The clockwork of Astrology

[david starling]

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]

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.

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

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?

[greybeard]

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

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by greybeard

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]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

visible celestial objects are required in order to cast a horoscope


absence of visible celestial bodies = absence of anything to time

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

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]

Originally Posted by Flapjacks

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]

Originally Posted by petosiris

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]

Originally Posted by Flapjacks

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.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

The MFR affects the time of birth or conception?

Biomagnetism is very likely involved in procreation.

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

Biomagnetism is very likely involved in procreation.

Do you look at conception charts instead of nativities?

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

Do you look at conception charts instead of nativities?

The MFR of the Solar system at the time of leaving the womb is imprinted, and becomes the benchmark for all future interactions with the ever-changing MFR.

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

The MFR of the Solar system at the time of leaving the womb is imprinted, and becomes the benchmark for all future interactions with the ever-changing MFR.

You lost me right there by denying the importance of the conception.

[passiflora]

Originally Posted by petosiris

Do you look at conception charts instead of nativities?

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.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

You lost me right there by denying the importance of the conception.

Are you using conception charts?

[david starling]

There would have to be magnetic attraction between the ovum and one sperm cell in particular.

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by passiflora

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.

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

Are you using conception charts?

Read my post please.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

Read my post please.

Did you mention cesarean section? Might that not alter the equation?

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

Did you mention cesarean section?

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

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.

[david starling]

May the MFR be with you!

[petosiris]

Originally Posted by david starling

May the MFR be with you!

Jesus, we had a serious discussion so far before it degenerated.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by petosiris

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

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.

The MFR configuration we delineate for a moment in time isn't controlled by the planets themselves.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by Flapjacks

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

clearly a misunderstanding of my comment


i.e.
without visible celestial bodies
nothing to see

Originally Posted by petosiris

I think that JA might have been confused

probably

Originally Posted by petosiris

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.

[david starling]

The Earth's magnetic field is included in the totality of the Magnetic Field Resonance. That's why the Earth's astrological Ages have to be factored in.