How about this for a test?.......

I apperciate Mark for offering his help, it sounds like dr. farr is interested anyone else who wants to get involved I would apperciate it.

I've had the opportunity to connect with an astrological twin, and our lives were completely different, but deep down, we struggled with similar issues. I find astrological twins fascinating, so I'm very interested in conducting this type of research.

If you guys need help creating a survey, just pm the format, and I'll set it up. I think we should try to find some time twins (real or time twins) on the forum (at least 10 sets of twins) and conduct the survey.

Please keep me updated,
/FD

juicey J. said:

Also, statistically test if there is any commonality between people with the same aspects (sun square jupiter for example) or aspect patterns (t-square for example). Of course dozens upon dozens will have to be tested and the birth dates would have to be checked (using 2 or more sources). Maybe such tests could be refined with certain factors being isolated to check for statistical commonality.

Click to expand...

But it isn't going to work. There's a huge difference between a received square - in this case Aries to Cancer, and an irreceptive square - Libra to Capricorn.

Is it a day chart or a night chart?

Is either the Sun or Jupiter besieged? Which houses are they in, and which do they rule?

Are they in aspect to other planets?

And any number of other variables.

You could concentrate on something like determining temperament (Lilly or Bonatti style, perhaps?), as neuroscientists are now calling it 'seasonal biology but definitely not astrology' - only astrologers used some of the same formulas (the season you were born in counts heavily towards temperament and has done for many, many centuries - we're going back to Aristotelean philosophy here). But astrology does have the jump on neuroscience in that regard, as we also use moon phase, planets in or aspecting the ascendant, the chart almuten, etc., to describe temperament, which is both physiological, and for want of a better term - psychological.

You can look up the studies on neuroscience and temperament by birth season, so you can see where they've got with it.

That might prove fruitful. It's a reasonably standard measuring technique within astrology, and whilst it cuts fine enough to give definite results, it doesn't cut so fine as trying to sort out what an aspect in isolation means. And you've got the advantages that it's standardised, and something that science is looking into now.

The societal and especially corporate misuses possible - pretty much inevitable - if it's proved true are terrifying, but if you want to do this, that's probably as good a starting point as any.

All of those variables mentioned can be handled by collecting the specific date, time, and place of birth for every individual, so that nothing is studied in isolation. As long as we have the ability to see the whole chart of every person involved, we have the ability to draw astrological distinctions. It is definitely a good thing to consider, but it doesn't need to interfere with the collection of data. Also, I think those in power who would misuse astrology are already doing so. It is thus to their advantage that no one else gets to use it as well as they do. They don't have to make it illegal. They only have to make it a joke. That's why Rush Limbaugh has a job. Make something into a joke and people stop taking it seriously, even if it is crucially important!

If anyone thinks what Mark is speaking of is pure conspiracy theory with no facts or examples to back it up, YOU DON'T KNOW YOUR HISTORY!!!!!!!

Olivia said:

But it isn't going to work. There's a huge difference between a received square - in this case Aries to Cancer, and an irreceptive square - Libra to Capricorn.

Is it a day chart or a night chart?

Is either the Sun or Jupiter besieged? Which houses are they in, and which do they rule?

Are they in aspect to other planets?

And any number of other variables.

You could concentrate on something like determining temperament (Lilly or Bonatti style, perhaps?), as neuroscientists are now calling it 'seasonal biology but definitely not astrology' - only astrologers used some of the same formulas (the season you were born in counts heavily towards temperament and has done for many, many centuries - we're going back to Aristotelean philosophy here). But astrology does have the jump on neuroscience in that regard, as we also use moon phase, planets in or aspecting the ascendant, the chart almuten, etc., to describe temperament, which is both physiological, and for want of a better term - psychological.

You can look up the studies on neuroscience and temperament by birth season, so you can see where they've got with it.

That might prove fruitful. It's a reasonably standard measuring technique within astrology, and whilst it cuts fine enough to give definite results, it doesn't cut so fine as trying to sort out what an aspect in isolation means. And you've got the advantages that it's standardised, and something that science is looking into now.

The societal and especially corporate misuses possible - pretty much inevitable - if it's proved true are terrifying, but if you want to do this, that's probably as good a starting point as any.

Click to expand...

That whole bit tells me you don't know what isolating factors even is. I'm not saying said things don't have value but it also seems like your trying to force old astrology on reality instead of letting reality teach you the astrology. If a good number, say thousands of people with say a venus mars square over varies suveys have a particular career or even the same favorite food then we can assume said aspect has a statistical correlation with such. Were talking about statisical research here not old astrology or natal chart reading, yes I did meantion natal chart reading but such was a seperate part of this all.

Are you versed in the actual scientific objections to astrology? This is part of a doctoral thesis that briefly outlines them. If you're going to play in that world you'll need a lot more background, but it's a good starting point:

http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/brock.htm

When you get there, download the PDF article.

Olivia said:

Are you versed in the actual scientific objections to astrology? This is part of a doctoral thesis that briefly outlines them. If you're going to play in that world you'll need a lot more background, but it's a good starting point:

http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/brock.htm

When you get there, download the PDF article.

Click to expand...

First off I disagree with a good number of their arguments. You can't test electional astrology? If people start a business during a time when the chart of such says its going to fail and it does and people start a business when the chart says its going to succeed or at least not fall flat on its nose and it does succeed and such happens over hundreds if not thousands of examples one can conclude electional astrology works. Also, lets get something straight here astrology isn't as above so below, astrology is as above so below, as below so above. This is a very important distinction to make. SaY for example one buys a car during the time the moon's last aspect is going to be a conjunction, oppostion, or square to saturn or the mc/ic is going to be afflicted by saturn with no applying aspect to a benefic and the moon's last applying aspect isn't one to a benefic, one can conclude said car will be more trouble then its worth and said person will have to get rid of it. Now, if said person bought the car at a different date and time does it magically transform the car into a perfectly okay car? OH COURSE NOT!!!!!!!!!! Its not a coincidence they bought a piece of junk car when the moon, planets, and angles suggested as much. Now, an interesting way to test this is take say 5 or more cars one knows before hand are in such bad shape they are going to break down and the costs are going to be so much the people who bought them are going to have to cut their loses, and see if its possible for them to buy said vechile at a time when the moon, planets, and angles don't suggest as much according to the basic rules of electional astrology.
Yes a person can mistake a chart which isn't there's as being there own, but this is due to a few factors 1. the chart has the planets and in most cases the right moon so half or over half of it will be accurate. 2. The person picks the control chart because it has things they would like to believe about themselves instead of the truth. Belive me if someone gave me a chart of someone born a totally different year and time of the year as me I would know immeditely none or most of it doesn't fit me, BECAUSE I'M OBJECTIVE. The problem then isn't astrology so much as its people being j@ck@SSES!!!!!! 3.The other problem is are they actually looking a specific chart desriptions which, taken into account the house postion of planets and the postion of chart rulers, planetary aspects, because yes overally general and vague descriptions are useless, these descriptions are useless not actual astrology.
Also, I have seen some of these so called tests which, disprove astrology, things like the majority of people in the military don't have fire sun or a majority of fire in their chart, therefore astrology as a whole can't be true. Also, it often doesn't matter if you find statistical correlations with astrology such as with the "mars affect" studies because they will simply use the "correlation doesn' mean causation" argument. Most skeptics with the exception of Dean and Smit don't know how astrology works or what it claims to do, so how they can test such IS WAY BEYOND ME. I love how they make perfectly objective and intelligent people who believe in astrology after getting a specific and accurate reading from an astrologer, question their own intelligence. No, astrology doesn't work at all your just gullible and stupid, that's all.

Yelling at me isn't going to help. I'm an astrologer, remember?

But you seem to want to convince the scientific community of astrology's validity. And they hold very different standards to ours.

That's all.

I will say this, for all those out there who agree with me and those who are my detractors I welcome your comments as I created this thread because I think starting a dialogue about such things is important.

Olivia said:

Yelling at me isn't going to help. I'm an astrologer, remember?

But you seem to want to convince the scientific community of astrology's validity. And they hold very different standards to ours.

That's all.

Click to expand...

I wasn't yelling at you, I was voicing my thoughts and where and why I disagreed with the skeptics in passionate way. Said post was for everyone here and for whom ever it may concern not just you. Did I specificly state you personally anywhere in said post, your jumping to conclusions. Many so called skeptics so called standards are raise the bar arguments and straw man arguments. They can take their standards and shove them. I have also in the past seen a few of their so called test which, "de bunked" astrology and reasons as to why they thought it debunked astrology, and things I have flushed down the toilet had more value as they were based on straw man arguments and preconvied notions about astrology. Notice I said so-called skeptic as a good number of them seem to have their mind stubbornly made up about astrology, which, isn't actual skeptism. I firmly believe a person who doesn't have at least a bit of skeptism about astrology has not business practicing it. I want to show astrology is valid to the general population and to whoever in the scientific community isn't blinded by their predjuidce towards the subject. Scientists fear astrology because it goes against what they think is scientificly valid but is it sciences job to protect old notions about what is and isn't scientific or is it to make discoveries which, challenge and expand knowledge? Reading comments on skeptic sites such as Randi's, they think were a bunch of superstitious baffons incapable of critical thinking. ITS VERY DIFFICIULT TO REASON WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS THE MINDSET YOUR TOTALLY WRONG AND THEY ARE TOTALLY RIGHT.

I do agree with Dean when he talks about there is no way no knowing for absolute certain if said person started their business at a different date or time if it would have been any less or more successful. However, this is something about electional astrology which, can't be tested and it doesn't mean electional astology can't be statistically tested. Also, we must look at the natal charts of the people because if the mc or 2nd house or their rulers are afflicted it means they won't be too successful in starting and/or maintaing a successful a business no matter how good the electional astrology is. Also, make sure the transits and progression to said chart at the time don't give strong testimony against starting a business at said time. The problem is one is going to run into so many cases of mixed testimony its going to be a headache testing such.

Oh and their whole thing about not being able to explain how astrology works being a valid argument against it is totally bogus, because if something works it matters not if you can't explain it. Besides they don't know how or why gravity works the way it does but it still d@mn well works. Also, until recent histrory we had no clue about the genome or how heredity actually worked but it still worked long before we could explain how. This is the materialistic/anti-intellectual thinking carl payne tobey rightly denounced in his astrological course. Many of their reasoning isn't scientific but based on double standards and straw man arguments because they are often driven by anti-astrological/anti-superstitious post-enlightment dogma. In other words to a good number of them (not all mind you) astrology is superstitious garbage which, must be disposed of without question.
Also, I agree different houses systems and zodiac systems do confuse things but so far as far as I can tell each one works (at least more or less on average) in their own right often either revealing things the others don't or saying more or less the same things but in a different way.

One way to test to see which, houses system works or if more then one works is to have people give the location, date and time of a purchase (must be something of consequence like a car, boat, house) and see if the chart ruler or the moon is making an aspect to whatever the ruler of the second house in each house system happens to be. We will need hundreds to apply for this to get any statistically noticable results. Although I would like to get the twin and astro twin studies/data base going first.

I'm not sure that's a viable method of testing house systems. The big trouble is that the 6 or 7 most common house systems are very close to Placidus (barring the whole sign and equal house methods). Some vary by several degrees. Others vary by less than a degree in many circumstances. Some are even based on Placidus with only minor tweaks. It would take many, MANY charts to see even the smallest statistically useful trends. We could test Placidus against the whole sign and equal house methods, though. We could test that in the same manner as everything else, once the database has been compiled. The questionnaire is the step to work on first.

Well mark I have been juggling some ideas around for the questionaire. Maybe we can present short lists and determine which, formate from such will work best. Well the people I tried to contact didn't respond yet. I'm hoping to contact one more person. I don't feel comfortable meantioning who these people are but they are major players in this game. They might be embrassed slightly to hear anyone say this but its the total truth.

I should clairfy the large reason for this thread and wanting to do meantioned tests is to promote and prove a theory I have which, is there may be many twins and a few time twins but there are even fewer astro twins. In order to be an astro twin in my little theory all the planets and angles have to be in the same sign (if not the same decate, term or face) and the majority of aspects have to be smoother (conjunction, trine, sextile) aspects as opposed to stress or differniating aspects (such as inconjunts, squares, oppostions). Plus I want astrology to have a bigger statistical data base to go by. Granted twins and time twins won't be the only ones' I want in data base but they are an essential part of such.

You would need to do some serious database work, then. You know, there are a number of groups that have already accumulated rather large databases of their own, although they don't usually cooperate with each other as far as I know. Perhaps looking into the work already done by those groups would be a start? At least you would know what has already been done and what hasn't.

You see mark the reason for this thread and these tests/data base ideas is due to a thread on another site which, infuriated me intitled "Twin evidence shows astrology is bunk" I want to a counter data base and tests to be down which, will hopefully support my theory of "There are very few actual astro twins and the criteria is quite a bit higher to be one then simply being born the same day and time.

I strongly believe even if two people have all the same planets and angles (even in the same decate) but have almost as much if not more stress aspects then smooth aspects, there will be at least a handful if not more differences between them and I stronlgy believe this will be true even more so if there are a bunch of stress aspects with little to no smooth aspects. In fact this I think helps to explain why half the cases of twins and time twins being noticably different in life choices and life experiences (transits and progressions have 4-5 main possiblities and how they affect someone somewhat depends on their choices) and the other half might be explained by the one or more of the angles being in a different sign or a at least a different decate or term. Although if astrofaces is any indication they will probly still look similar at least if they are the same sex. Actuall astro twins (who i theorize fit my strict criteria) have many similarites in life choices and life experiences and there are documented cases of such (althought they are all togather few but I think my theory explains in large part why).