Is Astrology Scientific?
Updated: Jan 26, 2018
Scientists dismiss astrology as nonsense and believers as dreamers. Is there any aspect of astrology that can be considered scientific. I think so! Read on!
i. Cosmic radiation contents- What is the breakdown of cosmic radiation? Besides talking about known particles, billions of them that go through our bodies daily, we also have to talk about the unknown particles. To keep this post simple I will skip specifying the types of particles coming from out of space.
“The question here is: Has anyone successfully experimented and come up with evidence that there is no intelligible data in ALL these particles. .”
I know for years humans have been “listening" to find who is out there! All sorts of detection methods covering broad frequencies are in place right now in case ET calls! By simple knowledge of the abundance of known particles we already know it is not feasible to "listen" to ALL the possible frequencies that might carry particles containing intelligible data. There are advanced studies being carried out by NASA in anticipation of sending humans into deep space, or traveling the short distance to Mars. I call it short distance for obvious reasons, we are talking about universes and galaxies. These studies focus on effects on DNA. My assertion is that DNA is the key to astrology.
ii. Cosmic radiation patterns: The next question that seems to skip the scientist arguing against astrology is the lack of data to correlate the so called zodiac signs with the type of particles raining down in the different cycles. Is there any such correlation? Surely different bodies in space will emit different particles. Depending on their positional alignment to earth, the particle strengths will vary from non existence to weak then strong. There will be periods when the weak particles from a body or bodies will exist alongside strong particles from other bodies during transition of cycles. At the same time it is obvious that particles from the sun and the moon will be present at different strengths on a 24 hour cycle. Why would it not be possible for a superior designer to send codes that gets imprinted in DNA through a few of these particles? Is this not the premise of astrology?
I agree with many that we should never mix astrology with fortune telling or horoscopes, which is predicting future events, rather than focusing on what was caused by the space bodies in an individual. Any prediction of future events based on astrology is art, which I submit sometimes coincides with actual future events creating the impression that someone has the ability to foretell events.
iii. Similarity in character and traits of zodiac signs: The traits purported by astrology in individuals are very general in the very sense of general. While there is no scientific evidence, maybe due to the fact that astrology has been dismissed as non scientific, strict observation reveals that persons born the same period tend to have very general similar traits. I think any objective person will agree with this generality. Why similar traits, I strongly suspect the answer lies in DNA.
iv. Effect of Intelligible data in particles on DNA: It is a known scientific fact that radiation particles affect DNA. As mentioned above the studies of the effects are still ongoing but one factor established is that new cells are more susceptible to DNA change than old cells. This brings us to a speculative point, which I suspect if investigated will prove the very basis of astrology. The point I make is that certain radiations carry intelligible data that varies according to the bodies it is emanating from. The specific particles that affect DNA in the manner prescribed by astrology are not strong enough to penetrate the womb; hence the effect starts at birth not conception. As established by science, and logic, babies have rapidly developing cells which are highly susceptible to radiation. Thus, at the very point of birth, certain DNA changes take place coming from a specific source that carries more or less similar data for that cycle.
This brings me to the paper that I am working on. The paper investigates a virtual sphere S in air with a diameter of 1.75nm roughly a million times bigger than a neutron. The dimensions are chosen deliberately for comparison purposes. I am using the transport equation to tally the number of particles traversing S for 9 different particle types, then carry a summation of these quantities and multiply them by an estimated data quantity derived from the frequencies and track length across S. Each particle is characterized and modeled for the equation to create input files for Monte Carlo calculation methods using a computer code developed at Los Alamos national lab. The calculated capacity would hold true if say those particles were frozen in time and encapsulated.
I am investigating this capacity to provide proof of immense data that can be contained in an invisible minute sphere. One aim is to investigate new methods of large data encapsulation to transmit rapidly. By inference we can also derive lots of comparison for the topic under discussion.