believing, that astrology is a belief system. But if one do not belief in French, this affects not the function of a language and the knowledge, which can be transmitted with French."

This is a false (and quite frankly, somewhat surreal) analogy. French is a language; one that when learnt to a sufficient degree enables one to converse with other people who understand French. Astrology is not a language - Astrology is a language of symbols; all astrologers in the world can make conversation on exact this symbols. If you do not know about this, who cares about your claims. Volker: ".. skepticism like Randi or Gardener never have given proofs of their claims; it is pure fiction, a sect in science and a pure belief system without any natural base. What is the worth of a belief? 'I am xyz!'. Where is the proof, that this xyz is no belief, but science on a natural base? ".

James Randi is not making a claim. Where is the proof? (!)

Armchair dissident

August 17, 2003, 01:35 PM

I think, that before you can claim this, you must show any competence to judge on this. Because you not have shown this competence, who cares about.

What competence? How have I not demonstrated competance to know what constitutes science? Because I've studied computer science? Because I'm studying philosophy? Because I read a lot on astronomy and physics? This somehow makes me incompetent to state that astrology is not a science?

Okay, let me re-state: astrology does not sit within the boundaries of what I accept as scientific. This I reason thus: astrology makes the claim that events on Earth can be predicted by the motions of the planets in the solar system. Astrology has not been able to demonstrate that this claim is true. The corollary to this claim is that since events on Earth can be predicted by the motions of planets, it follows that there is a causal relationship: that the motions of the planets within the solar system affect events on Earth. Astrology has failed to demonstrate that this claim is true. Further, this claim is confounded by what is currently known and demonstrated to be true about the physical laws found in nature.

Is that clear? Is that sufficiently "competent". :banghead:

Astrology is a language of symbols; all astrologers in the world can make conversation on exact this symbols. If you do not know about this, who cares about your claims.

Let's do this again: I'm not making a claim. I do not doubt that astrology has it's own structure and terms - indeed I stated as much. It is not, however, a language. It uses it's own language to justify it's claims, but it is not a language. You're analogy was absurd. :banghead:

Where is the proof? (!)

Exactly! :rolleyes: You cannot prove your claims! Astrology cannot prove it's claims! You are making a claim that you cannot prove, but expect the rest of the world to say "hey, that's okay". The rest of the world does not need to prove anything. The evidence so far is that astrology is pseudoscientific quakery. I reason this thus: Astrology claims that events on Earth can be predicted by observing the motions of planets. Predictions made by astrologers are consistently incorrect, with a success rate no better than that provided by chance. Furthermore, the claims made by astrology are so devoid of content that those claims that do appear correct appear so only after the fact using post hoc reasoning. :banghead:

Volker.Doormann

August 17, 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
Volker: "Where is the proof? (!)"

Exactly! EOD

Armchair dissident

August 17, 2003, 05:05 PM

Armchair dissident
Exactly! You cannot prove your claims

Volker.Doormannp
EOD

So you agree you cannot prove your claims. Finally!

Volker.Doormann

August 18, 2003, 01:13 AM

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn�t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." - S�ren Kierkegaard (1813-55)

Tourette Syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder characterized by tics -- involuntary, rapid, sudden movements or vocalizations that occur repeatedly in the same way. Diagnostic criteria include:

- Both multiple motor and one or more vocal tics present at some time, although not necessarily simultaneously;
- The occurrence of tics many times a day (usually in bouts) nearly every day or intermittently throughout the span of more than one year;
- Periodic changes in the number, frequency, type and location of the tics, and in the waxing and waning of their severity. Symptoms can sometimes disappear for weeks or months at a time;
- Onset before the age of 18.

members.tripod.com/~tourette13/

A man, born 1962.02.26 in Germany has send an e-mail to me. He is suffering on this Tourette Syndrom. I have never seen him, and I have send him the analysis output of my astrological program, which is to be find on the web:

"Hello Volker! Only today, I have time for to answer your Mail. The main reason: It did me speechless. Ibs. the attached to horoscope applies each sentence to me in practical in completely unbelievable manner - in all of the inconsistency, that are in me and with which I have also a little problem. Now, where this, as I could have written down this ever myself, stands "more clearly" and more correctly black on white, it essentially more simply falls for me, me in my whole inconsistency accepts - and every time, if I read through this Mail, new nuances become clear for me. I believe that I must read the Mail even many times in order to be able to understand me better - then this seems to the point of all. Thank you therefore for what you did for me, - even if not at all words can express the gratitude feeling, that I have at the moment.
Many greetings
X.X.X."

I have a lot of such feedback to show. Skeptics never have shown anything except ignorance to facts and personal arrogance to persons. This skeptics syndrome is obvious, if it is easier to get an atom back from a black hole, as an acknowledge of facts by skeptics. Then it is wise to end a discussion.

"A diamond was laying in the street covered with dirt.
Many fools passed by.
Someone who knew diamonds picked it up."
(Kabir 1398-1518 C.E.)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin, Introduction, The Descent of Man (1871).

Volker

echidna

August 18, 2003, 06:57 PM

Volker, I regret that you are unable or unwilling to answer my earlier questions in this thread :

a) What was the 30 day record for your graph around the Turkey quake ?
b) How did you select those angles for the Turkey quake ?
c) What is the full list of 45 angles for each event you claim ?
d) How can predicting earthquakes be considered statistically significant when there are millions each year ?
e) What magnitude earthquake is considered astrologically significant ?

Apparently I can now add another few to the list. When you first arrived, you claimed astrological links (unexplained, but no matter) to people�s personalities and life events. Later you expanded that to earthquakes.

f) Are you now claiming an astrological link to power blackouts ?
g) On what basis ?
h) If so much energy was diverted astrologically, where did it go ?
i) By this pattern you seem to be following, do you also intend to claim astrological links to all natural disasters, political conflicts, in general all news headline material ?

Volker, the further this goes the more irrational it becomes. The planets could stop in their tracks and reverse direction and there would continue to be natural disasters, human conflict, social turmoil.

j) Your �prediction� for August has expanded to become �unless there are no world events during August, astrology is correct�. Volker, does this strike you as just the slightest bit absurd ?

As for a letter of thanks from a believer in your astrology, I have no doubt that there is a significant placebo effect from believers in any of the thousands of forms of paranormal healing or psychoanalysis. As such it is a valid form of treatment (albeit entirely open to fraud and mis-use) AFAIC, but this doesn�t change the fact that without evidence (such as analysis to the questions above), it remains scientifically false and factually unsubstantiated.

Autonemesis

August 18, 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Astrology is a language of symbols; all astrologers in the world can make conversation on exact this symbols.

So is Tarot. All Tarot readers in the world can make conversation on exactly these symbols. It is no different from astrology, and has the same accuracy rate. The followers of either method of divination have scads of anecdotes about how wonderfully accurate each method is.

I know how to do a Tarot spread and a horoscope, and interpret both. Can you do Tarot? What about tea leaves? I don't know how to do tea leaves, but I bet I can pick it up in a few minutes.

Volker.Doormann

August 19, 2003, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Autonemesis
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
Astrology is a language of symbols; all astrologers in the world can make conversation on exact this symbols.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So is Tarot. I speak on astrology, and that astrologers can make conversation in this languge is
fact. (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3F2C01F4.6090904%40t-online.de&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dvolker%2Bsaturn%2Bvenus%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3F2C01F4.6090904%2540t-online.de%26rnum%3D2). Who cares about them, who are ignorant about this and the word wide agreement. If you teach the world ignorance is more intelligent as cognition, it is your problem What about tea leaves? I don't know how to do tea leaves, but I bet I can pick it up in a few minutes. What about houses (http://doormann.tripod.com/house.htm)? I'm sure you cannot interpret this house. But if, you cannot give a proof, why you can interpret it. Right? Your descreditation of astrology is nothing as hypocrisy; you are not honest in speaking truth about what you are recognizing. You are biased.

Volker.Doormann

August 19, 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by echidna
Volker, I regret that you are unable or unwilling to answer my earlier questions in this thread :

a) What was the 30 day record for your graph around the Turkey quake ?
b) How did you select those angles for the Turkey quake ?
c) What is the full list of 45 angles for each event you claim ?
d) How can predicting earthquakes be considered statistically significant when there are millions each year ?
e) What magnitude earthquake is considered astrologically significant ?
Echidna,
I will not give answers to your questions. Your understanding about significance is different to mine. Your understanding includes all quake events in year, while my understanding is, that it is significant, if a special geometric configuration of the planets that can be expessed in an maximum index value in a time window of 5 minutes coincide with one(two) major earthquake(s). The term major earthquake is well known in the field, but not to you; you include millions of earthqakes per year. I have no intension to clear all that up for you.

You post your belief: I have no doubt that there is a significant placebo effect from believers.. Who cares about your doubt? Who cares about your assertion, that a placebo effect, which should be significant - is ? Funny. A significant placebo effect is known, 'no doubt'. Is ' no doubt' an scientific argument? Have you a scientific knowledge about the effect of a placebo effect? Or is the effect an error in measurement? Who knows? As long as you cannot give a proof, that between the soul of a person and its psyche is no connection, don�t care about people, who are able to perceive that. Maybe you go swimming or something else. The world needs knowledge about relations and the sense of it, but not people, who haven�t knowledge to show this in big. Do you have a character? Or it is a placebo effect? If you have lost all your friends, crying lonesome on your pillow, seems all to be a placebo effect. Searching for the truth, seems all a placebo effect, to be aware about the own self, imperfect, is a placebo as well. Significant this placebo effect.

Truth begins with the consciousness knowing �I am�. If that is not realized, no further knowledge can be made. You cannot give proofs of truth; it is an individual cognition process. Knowledge and cognition is the reference, if that is missed, peoples belief, disbelief or nonbelief has no worth. No one other than the own inner self can recognize truth; there is no web page where truth can be downloaded. You must be able to learn to recognize truth; no one other can do this for you. Then you learn to stand for truth. Maybe first it is a little truth, but a truth, you stand for. This knowledge of a little truth has a worth, a value, which is real. All other brain gymnastic is useles and unreal. Think obout or not.

Volker

Coragyps

August 25, 2003, 04:46 PM

Apologies if this is already linked in this thread:
Another debunking. (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030817-105449-9384r.htm)

Secular Pinoy

August 25, 2003, 08:12 PM

Dang, you beat me to it, Coragyps. If II wasn't hard to access some time back, I would've posted a similar story: Astrologers fail to predict proof they are wrong (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/17/nstars17.xml). I think it's more than conclusive, astrology is bunk, and debunked.

Kat_Somm_Faen

August 25, 2003, 08:17 PM

What the hell! Do Washington Times and The Telegraph freaking cope the articles? They start the freaking same!

Gosh darn it did they just copy and paste?

Mullibok

August 25, 2003, 08:19 PM

Well since the Washington Times credits the London Daily Telegraph at the beginning of their article...you do the rest.

Volker.Doormann

August 26, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Coragyps
Apologies if this is already .... Apology is a philosophical slang used to the phantoms created again and again by Christinanity to try to explain, why a virgin can be a mother, etc. You do write in a scientific forum, and have ignored arguments and facts given in this thread:

Volker.Doormann: "Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. " - "It is true, that the stress starts in [/B]mid of August[/B], but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date"

Lobstrosity: "If that's not what you're doing, please tell us why you haven't given us the exact day and time of this upcoming disaster (if it was possible back in 2001, it's possible now). .. "

Volker.Doormann: "It is useless, because there is no earth location to say (time UTC only), and because an quake event seems not compelling in any case. Forget predictions, and forget this relations, if you do not see any significance. I do claim nothing, but the shown results.

Relax on this month and perceive news then."

2003.08.14
EQ Greece M6.3
Power outage NW USA/Canada "Within three minutes, starting at 4:10 p.m. Thursday, 21 power plants in the United States shut down, according to Genscape, which monitors power transmissions."
2003.08.15
2003.08.16
Oil pipeline sabotaged in northern Iraq insurgents twice bombed the pipeline pumping oil from northern Iraq to Turkey, only two days after it was reopened for the first time since the war.
2003.08.17
Water pipes sabotaged in Baghdad.
2003.08.18
2003.08.19
U.N. headquarters in Baghdad hit by truck bomb bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad
2003.08.20
A suicide bomber has wrecked a bus in Jerusalem, killing up to 20 people and injuring about 80 others.
2003.08.21
EQ Mw7.2 New Zealand 21.8.2003 12:12:00 UT
(biggest in New Zealand history since the 1962)
ecl. long. ecl. lat.
Sun 28 le 2' 7.6474 0� 0' 0.0124
Moon 14 ge 6'51.9681 1�40'25.4451
Mercury 24 vi 9'56.8956 -3� 1' 5.1157
Venus 28 le 47'36.2144 1�20'59.1688
Mars 6 pi 54'46.0540 -6�42'15.0124
Jupiter 28 le 42'58.7141 0�49' 9.9124
Saturn 9 cn 37' 2.2701 -0�45' 0.9686
Uranus 0 pi 57'21.0015 -0�47'30.6635
Neptune 11 aq 20' 6.0327 -0� 0' 7.0561
Pluto 17 sa 15' 2.3490 9�12'16.7249
Venus/Jupiter 28.79333928� le - 28.71730947� le = 0� - 0.077� (!)
2003.08.22
Smoke rose from a crater littered with twisted metal at Brazil's space center the day after a rocket explosion killed 21 people in the country's latest attempt to launch Latin America's first satellite.
2003.08.23
2003.08.24
2003.08.25
[/B]Guatemala EQ 6.0 06:28:31 UT geo. lat. : 14N38'00" geo. long.: 90W31'00" [/B]
ecl. long. ecl. lat.
Sun 1 vi 39'40.1953 0� 0' 0.3312
Moon 0 le 54'26.7110 4�36'14.0319
Mercury 25 vi 49'25.8198 -3�37'17.4074
Venus 3 vi 27' 6.3347 1�23'13.7845
Mars 5 pi 56'49.7943 -6�40'50.8951
Jupiter 29 le 32'13.1042 0�49'23.9002
Saturn 9 cn 59'21.2163 -0�44'54.8050
Uranus 0 pi 48'20.9023 -0�47'31.1839
Neptune 11 aq 14'21.8620 -0� 0' 9.6194
Pluto 17 sa 14'21.1569 9�10'48.7304

At least 46 people have been killed and more than 100 injured in a pair of explosions that shook India's financial capital Mumbai, according to hospital officials.

Eight firefighters die in Oregon van crash, explosion

... to be continued

Some math, that can be done in each past and present, can calculate planetary angular positions as done above from astronomical algorithms. I have done this calcs in the beginning of August and have given hints to the significant aspects of Mars/Uranus in opposition to the conjunctions of Sun/Venus/Jupiter and additional Moon today and tomorrow; on the 25nd of August (EQ) Moon has had some 30� angular distances the conjunctions (0�) of SU/JU/VE and a quincix aspect (150�) to the MA/UR conjunction.

All this is no apologetic, but facts and evidences to that claims I have done about the algorithm and astrological signs of time as experience on the nature of this.

One can ignore this, as skeptics have shown nothing more than this ever, or one can acknowledge that the easy understandable scientific claims are fulfilled by events in time and data. I think this is a good example to prove the scientific impotence of skepticism; there is absolutely no ability, qualification and no perception present to qualify such plot in a scientific adequate manner. Science is to understand nature in hole, not to reject nature because of a comfortable seat in knowing the relations in QM and GR.

Volker