Discussion:
Astrology research project
(too old to reply)
tb
2004-01-27 18:26:59 UTC
Permalink
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation requirement at
Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another 125 volunteers
for the study.

The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a meaningful and
statistically significant relationship can be found between
tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun sign as historical
astrological theory suggests. As an initial pilot study, a narrow scope
will be used. The research question will attempt to answer whether an
[undisclosed] Sun sign has a greater response to its associated cell salt
than other Sun signs.

As I mentioned above, I need another 125 participants for the pilot study by
February 15th, 2004. Volunteers need to be: (1) between 18 - 74 years old,
(2) willing to answer 48 questions about the state of their health pre- and
post-treatment, and (3) willing to take cell salt tablets twice a day for
one month beginning March 1, 2004, (4) not currently taking cell salts, (5)
reside in North America, and (6) need to know their day, year, time, and
place of birth.

All volunteer information will be under the strictest confidentiality. All
participants will receive a copy of the study conclusions. The study is
self-funded.

If you would be interested or would like more information, please contact me
directly at ***@ascendinglight.com. Please type "tissue salt study" in
the subject line so that I know your interest and can respond immediately.

Thanks!
Dr. Flonkenstein
2004-01-28 12:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by tb
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation requirement
at Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another 125
volunteers for the study.
The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a meaningful and
statistically significant relationship can be found between
tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun sign as historical
astrological theory suggests.
There is no relationship, that's as simple as that. Just study some
astronomy and learn about gravitational forces so you can forget about
this astrology bullshit.
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
O'Ryan Wells
2004-01-28 18:31:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation requirement
at Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another 125
volunteers for the study.
The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a meaningful and
statistically significant relationship can be found between
tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun sign as historical
astrological theory suggests.
There is no relationship, that's as simple as that. Just study some
astronomy and learn about gravitational forces so you can forget about
this astrology bullshit.
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
You seem as irrationally wedded to your belief structure (Astronomy) without
doing any actual research on the subject you are attempting to rubbish. It
is well known that statistician Michele Gaugelan (Pron: Go-gel-an; I may
have misspelled his name, apologies) attempted to disprove astrology by
testing a large number of successful athletes only to validate the fact that
they all had Mars in a particularly prominent place in their natal charts.
As this is one of the tenets of astrology the result of this scientific
study should be at least considered a confirmation of the hypothesis, in
strict scientific terms and further research done.
The attitude of astronomers is generally, to do no research into what
serious astrologers claim, (no one claims sun-sign-only astrology is in any
way accurate) and ignore evidence, but wave their 'gravitational forces'
magic formula around as if that explains everything.
It explains nothing. The fact that every planet in the solar system IS
influenced by every other planet is obviously true. The degree to which that
affects life is still debatable since we know very little about the
micro-effects of Gravity.
The division of the Zodiac is an arbitrary one. 0 Degrees of Aries is
DEFINED as such. It has NOTHING to do with the actual constellations off the
same name. If you knew anything about the theory of divination in general
you would not have made this common error.
Astrologers do not help this situation my baiting the astronomers and
falling back into a mutual slagging match. A clear rebuttal of the Sun-Sign
astrology which appears in newspapers would not do the astrological
community any harm either. Since every serious astrologer knows that the
more detail in a chart the more accurate it gets.
There is a misconception of astrology by the astronomers due to an
incomplete understanding of the system (usually, total ignorance) and a
historical reluctance of the scientific community in general to take many
areas of legitimate research seriously.

I predict that you will stay irrationally embedded in your belief in the
'truth' of the Scientific Church and will only rant yet more incoherently at
my remarks. Will this hypothesis be verified by experiment? Or will you be a
True Scientist, agree with me that you are in error and keep an open mind to
evidence? We shall see.

An old Chemistry lecturer once told his class: "Don't hide ignorance, just
cure it."
Wise words.

I do not know who posted the original article which generated this response,
I am concerned with the response only.

O'Ryan Wells.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04
e***@no.spam
2004-01-28 19:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by O'Ryan Wells
You seem as irrationally wedded to your belief structure
(Astronomy) without doing any actual research on the subject you
are attempting to rubbish.
You seem stupid and wedded to your belief that astronomy hasn't
been researched. Such a belief is just plain moronic.
Dr. Flonkenstein
2004-01-28 19:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Being tired of lurking, on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:31:26 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by tb
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation
requirement
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
at Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another 125
volunteers for the study.
The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a meaningful and
statistically significant relationship can be found between
tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun sign as historical
astrological theory suggests.
There is no relationship, that's as simple as that. Just study some
astronomy and learn about gravitational forces so you can forget about
this astrology bullshit.
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
You seem as irrationally wedded to your belief structure (Astronomy)
without doing any actual research on the subject you are attempting to
rubbish.
Science is not a belief stucture, because people who have to believe just
prove that they are uncertain about their assertion. Like in the
proposition "I think it is going to rain tomorrow". This in contrast to a
proposition of the kind "Ice melts above 0° Celcius".
Post by tb
Go-gel-an; I may have misspelled his name, apologies) attempted to
disprove astrology by testing a large number of successful athletes only
to validate the fact that they all had Mars in a particularly prominent
place in their natal charts. As this is one of the tenets of astrology the
result of this scientific study should be at least considered a
confirmation of the hypothesis, in strict scientific terms and further
research done. The attitude of astronomers is generally, to do no research
into what serious astrologers claim, (no one claims sun-sign-only
astrology is in any way accurate) and ignore evidence, but wave their
'gravitational forces' magic formula around as if that explains
everything. It explains nothing. The fact that every planet in the solar
system IS influenced by every other planet is obviously true.
Yes, it influences that some years are a few secondes longer or shorter
than others, big deal!
Post by tb
The degree
to which that affects life is still debatable since we know very little
about the micro-effects of Gravity.
It would only point out that a passing truck has more micro-gravitational
effect than any
Post by tb
The division of the Zodiac is an arbitrary one. 0 Degrees of Aries is
DEFINED as such. It has NOTHING to do with the actual constellations off
the same name. If you knew anything about the theory of divination in
general you would not have made this common error.
What common error, be specific!
Post by tb
Astrologers do not help
this situation my baiting the astronomers and falling back into a mutual
slagging match.
Typical for fraudsters.
Post by tb
A clear rebuttal of the Sun-Sign astrology which appears
in newspapers would not do the astrological community any harm either.
I don't see how astrological wishful thinking ever can come over the level
of party conversations like "Hi, I saggitarius, and you...". They only
situation when some "astrological knowledge" comes in handy!
Post by tb
Since every serious astrologer knows that the more detail in a chart the
more accurate it gets.
You don't believe that yourself, don't you?
Post by tb
There is a misconception of astrology by the
astronomers due to an incomplete understanding of the system (usually,
total ignorance) and a historical reluctance of the scientific community
in general to take many areas of legitimate research seriously.
How can do a research on a theory that has no foundations and no
experimental back-up?
Post by tb
An old Chemistry lecturer once told his class: "Don't hide ignorance, just
cure it."
Wise words.
Oh! exposing a theory based on wishful thinking and misleading the
gullible is now called "ignorance".
Post by tb
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release
Date: 27/01/04
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
O'Ryan Wells
2004-01-29 14:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Being tired of lurking, on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:31:26 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by tb
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation
requirement
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
at Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another 125
volunteers for the study.
The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a meaningful and
statistically significant relationship can be found between
tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun sign as historical
astrological theory suggests.
There is no relationship, that's as simple as that. Just study some
astronomy and learn about gravitational forces so you can forget about
this astrology bullshit.
This is the common error which I refer to, see also later, and again later
still.

Here we go.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
You seem as irrationally wedded to your belief structure (Astronomy)
without doing any actual research on the subject you are attempting to
rubbish.
Science is not a belief stucture, because people who have to believe just
prove that they are uncertain about their assertion. Like in the
proposition "I think it is going to rain tomorrow". This in contrast to a
proposition of the kind "Ice melts above 0° Celcius".
It is a belief in the sense that Mathematics is believed to be able to
encompass reality. It can be demonstrated that it does not. What is the
equation for an emotion or spiritual insight? Mathematicians even admit that
there are areas of mathematics which does not correspond in any way to the
'real' world. It corresponds only to an 'ideal' world. This ideal world
filled with ideal Gases, liduids, solids, and only Hydrogen atoms, is a
fantasy world, there is always a difference in every measurment science
makes when compared to reality. It even admits its own Uncertainty, in
quantum theory. The laws of science are the laws of the human mind, they are
our creation, and we are in the process of finding out how close they are to
reality, if we ever get to examine reality. We are merely looking in a
mirror at ourselves looking in the mirror.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
Go-gel-an; I may have misspelled his name, apologies) attempted to
disprove astrology by testing a large number of successful athletes only
to validate the fact that they all had Mars in a particularly prominent
place in their natal charts.
This is the experimental data which you request later, obviously you did not
bother to read my post being so confident of your superior position. This
elucidates my point about the 'common error' which I also clearly indicate
in the post. Astronomers confuse the Sign and the Constellation, in view of
this the whole argument of precession is irrelevant, when astrologers say
this the astronomers become even more enraged and entranched in their belief
that it is all nonesense. Which you also ignore.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
As this is one of the tenets of astrology the
result of this scientific study should be at least considered a
confirmation of the hypothesis, in strict scientific terms and further
research done. The attitude of astronomers is generally, to do no research
into what serious astrologers claim, (no one claims sun-sign-only
astrology is in any way accurate) and ignore evidence, but wave their
'gravitational forces' magic formula around as if that explains
everything. It explains nothing. The fact that every planet in the solar
system IS influenced by every other planet is obviously true.
Yes, it influences that some years are a few secondes longer or shorter
than others, big deal!
Again you ignore the substantial part of my post as well as mis-spelling
seconds. But I'm sure that was only a typing error. You should learn the
lesson of Kepler. Your cherished theory of everything may be wrong, and in
fact, in time it certainly will be. That is science not simply newtonian
classical mechanics and to hell with everything else I don't like.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The degree
to which that affects life is still debatable since we know very little
about the micro-effects of Gravity.
It would only point out that a passing truck has more micro-gravitational
effect than any
Are you so incoherent that you do not even finish sentences? Anyway, gravity
was only an example of an area of which we know little. The planets are also
connected through our awareness and it is this awareness which is the
primary study of astrology and other similar subjects, the means of study,
astrology, is what we are discussing here.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The division of the Zodiac is an arbitrary one. 0 Degrees of Aries is
DEFINED as such. It has NOTHING to do with the actual constellations off
the same name. If you knew anything about the theory of divination in
general you would not have made this common error.
What common error, be specific!
I specifically said the error is specifically that the specific Zodiacal
sign of Aries (Astrological) has nothing to do with the specific
constellation of the same specific name.
How much clearer do you want it? Divination sets up an arbitary framework
within which various aspects of the self, the world etc are analysed. In
other systems, (eg I Ching and Tarot) sometimes an element of randomness
helps to connect the process to the present moment. A 'quantum snapshot' of
the world as it were, that this analysis involves an 'art' does not mean it
is of no value. This is an old scientific prejudice.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
Astrologers do not help
this situation my baiting the astronomers and falling back into a mutual
slagging match.
Typical for fraudsters.
Another error you suffer from is that you assume that everyone who does not
share your belief structure is a fraud. That science is your belief
structure is clear since you seem to be able only to quote non-relevant
examples rather than applying the 'Method'. I have already said that:

Hypothesis: Astrology is a valid subject to study.
Empirical personal data tends to confirm this. (Not conclusive)
Independant Scientific Study seems also to confirm it. (More conclusive than
empirical data alone)
Ergo the hypothesis is corfirmed.
At this stage serious research should expand and the subject be developed.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
A clear rebuttal of the Sun-Sign astrology which appears
in newspapers would not do the astrological community any harm either.
I don't see how astrological wishful thinking ever can come over the level
of party conversations like "Hi, I saggitarius, and you...". They only
situation when some "astrological knowledge" comes in handy!
This statement only betrays your own ignorance of the methods and actual
uses of astrology. Personal growth and development of one's natural
abilities, which can be brought into sharp focus using astrological methods.
I have nothing to say in favour of 'popular' astrology.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
Since every serious astrologer knows that the more detail in a chart the
more accurate it gets.
You don't believe that yourself, don't you?
I neither believe nor disbeleive 'in' astrology. (see end para.) I have
seen and commented on one scientific study which produced interesting
results, there are doubtless others but I have not read them. This is
evidence which you refused to read let alone acknowledge. If you were a True
Scientist you would look at that data with an open mind, but I fear my
prediction is mostly true.
I admit that you haven't degenerated into insult, I congratulate you for
that.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
There is a misconception of astrology by the
astronomers due to an incomplete understanding of the system (usually,
total ignorance) and a historical reluctance of the scientific community
in general to take many areas of legitimate research seriously.
How can do a research on a theory that has no foundations and no
experimental back-up?
Appart from the scientific study I mentioned previously, the 'back-up' comes
from analysing natal charts and noting the effects as they correspond to the
native. Astrology is an Art which uses a geometrical system of analysis, the
user must develop as his/her understanding of the procedure evolves.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
An old Chemistry lecturer once told his class: "Don't hide ignorance, just
cure it."
Wise words.
Oh! exposing a theory based on wishful thinking and misleading the
gullible is now called "ignorance".
No. Your premise is wrong, hence you arrive at an erroneous conclusion. I do
not deny that many unscrupulous people try to decieve and mislead the
ignorant, that is merely a case for education. However to 'trash' a subject
which you know nothing about is not scientific behaviour. Having personal
experience of an uncommon 'major event' in my life clearly indicated by
Astrological analysis and for it to occurr, is 'personal experimental
back-up'. It is empirical evidence. Belief in Astrology or other systems
comes from an accumulation of such personal evidence. It is quite impossible
to convince anyone of their validity if they do not want to be convinced and
have not had the experiences which confirm it. And you won't get these from
trashy tabloid star signs.

You will not be convinced of the facts about astrology because your
perception is too polluted by the tosh that is generally spoken about it in
the public media. No evidence will convince you, just in the same way that
no scientific evidence will convince creationists that the world is more
than 6,000 odd years old. These are entrenched beliefs. Today's belief is in
science, but the meaning of that word is so miss-understood, even by some
scientists. The scientific establishment is conservative, radicals upset the
apple cart every now and again, until they become the establishment. Things
change. Newton's clockwork universe is dust in the wake of Einstein and
Quantum theory but there are still die hards who cling to the dream of a
nice safe, predictable, classical universe. Wake up, it's over.

My position is that I believe there is something interesting in Astrology
and other subjects currently 'forbidden-to-speak-of' that deserves more
scientific study by open minds.

O'Ryan Wells.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04
Dr. Flonkenstein
2004-01-30 02:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Being tired of lurking, on Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:36:18 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Being tired of lurking, on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:31:26 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by tb
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation
requirement
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
at Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another 125
volunteers for the study.
The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a meaningful
and statistically significant relationship can be found between
tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun sign as historical
astrological theory suggests.
There is no relationship, that's as simple as that. Just study some
astronomy and learn about gravitational forces so you can forget
about this astrology bullshit.
This is the common error which I refer to, see also later, and again later
still.
Here we go.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
You seem as irrationally wedded to your belief structure (Astronomy)
without doing any actual research on the subject you are attempting to
rubbish.
Science is not a belief stucture, because people who have to believe
just prove that they are uncertain about their assertion. Like in the
proposition "I think it is going to rain tomorrow". This in contrast to
a proposition of the kind "Ice melts above 0° Celcius".
It is a belief in the sense that Mathematics is believed to be able to
encompass reality.
Bzzz, wrong.

Mathematics is only concerned to be consistent with itself.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
This is the experimental data which you request later, obviously you did
not bother to read my post being so confident of your superior position.
I was only trying to be helpful, sorry.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
This elucidates my point about the 'common error' which I also clearly
indicate in the post. Astronomers confuse the Sign and the Constellation,
in view of this the whole argument of precession is irrelevant,
If one uses words like "precession" one should or either be aware of its
real meaning or just use the word for ranting purposes.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
when
astrologers say this the astronomers become even more enraged and
entranched in their belief that it is all nonesense. Which you also
ignore.
I have a difficulty believing scientists becoming "enraged" if
crackpots start to spin off all kinds of weird theories, all they will do
at most is to have a mild smile at all those childish behaviour.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
As this is one of the tenets of astrology the
result of this scientific study should be at least considered a
confirmation of the hypothesis, in strict scientific terms and further
research done. The attitude of astronomers is generally, to do no
research
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
into what serious astrologers claim,
You know, the use of the word "serious" makes it all more laughable!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
(no one claims sun-sign-only
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
astrology is in any way accurate) and ignore evidence, but wave their
'gravitational forces' magic formula around as if that explains
everything. It explains nothing. The fact that every planet in the
solar system IS influenced by every other planet is obviously true.
Yes, it influences that some years are a few secondes longer or shorter
than others, big deal!
Again you ignore the substantial part of my post as well as mis-spelling
seconds.
Waaawww!!! you just invented the spelling lame!
You're really a genious!!!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
But I'm sure that was only a typing error. You should learn the
lesson of Kepler.
As if Keplers law would mean something to you!!

You must be a Lion or something like that!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Your cherished theory of everything may be wrong, and in
fact, in time it certainly will be. That is science not simply newtonian
classical mechanics and to hell with everything else I don't like.
There is still SR and GR to go with!!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The degree
to which that affects life is still debatable since we know very
little about the micro-effects of Gravity.
It would only point out that a passing truck has more
micro-gravitational effect than any
Are you so incoherent that you do not even finish sentences? Anyway,
gravity was only an example of an area of which we know little.
Why are you playing the wise guy then?

What exactly do you know "more" than I do?
Post by O'Ryan Wells
The
planets are also connected through our awareness
Why don't you ask them to post here to sustain your point of view?
Post by O'Ryan Wells
and it is this awareness
which is the primary study of astrology and other similar subjects, the
means of study, astrology, is what we are discussing here.
You could as well study your own reason for your wishful thinking, it
comes up to the same....
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The division of the Zodiac is an arbitrary one. 0 Degrees of Aries is
DEFINED as such. It has NOTHING to do with the actual constellations
off the same name. If you knew anything about the theory of divination
in general you would not have made this common error.
What common error, be specific!
I specifically said the error is specifically that the specific Zodiacal
sign of Aries (Astrological) has nothing to do with the specific
constellation of the same specific name.
You really must like that word "specific" to have used it 5 times in one
sentence!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
How much clearer do you want it?
MMMMmmmm, Can you be more "specific"? :-))))

[screed snipped]
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Typical for fraudsters.
Another error you suffer from is that you assume that everyone who does
not share your belief structure is a fraud.
I'm not asking any money for whatever you consider my "belief structure"
on the other hand, astrologers do.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
at science is your belief
structure is clear since you seem to be able only to quote non-relevant
Hypothesis: Astrology is a valid subject to study.
Normally a hypothesis has to be proved, otherwise it is worthless.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Empirical personal data
tends to confirm this. (Not conclusive) Independant Scientific Study seems
also to confirm it. (More conclusive than empirical data alone)
Ergo the hypothesis is corfirmed.
No, it has to be proven!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
At this stage serious research should expand and the subject be developed.
All of these are speculations.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
A clear rebuttal of the Sun-Sign astrology which appears in newspapers
would not do the astrological community any harm either.
I don't see how astrological wishful thinking ever can come over the
level of party conversations like "Hi, I saggitarius, and you...". They
only situation when some "astrological knowledge" comes in handy!
This statement only betrays your own ignorance of the methods and actual
uses of astrology.
I'm glad that this "ignorance" has spared me from all those obcure occult
sciences that maybe worked for less evolved people like me, and I regret
that still so much people live in the darkness of one or other
superstition.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Personal growth and development of one's natural
abilities, which can be brought into sharp focus using astrological
methods. I have nothing to say in favour of 'popular' astrology.
Words, words words, but no facts.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
Since every serious astrologer knows that the more detail in a chart
the more accurate it gets.
You don't believe that yourself, don't you?
[rest of rant snipped]
Post by O'Ryan Wells
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release
Date: 27/01/04
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
O'Ryan Wells
2004-01-30 14:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Being tired of lurking, on Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:36:18 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Being tired of lurking, on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:31:26 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by tb
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation
requirement
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
at Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another 125
volunteers for the study.
The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a meaningful
and statistically significant relationship can be found between
tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun sign as historical
astrological theory suggests.
There is no relationship, that's as simple as that. Just study some
astronomy and learn about gravitational forces so you can forget
about this astrology bullshit.
This is the common error which I refer to, see also later, and again later
still.
Here we go.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
You seem as irrationally wedded to your belief structure (Astronomy)
without doing any actual research on the subject you are attempting to
rubbish.
Science is not a belief stucture, because people who have to believe
just prove that they are uncertain about their assertion. Like in the
proposition "I think it is going to rain tomorrow". This in contrast to
a proposition of the kind "Ice melts above 0° Celcius".
It is a belief in the sense that Mathematics is believed to be able to
encompass reality.
Bzzz, wrong.
Mathematics is only concerned to be consistent with itself.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
This is the experimental data which you request later, obviously you did
not bother to read my post being so confident of your superior position.
I was only trying to be helpful, sorry.
You still have not responded to the dciting of MG's study into 'The Mars
Effect' how long do you think you can ignore data?

Judging by the responses you'vre made, indefinitely.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
This elucidates my point about the 'common error' which I also clearly
indicate in the post. Astronomers confuse the Sign and the
Constellation,
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
in view of this the whole argument of precession is irrelevant,
If one uses words like "precession" one should or either be aware of its
real meaning or just use the word for ranting purposes.
I know precisely what precession means. I am not ranting. I'm trying to have
a serious discussion with you. You are obviously only interested in your own
point of view (see later).
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
when
astrologers say this the astronomers become even more enraged and
entranched in their belief that it is all nonesense. Which you also
ignore.
I have a difficulty believing scientists becoming "enraged" if
crackpots start to spin off all kinds of weird theories, all they will do
at most is to have a mild smile at all those childish behaviour.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
As this is one of the tenets of astrology the
result of this scientific study should be at least considered a
confirmation of the hypothesis, in strict scientific terms and further
research done. The attitude of astronomers is generally, to do no
research
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
into what serious astrologers claim,
You know, the use of the word "serious" makes it all more laughable!
That's how I would describe your replies.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
(no one claims sun-sign-only
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
astrology is in any way accurate) and ignore evidence, but wave their
'gravitational forces' magic formula around as if that explains
everything. It explains nothing. The fact that every planet in the
solar system IS influenced by every other planet is obviously true.
Yes, it influences that some years are a few secondes longer or shorter
than others, big deal!
Again you ignore the substantial part of my post as well as mis-spelling
seconds.
Waaawww!!! you just invented the spelling lame!
You're really a genious!!! And you continue to ignore what I say. (see
later*)
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
But I'm sure that was only a typing error. You should learn the
lesson of Kepler.
As if Keplers law would mean something to you!!
I probably know Kepler's laws at least as well as you do. And the situation
which brought them into being.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
You must be a Lion or something like that!
No I am a human. What are you?
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Your cherished theory of everything may be wrong, and in
fact, in time it certainly will be. That is science not simply newtonian
classical mechanics and to hell with everything else I don't like.
There is still SR and GR to go with!!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The degree
to which that affects life is still debatable since we know very
little about the micro-effects of Gravity.
It would only point out that a passing truck has more
micro-gravitational effect than any
Are you so incoherent that you do not even finish sentences? Anyway,
gravity was only an example of an area of which we know little.
Why are you playing the wise guy then?
What exactly do you know "more" than I do?
I know more about the principles of Astrology that much is clear.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
The
planets are also connected through our awareness
Why don't you ask them to post here to sustain your point of view?
Now who is trying to be a wise guy? Be consistent at least.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
and it is this awareness
which is the primary study of astrology and other similar subjects, the
means of study, astrology, is what we are discussing here.
You could as well study your own reason for your wishful thinking, it
comes up to the same....
I have no wishful thinking, you are making far too many assumptions about me
and what I know to be on safe ground.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The division of the Zodiac is an arbitrary one. 0 Degrees of Aries is
DEFINED as such. It has NOTHING to do with the actual constellations
off the same name. If you knew anything about the theory of divination
in general you would not have made this common error.
What common error, be specific!
I specifically said the error is specifically that the specific Zodiacal
sign of Aries (Astrological) has nothing to do with the specific
constellation of the same specific name.
You really must like that word "specific" to have used it 5 times in one
sentence!
Yes, since you are incapable of reading the actual post I had to point every
detail out to you. That specific enough for you?
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
How much clearer do you want it?
more ignored.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Another error you suffer from is that you assume that everyone who does
not share your belief structure is a fraud.
I'm not asking any money for whatever you consider my "belief structure"
on the other hand, astrologers do.
So scientists do not get paid do they? They work for the fun of it, the
sheer discovery of it all? Get real. People charge for their time, not their
beliefs. Don't you?
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
at science is your belief
structure is clear since you seem to be able only to quote non-relevant
Hypothesis: Astrology is a valid subject to study.
Normally a hypothesis has to be proved, otherwise it is worthless.
No, it has to be confirmed. Theorys can be disproven by experiement. We're
not at that stage yet. Since you don't really know enough about scientific
method I'll spell it out in crayon.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Empirical personal data
tends to confirm this. (Not conclusive) Independant Scientific Study seems
also to confirm it. (More conclusive than empirical data alone)
Ergo the hypothesis is confirmed.
Once the hypothesis is confirmed a theory is presented to explain the facts.
This theory is then put to the test and if it passes experimental testing
then the theory is also confirmed. This continues until something comes up
which disproves the theory then it's back to square one.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
At this stage serious research should expand and the subject be developed.
All of these are speculations.
No a speculation is a idea formed without the benefit of any study or data,
I have already cited a scientific study into astrology which confirmed the
hypothesis. You refuse to discuss this evidence, possibly you think I made
it up, go check in a University Library.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
A clear rebuttal of the Sun-Sign astrology which appears in newspapers
would not do the astrological community any harm either.
I am trying to be fair to both sides, you, on the other hand are stuck in
your mental mud unable to handle a logical discussion. I pity you.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
I don't see how astrological wishful thinking ever can come over the
level of party conversations like "Hi, I saggitarius, and you...". They
only situation when some "astrological knowledge" comes in handy!
This statement only betrays your own ignorance of the methods and actual
uses of astrology.
I'm glad that this "ignorance" has spared me from all those obcure occult
sciences that maybe worked for less evolved people like me, and I regret
that still so much people live in the darkness of one or other
superstition.
Glad of ignorance! That says it all! The level of your prejudice is
astonishing.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Personal growth and development of one's natural
abilities, which can be brought into sharp focus using astrological
methods. I have nothing to say in favour of 'popular' astrology.
Words, words words, but no facts.
I have already cited one study in support of my case you have just ranted.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
Since every serious astrologer knows that the more detail in a chart
the more accurate it gets.
You don't believe that yourself, don't you?
[rest of rant snipped] more ignoring of the discussion.
Since you have no intention of entering into a sensible discussion I will
not reply to any more ranting. If you have a point beyond your own tiny
perspective, please make it.

* Since you have obviously nothing of real value to say in this discussion.
I'll end it here.

O'Ryan Wells.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/04
Dr. Flonkenstein
2004-01-30 16:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Being tired of lurking, on Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:48:17 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Being tired of lurking, on Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:36:18 +0000, O'Ryan Wells
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Being tired of lurking, on Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:31:26 +0000, O'Ryan
Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
I am doing a pilot research study as part of my BA graduation
requirement
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
at Kepler College (www.kepler.edu) and am looking for another
125 volunteers for the study.
The focus of the pilot study is to determine whether a
meaningful and statistically significant relationship can be
found between tissue/cell/Schuessler salts and the natal Sun
sign as historical astrological theory suggests.
There is no relationship, that's as simple as that. Just study
some astronomy and learn about gravitational forces so you can
forget about this astrology bullshit.
This is the common error which I refer to, see also later, and again
later
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
still.
Here we go.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
You seem as irrationally wedded to your belief structure
(Astronomy) without doing any actual research on the subject you
are attempting
to
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
rubbish.
Science is not a belief stucture, because people who have to believe
just prove that they are uncertain about their assertion. Like in the
proposition "I think it is going to rain tomorrow". This in contrast
to a proposition of the kind "Ice melts above 0° Celcius".
It is a belief in the sense that Mathematics is believed to be able to
encompass reality.
Bzzz, wrong.
Mathematics is only concerned to be consistent with itself.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
This is the experimental data which you request later, obviously you
did not bother to read my post being so confident of your superior
position.
I was only trying to be helpful, sorry.
You still have not responded to the dciting of MG's study into 'The Mars
Effect' how long do you think you can ignore data?
Judging by the responses you'vre made, indefinitely.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
This elucidates my point about the 'common error' which I also clearly
indicate in the post. Astronomers confuse the Sign and the
Constellation,
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
in view of this the whole argument of precession is irrelevant,
If one uses words like "precession" one should or either be aware of its
real meaning or just use the word for ranting purposes.
I know precisely what precession means. I am not ranting. I'm trying to
have a serious discussion with you. You are obviously only interested in
your own point of view (see later).
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
when
astrologers say this the astronomers become even more enraged and
entranched in their belief that it is all nonesense. Which you also
ignore.
I have a difficulty believing scientists becoming "enraged" if crackpots
start to spin off all kinds of weird theories, all they will do at most
is to have a mild smile at all those childish behaviour.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
As this is one of the tenets of astrology the
result of this scientific study should be at least considered a
confirmation of the hypothesis, in strict scientific terms and
further
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
research done. The attitude of astronomers is generally, to do no
research
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
into what serious astrologers claim,
You know, the use of the word "serious" makes it all more laughable!
That's how I would describe your replies.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
(no one claims sun-sign-only
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
astrology is in any way accurate) and ignore evidence, but wave
their 'gravitational forces' magic formula around as if that
explains everything. It explains nothing. The fact that every
planet in the solar system IS influenced by every other planet is
obviously true.
Yes, it influences that some years are a few secondes longer or
shorter than others, big deal!
Again you ignore the substantial part of my post as well as
mis-spelling seconds.
Waaawww!!! you just invented the spelling lame! You're really a
genious!!! And you continue to ignore what I say. (see
later*)
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
But I'm sure that was only a typing error. You should learn the lesson
of Kepler.
As if Keplers law would mean something to you!!
I probably know Kepler's laws at least as well as you do. And the
situation which brought them into being.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
You must be a Lion or something like that!
No I am a human. What are you?
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Your cherished theory of everything may be wrong, and in fact, in time
it certainly will be. That is science not simply newtonian classical
mechanics and to hell with everything else I don't like.
There is still SR and GR to go with!!
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The degree
to which that affects life is still debatable since we know very
little about the micro-effects of Gravity.
It would only point out that a passing truck has more
micro-gravitational effect than any
Are you so incoherent that you do not even finish sentences? Anyway,
gravity was only an example of an area of which we know little.
Why are you playing the wise guy then?
What exactly do you know "more" than I do?
I know more about the principles of Astrology that much is clear.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
The
planets are also connected through our awareness
Why don't you ask them to post here to sustain your point of view?
Now who is trying to be a wise guy? Be consistent at least.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
and it is this awareness
which is the primary study of astrology and other similar subjects,
the means of study, astrology, is what we are discussing here.
You could as well study your own reason for your wishful thinking, it
comes up to the same....
I have no wishful thinking, you are making far too many assumptions about
me and what I know to be on safe ground.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
The division of the Zodiac is an arbitrary one. 0 Degrees of Aries
is DEFINED as such. It has NOTHING to do with the actual
constellations off the same name. If you knew anything about the
theory of
divination
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
in general you would not have made this common error.
What common error, be specific!
I specifically said the error is specifically that the specific
Zodiacal sign of Aries (Astrological) has nothing to do with the
specific constellation of the same specific name.
You really must like that word "specific" to have used it 5 times in one
sentence!
Yes, since you are incapable of reading the actual post I had to point
every detail out to you. That specific enough for you?
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
How much clearer do you want it?
more ignored.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Another error you suffer from is that you assume that everyone who
does not share your belief structure is a fraud.
I'm not asking any money for whatever you consider my "belief structure"
on the other hand, astrologers do.
So scientists do not get paid do they? They work for the fun of it, the
sheer discovery of it all? Get real. People charge for their time, not
their beliefs. Don't you?
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
at science is your belief
structure is clear since you seem to be able only to quote
non-relevant examples rather than applying the 'Method'. I have
Hypothesis: Astrology is a valid subject to study.
Normally a hypothesis has to be proved, otherwise it is worthless.
No, it has to be confirmed. Theorys can be disproven by experiement. We're
not at that stage yet. Since you don't really know enough about scientific
method I'll spell it out in crayon.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Empirical personal data
tends to confirm this. (Not conclusive) Independant Scientific Study
seems
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
also to confirm it. (More conclusive than empirical data alone) Ergo
the hypothesis is confirmed.
Once the hypothesis is confirmed a theory is presented to explain the
facts. This theory is then put to the test and if it passes experimental
testing then the theory is also confirmed. This continues until something
comes up which disproves the theory then it's back to square one.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
At this stage serious research should expand and the subject be
developed.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
All of these are speculations.
No a speculation is a idea formed without the benefit of any study or
data, I have already cited a scientific study
A self proclaimed "scientific study".
Post by O'Ryan Wells
into astrology which
confirmed the hypothesis. You refuse to discuss this evidence, possibly
you think I made it up, go check in a University Library.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
A clear rebuttal of the Sun-Sign astrology which appears in
newspapers
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
would not do the astrological community any harm either.
I am trying to be fair to both sides, you, on the other hand are stuck in
your mental mud unable to handle a logical discussion. I pity you.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
I don't see how astrological wishful thinking ever can come over the
level of party conversations like "Hi, I saggitarius, and you...".
They only situation when some "astrological knowledge" comes in
handy!
This statement only betrays your own ignorance of the methods and
actual uses of astrology.
I'm glad that this "ignorance" has spared me from all those obcure
occult sciences that maybe worked for less evolved people like me, and I
regret that still so much people live in the darkness of one or other
superstition.
Glad of ignorance! That says it all! The level of your prejudice is
astonishing.
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Personal growth and development of one's natural abilities, which can
be brought into sharp focus using astrological methods. I have nothing
to say in favour of 'popular' astrology.
Words, words words, but no facts.
I have already cited one study in support of my case you have just ranted.
You only provided a claim that was made, but I see no real figures, and
even if there would be a statistical corellation, this would not
necessarily imply that there is a direct relationship.
Both phenenomena are time dependent.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Post by Dr. Flonkenstein
Post by tb
Since every serious astrologer knows that the more detail in a
chart the more accurate it gets.
You don't believe that yourself, don't you?
[rest of rant snipped] more ignoring of the discussion.
Since you have no intention of entering into a sensible discussion I will
not reply to any more ranting. If you have a point beyond your own tiny
perspective, please make it.
* Since you have obviously nothing of real value to say in this
discussion. I'll end it here.
Oh, don't run into the hills yet.

I was born in a distance from a few metres and practically at the same
time as a good friend of mine. So, how does it comes that he has a
complete different character, and leads a completely different life as I
do.

Astrology disproven.
Post by O'Ryan Wells
O'Ryan Wells.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release
Date: 27/01/04
--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.
Mike Painter
2004-01-30 17:56:31 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
I know more about the principles of Astrology that much is clear.
Then why is it that if ten astrologers do somebody's chart they come up with
ten different things?
Why is it that if 30 different people with random birthdays get exactly the
same chart they will all claim it to have a vlaidity of 4 or 5 on a five
point scale?

Why is it that you have not applied for Randi's little grant?

<snip>
No, it has to be confirmed. Theorys can be disproven by experiement. We're
not at that stage yet. Since you don't really know enough about scientific
method I'll spell it out in crayon.
Who is "we"? Where have any double blind experiments on astrology not been
falsified?
Post by O'Ryan Wells
Empirical personal data
tends to confirm this. (Not conclusive) Independant Scientific Study
seems
Post by O'Ryan Wells
also to confirm it. (More conclusive than empirical data alone)
Ergo the hypothesis is confirmed.
Personal data is at best anechdotal.
No a speculation is a idea formed without the benefit of any study or data,
I have already cited a scientific study into astrology which confirmed the
hypothesis. You refuse to discuss this evidence, possibly you think I made
it up, go check in a University Library.
Repeat the name?

Loading...