hi.. its known that astrology is a science. i would like to know the deeper facts of this science.. give your opinions about how this astrological science works. We everyone know that, this science deals with the electromagnetic or any other rays from the planets outside earth. But how these rays impact living creatures on earth. your opinions..

There is no known theoretical justification for anything that emanates from celestial bodies to have greater physical influence than close-by things. I think all the gravity and radiation from stars is a tiny amount of noise compared to the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and the things around us.

Going beyond the fact that possible physical effects are infinitesimal, is the fact that horoscopes are written in such a general way that anybody can interpret them to be true. Why would that be the case if there was science behind the pseudo-science. Check out this minute and a half video with James Randi (of the Skeptic Society, I believe).

I'm with Scoop.

I agree, I dont think that they have any real influence on us, depending on where they are in the sky.

I could see it being plausible that seasons could affect pregnancy, and personality and health. But the first place to look is how dietary changes, temperature, stress, social factors, bio-rhythms, affect pregnancy, to see if there's any affect on fetal development. That is, local causes.

But the idea that there are chunks of rock that light years away having any significant affect on our lives is surely a mis attributed cause.

I think the ancients probably perceived (correctly or incorrectly) some vague correlation between season and personality/health/destiny, and some vague connection between season and planetary position. And they did their best to construct a theory around it that tied the two together.

Kinda like, I've noticed a pattern that every September I get a cold ... I could look up at the sky and see some pattern of stars is the same every time, and draw a false causal connection between the two things (which are merely correlated).

No matter how hard you try to affix a scientific label to it, its still hogwash.

where the original poster got the idea that astrology is a science i dont know, but astrology is as scientific as tarot cards and spoon benders.

Astrology is a theory, like evolution is just a theory, since it can't explain my eyeball. Interestingly, Sir Isaac Newton spent half of his career doing alchemy. That makes alchemy as good as physics. I'm not sure astrology is quite as scientific as alchemy, but is certainly on more solid ground than evolution. And spoon bending is a talent, not a science. So there!

Oops! Meant to post as Homer, not scooper. ;-)

Yeah, and Satan invented it too. More liberal bullshit if you ask me.

There is evidence for evolution but there is no evidence that the dead will rise when the stars form a specific constellation.

The dead will rise from their graves when Jesus returns in glory, and he will be coming in the sky.

Prove it. The bible doesn't count, as there's no proof that it's any more accurate than Harry Potter.

God Said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

How can I prove something that hasn't happened yet?

The latter is a little-know consequence of the general theory of relativity, having to do with pixie dust spontaneously forming in the inter-stellar vacuum.

please rephrase that, I did not understand anything ;P

nope astrology could have been considered a theory, past tense, now it would be considered disproved, plenty of studies have shown no relation between the position of the stars and the behaviour of humans. whereas evidence found for evolution reinforces it, and attempts to find disproving evidence have failed.

not really a valid point, alexander bell spent many years writing poetry, doesnt make poetry as scientific as the study of sound and electricity.
Homer? ya i know spoon bending is a talent, but the people with that talent are the ones who try and pass it off as magical psychic powers.

WORD

Was my feeble attempt at satire too subtle? Hope you don't think I believe a word of what I said? I have a hard time taking this topic too seriously.

Sorry my sarcasm detecter was obviously on the blink yesterday

I'd strongly suggest Richard Dawkins The Enemies of Reason