The clockwork of Astrology

david starling

Well-known member
The planets visible to the naked eye at night, when not clouded over or too close to a full moon, are invisible during the day. The planets outside the range of naked eye vision are visible with a telescope. They can even be photographed!
 

david starling

Well-known member
Astrology tunes one into a magnetic field frequency which affects one's own personal magnetic field. That effect can be described by the astrological chart configuration. Tropical and sidereal operate on different frequencies. Both are effective at all times, but they must be accessed one at a time.
I'm going with Magnetic Field Resonance for the causation.
The MFR theory of why astrology works.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Astrology tunes one into a magnetic field frequency which affects one's own personal magnetic field. That effect can be described by the astrological chart configuration. Tropical and sidereal operate on different frequencies. Both are effective at all times, but they must be accessed one at a time.
I'm going with Magnetic Field Resonance for the causation.
The MFR theory of why astrology works.

The MFR affects the time of birth or conception?
 

petosiris

Banned
I could base the description on tea leaves. No dependence on visible planets at all.

Three questions:
1. Are you more often correct than by simple chance?
2. If so, does some higher force assist you in your endeavour?
3. If not, do you tell people you are just making stuff up or cold reading, or are you fooling them?
 

Flapjacks

Well-known member
visible celestial objects are required in order to cast a horoscope :smile:


absence of visible celestial bodies = absence of anything to time :smile:

to exist, signs require visibility of celestial bodies
likewise
aspects require the existence of visible celestial bodies
i.e.
abscence of visible celestial bodies = no signs, no aspects and such


visible celesial objects are described by this horoscope


"our only input Time and Place aka Spacetime"
is dependent on existence of visible celestial bodies :smile:

To inform Ms Jane Jones that the "description of a moment in spacetime"
IS INDEPENDENT of visible celestial objects
is inaccurate


on the contrary
here we see that the "description of a moment in spacetime"
IS DEPENDENT ON existence of visible celestial bodies

Visible celestial bodies describe a moment in spacetime. Space-time interacts with celestial bodies, but they do not create it!
 

petosiris

Banned
Visible celestial bodies describe a moment in spacetime. Space-time interacts with celestial bodies, but they do not create it!

I think that JA might have been confused with how the planets gave rise to our definition of the year (one revolution of Sun), month (one revolution of the Moon), week (the seven planets) and day (one revolution of the caelum). The circadian rhythm, for example, is approximately aligned with the day.
 

Flapjacks

Well-known member
The circadian rhythm, for example, is approximately aligned with the day.

Your question about whether the planets can influence the time of birth or conception... to add to that...

Much of early development of an organism is due to environmental conditions that interact with various growth factors rather than hard-coded genetic determinants. Growth factors often follow a 'clock' similar to a circadian rhythm and are sensitive to subtle environmental changes. It is why CC the cloned cat does not look exactly like his 'parent'.

It would not surprise me if there is some sensitivity in biological development to forces that also govern the movement of planets.
 

petosiris

Banned
Your question about whether the planets can influence the time of birth or conception... to add to that...

Much of early development of an organism is due to environmental conditions that interact with various growth factors rather than hard-coded genetic determinants. Growth factors often follow a 'clock' similar to a circadian rhythm and are sensitive to subtle environmental changes. It is why CC the cloned cat does not look exactly like his 'parent'.

It would not surprise me if there is some sensitivity in biological development to forces that also govern the movement of planets.

A great area of astrology would remain unexplained with biological determinism due to the interaction of heredity with environment as you say, but I think it is a much more sympathetic view for astrologers than tabula rasa, which seems to me incompatible. Astrology is inherently deterministic to some degree.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
I've actually tried this, ha! With natural conception you could be off by days on the correct moment, and without the Moon it's very frustrating. Not every decisive event would be accessible by the available analytic tools, even if the theory is correct.

Yes, I agree.

There is an opinion held by the Ancient Astrologers that the degree of the Moon at the moment of birth is the degree rising at the conception, and that the degree of the Ascendant at the moment of the birth is the degree of the Moon at the moment of conception. This method is often used for rectification, here is a method that I put some time ago:

And if one is not present at the nativity, but determines the rising image and the placement of the stars by appearance, he should immediately inquire the degree of the Hour-Marker. Investigate the conception. Let the degree of the Moon at the nativity be the Hour-Marker at the conception, and let the Hour-Marker at the nativity be the degree of the Moon at the conception.

When the Moon is rising at the Hour-Marker, the birth is intermediate of 273 days and 8 hours. If the Moon is above the horizon, the time will be less. If the Moon is below the horizon, the time will be more. Give one day for every 13.17 degrees of distance. When the Moon is unfavorably placed at the nativity, it will be necessary to subtract 27 days and 8 hours, or more proportionate to the bad influence. Thus make a scientific beginning, and fashion a forecast of the end.

I've, however, seen a report of the moment of IVF and birth not showing this relation. I no longer use it, not only because of this, but due to other theoretical reasons as well.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Did you mention cesarean section?

No, but are you doubting that process of birth is also controlled by the planets? :unsure:

Btw, it's interesting thing to note that according to Gauquelin, that is the case. I've always wondered if he wasn't basing it on the relationship between the two. I would respectfully disagree though for a few reasons.
 
Top