Teaching Astrology In Schools

It's true that we all want our children to get ahead in this dog-eat-dog, cat-eat-rat economy. But if we forget about the stars, we're not just depriving our children of an innocent source of joy. We're potentially putting a mortgage on their future. After all, if astronomy isn't taught in schools, it will eventually die out as a science. And that could be a very costly mistake; consider global warming, the dangers of asteroid strikes, ozone depletion, El Nino and such. All of these world-threatening dangers were first predicted by astrologers, and forewarned is forearmed. The child who develops an innocent curiosity about the stars at the age of eight is the child who may be able to warn you of impending disaster ten years later. I bet Larry Augustin would have been thankful for a word of warning about what was going to happen to the NASDAQ in 2001. I bet Eric Raymond would have been grateful too.

But sadly, astronomy seems to be going the way of evolution in our high schools, driven out by a combination of far-right religious hatred, and self-righteous self-styled "scientists". The fundamentalist Christians appear to have eased up on their campaign against the teaching of astrology in our schools; they've turned their attentions to the campaign against evolution. But ironically, the supporters of teaching evolution in our schools (people like Steven Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and James Randi) appear to be determined to promote their own case by doing down their companion in vilification, astronomy!

(Please note, by the way, that although I have some fairly harsh things to say in this article about prominent promoters of evolutionary thinking, this is not in any way to impugn the scientific status of evolution itself. I regard evolution as being every bit as important a subject for children to be taught as astrology, and only wish that the die-hard evolutionists would show the same courtesy!)

Let's look at the arguments put forward by a representative example of the astronomy-bashing crowd, the small-minded zealots of "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine. Now it's fair to say that the Skeptical Inquirer crowd start off at a disadvantage; they're not exactly Nobel-winning scientists, like prominent astrology advocate Dr Kary Mullis. But even so, the arguments they raise against giving astronomy its proper place among the sciences are laughably weak; indeed, they are self-contradictory.

The most commonly accepted criterion for deciding whether or not a field of inquiry is "scientific" is that based on the scientific philosophy of Professor Sir Karl Popper, the British neurobiologist. Popper proposed that a truly scientific study would follow his "Falsifiability Criterion". Simply put, this states that:

The Falsifiability Criterion: A truly scientific field of study is one which makes testable predictions; it makes statements which could be proved false if its theories are incorrect and sets out to prove itself wrong. If the scientists try to prove themselves wrong and fail, then they know that their theory is true.
Contrariwise, "pseudoscientific" studies dress themselves up in the trappings of science, but never make any predictions which could possibly be proved false. When the evidence contradicts their theory, they try to deny its validity, or claim that their theory will be proved right eventually or (the defining characteristic of pseudoscience) start making changes to the theory.

Incredibly enough, on the basis of this universally accepted philosophy of science, the curmudgeonly crowd at Skeptical Inquirer try to promote evolutionary theory and rule out astronomy! But really, let's look at the evidence:

Astronomy:

Makes at least twelve testable predictions every day, which it distributes to the general public for "peer review" in the daily newspapers. For example, if the horoscope for Scorpio were to say "Blue flowers are lucky for you today", and if we were then to observe a Scorpio for whom blue flowers were not lucky on that day, then astrology would be falsified. This willingness to put its predictions on the line, day after day, shows how confident in its validity astrology is.
Has developed over thousands of years in all sorts of civilisations, and has stood the test of time. Isn't it bizarre that evolutionists believe that all sorts of things, from bulimia to marital infidelity to outright racism, exist today because they confer evolutionary benefits on us, but aren't prepared to extend the same explanation to astronomy?
Has a massive track record of success after success after success. Here are a few links to the websites of famous astronomers, all of whom are millionaires. Astrology can reliably predict the stock market. Nostradamus, the famous Medieval astrologer, saw the September 11 attacks coming from a distance of two hundred years. Still think that astronomy is "no use in today's economy"?

On the other hand ....

Evolution:

Confines itself to talking about theories which could never possibly be tested by experiment. Never makes a testable prediction of any kind. When asked to produce evidence for their theories, evolutionists usually resort to childish ad hominem attacks, which typically boil down to demanding that anyone who disagrees with them prove that evolution isn't true. As everyone knows, you can't prove a negative, and the only surprising thing is that the evolutionists have got away with the obvious logical fallacy of "the burden of proof" for so long.
Never keeps its story straight from one year to the next. First we had Darwin telling us that individuals selected each other by sexual intercourse, then Lamarck telling us that adaptation was the key, then Lysenko telling us that it was all about "heredity" and nowadays Dawkins says no, that was all rubbish, evolution is true, but it's really all about genes!
Picks fights all the time with really ridiculous unscientific nuts, like the so-called "Creation Scientists", just to make a hell of a lot of noise, distract schools from the real educational issues, and divert attention from its own failings.

Out of these two scientific theories, I ask you, which one is putting on a hell of a show of acting like "scientists" and which one is quietly and methodically getting on with the business of telling us useful things to know about the future? Proper science is under threat from religion every day, and if we're going to win the battle against the fundamentalists, we're going to have to pick our fights carefully. Up until now, the scientific establishment has decided that evolution is the horse it wants to back, with notable lack of success. It's time to give up on the dead-loss research project of trying to patch up evolutionary theory and switch to a different battleground. The fundamentalists will find it a bit more difficult to come up with their usual weaselly rationalisations and pseudoscientific excuses when faced with meeting the hard-nosed quantitative science of astronomy in open debate! Astrology is the science of the future. Evolution is the science of the past. Let's get serious here, people

	AstroNOMy is science: AstroLOGy is junk (1.00 / 1) (#6)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:24:37 PM PST

	Astronomy is studying space by looking at it...my definition isnt entirely right I know. Astrology is to do with horoscopes and star signs and stuff. Astronomy is considered science. Astrology is bollox and I will state this as honest fact and truth. Astrology HAS been tested many times by science and it failed. Simple common tests such as the ones below: 1) Buy 3 magasines 2) Read and compare the horoscopes in each of them 3) You should be convinced OR take 12 horoscopes, remove what sign they are for, muddle them up, give them to someone at the end of a day and ask them to point to the one which best fitted their day. The answer will prove that astrology is nothing more than guessing. Or you can use common sense to disprove it: If a person was born on a different planet - what would their horoscope be???? Lets now take a look at the constellations that Astrology uses so much - the forms of these constellations have changed throughout history. They werent fixed until 1930. So not exactly an ancient art. The number of zodiac signs has also changed over time. In Medieval China there were 28 zodiac signs. The Toltecs had 20. Early Egypt had 6. Astrology only uses 2 cooridinates to measure the position of a celestrial object. In fact their are obviously 3. This makes it highly innacurate. Why do only certain stars and planets act on us? Why not whole galaxies or even comets and asteroids? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Keep on dreaming your dreams. (none / 0) (#10)
	by dmg on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:30:02 PM PST

	Back in the real world the Russian Army, the CIA, the UK Police, and financial organizations are harnessing the power of astrology, clairvoyance and remote viewing to leverage their strengths and gain a valuable advantage over their adversaries. But don't let mere facts get in the way of your prejudice. Here's a clue. Just because we don't understand something does not mean we cannot harness it for mankind's benefit. It never ceases to amaze me that the Scientific Mafia continue to dismiss anything that they do not understand, before later admitting there is something in it after all. Accupuncture and Chinese medicine has been ridiculed by so-called scientists for a long time, meanwhile many Westerners ignore the idiotic ramblings of the dumb scientists and continue to visit their Accupuncturist. I would also point out that in lunatic asylums it is well documented that activity increases whenever there is a full moon. This conclusively proves that the planets could theroretically influence events. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	conclusively proves that the planets could therore (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:32:32 PM PST

	"conclusively proves that the planets could theroretically " AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

	incorrect (none / 0) (#12)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:08:14 PM PST

	Firstly remote viewing is open to debate. I certainly know there is lots of evidence to support it. Accupuncture I never diagreed with either. But I disagree with Astrology. Im not disagreeing with it because its not "scientifically recognised". Im just saying that there isnt the evidence for it like with remote viewing and accupuncture. In fact there is very heavy evidence against it. In fact I would say this evidence is conclusive. Your example of lunatic asylums and a full moon hardly proves Astrology is correct. Yes, on earth life has developed to a certain moon cycle - the tides, the added light source at full moon. Deep down all life may be influenced slightly by the lunar cycle including us. But not by planets and stars which have zero effect on the Earths ecosystems. Also if you examine such things as the zodiacs you will find they have changed position throughout history anyway. There is also a 41000 year oscillation in which the tilt of the earths axis changes by about 1.3 degrees one way and then the other. This makes astrology incorrect anyway as it assumes the sky pattern relative to earth to have a static motion. ALso what happens when the constallation stars die out? Deoesnt matter when - it will happen - what happens to astrology then. And why pick only a few stars from millions. Why are these few groups of stars so much more special from all the rest? Astrologers say that the position of the stars and the planets at birth influence your life - but why AT birth? why not at conception or even 2 hours before birth? Would 1 second make a difference? Its all made up. You seem to believe in anything which science doesnt. Do you also believe in the Aztec Sun Gods and the sacrifices they made to them? Do you believe in the Egyptian Afterlife? Do you believe that card tricks are really done by magic? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	ermmmm (none / 0) (#75)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 09:29:27 AM PST

	The moon is not a planet

	troll (5.00 / 1) (#78)
	by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:04:49 AM PST

	The moon is an astrological planet. The term 'planet' originally referred to 'wandering stars,[1]' and as the other wandering stars of our solar system are all astronomical 'planets,' the term planet was adopted from astrology. A moment's consideration will show that the astronomical idea of 'planet' is a social construction of no more validity than the astrological one. The two ideas serve different functions and come from different world-views. Why do you hate God? [1] 'Stars' obviously meaning 'lights in the night sky.' Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	you're very insolent for a puppet of the gods (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 08:27:14 PM PST

	Astrology HAS been tested many times by science and it failed. Simple common tests such as the ones below: 1) Buy 3 magasines Whoa, stop right there. Getting accurate astrological information from newspapers and magazines is like getting computer science information from slashdroids. Real astrologers cast charts based on the year, month, day, hour and second of your birth. Real astrologers are born, not made, unless by 'made' one means 'imbued with a gift by the same Universe which determines your fate.' They have a "gift". You could say astrologers are the medium by which we communicate with the Universe. In contrast, your peculiar "science" merely describes the universe differently every 5-10 years.

	correction (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 08:30:12 PM PST

	Real astrologers cast charts based on the year, month, day, hour and second of your birth. And geographic location, making every individual unique. It's scary because it's true.

	what if... (none / 0) (#25)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 07:02:16 AM PST

	what if a human is one day born on another planet and therefore can exist in of the astrological "houses" and cant have a zodiac attributed to them, its even gonna be a problem associating any form of geographical position to them. Some areas in the southern hemisphere also dont conform to astrology. Because it was a western invention they didnt realise that many constalations are not viewable from the southern hemisphere and at least the sky map's cycle there is very different. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Geography. (none / 0) (#26)
	by eMan on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 08:09:04 AM PST

	it was a western invention they didnt realise that many constalations are not viewable from the southern hemisphere East-west and north-south are orthogonal axes. Westerners could theoretically know about the south.

	I apologise, (none / 0) (#117)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:53:21 PM PST

	I appear to have misunderstood. But since you've bought it up (affrontage to God) May I refer you to, I beleive it is Deuteronomy 18:10-12 This is an excerpt: "Don't let anyone use magic or witchcraft, _or try to explain the signs_...The Lord hates anyone who does these things" (My emphasis (obviously)) Many people interpret this as a prohibition against astrology (explain the signs) I realise the Bible is subjective and therefore not a good debating tool in these circumstances. I bring it up only as a byline __________ Cuichulain

	So true. (none / 0) (#146)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 01:58:37 PM PST

	Have you ever heard of a nice man named Thomas Kuhn? Its funny you should mention him. I was at a Halloween party last year and talking to one of my philosopher friends and there was a momentary lull where everyone seemed to stop talking for about a second or so except for one person, a biophysicist who proclaimed to the people he was talking to "yea well, I think psycology is a load of crap because it's all subjective". Tom looked at me and said "He's talking a load of bollocks isnt he?" and I laughed and just nodded. He immediatly called him over and gave gave him a verbal bashing and a reading list including Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". I have yet to read it myself, but on the point of science being subjective and just tools for modelling I would have to agree wholeheartedly. In fact I remember one of my Physics teachers made the same point. He would also go off on tangents about magic pixies and then finish with "but instead we just use this equation because then we can actually predict the results". It amused us all greatly, but it also helped press home the point that what we were learning were simply models to help us predict what would happen in the real world. Anyone who doesnt understand this basic point has either never studied science past GCSE, doesnt go to a very good school or isnt paying very much attention. -- Nick Cheers for reminding me of that incident, it amused me greatly =).

	I bet they ARE all alike! (none / 0) (#67)
	by elenchos on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:36:29 AM PST

	Look a Spock. Look at all the Vulcans. Their whole race is all about logic. They're all the same: logic logic logic. That one singular aspect of the full kaliedascope of human experience is sliced out and expands to fill the entire group. This fits perfectly with the altitude theory. Many alien races are like this. A whole planet of tiger-men, or all ants. Klingons are all warlike. See? Sameness everywhere you look. With us on Earth, we get the full variety, but out there in the peripheral regions of the cosmos, they only get a section. Poor damn bastards. Poor bastards all... I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Not so. (none / 0) (#27)
	by dmg on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 08:15:28 AM PST

	what if a human is one day born on another planet and therefore can exist in of the astrological "houses" and cant have a zodiac attributed to them, its even gonna be a problem associating any form of geographical position to them. Modern astrological scientists have already addressed this issue. Its a bit complicated to explain, but if you imagine a ray (straight line) from the location of the birth (for example somewhere on Mars), and the center of the Earth, where that ray intersects the earth's surface can be considered the 'Astrological' location of the birth. This is simply extrapolation. When Astrological scientists draw up a chart, they are simply interested in the latitude and longitude of the place of birth, the altitude is not relevant. You can think of being born on Mars as a special case of being born on an Airliner, or halfway up a mountain. So you see, your main argument against Astronomy has already been disproved. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	interesting (none / 0) (#30)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:11:52 AM PST

	thats a good method in theory but disregarding altitude and using that straight line method leads to more serious problems. It means that noone born on mars for example will ever fall under the geographical location of the far north or south as a straight line from these positions never points to another planet. It also means that the further people are born from earth, the more like each other they become. If you calculate the geographical loactions of 2 people born on mars 100 miles apart you find that their "earths geographical location" will end up being less than 2cm from each. Two born in a far away galaxy - one on one side of the galaxy and the other on the other side will also end up being within the same inch of geographical location on earth. (In fact astrology cant be used in another galaxy as you wouldnt be able to see the constallations). People born in the galaxy of andromeda for example will be almost exactly the same whereas in the milkyway we are more different from each other. Using straight from the earth to the target leads to parallax problems. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	No problems at all (5.00 / 1) (#33)
	by dmg on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 12:17:20 PM PST

	Modern astrology has yet to get to grips with the full implication of the 'extrapolation technique'. Some astrologers believe that once one leaves our solar system for instance, it may well become impossible to predict an individual's future, as the influences of the planets will become weaker and weaker with distance, and eventually any predictions would be little better than noise. Also, your assertion "the further people are born from earth, the more like each other they become." is right on the money. Modern astrologers have explained this by noting that a horoscope makes predictions based on the assumption that one is living on Earth, and hence any astrological prediction one makes for someone living on another planet would be incorrect for that reason. There are controversial theories of astrology which claim to create a valid natal chart for those born on other planets (within our solar system) by simply translating the chart back to an earthbound one. So in effect, given that someone was born at a particular time and location on Mars, there will be a 3-d transform that would give an equivalent postion of the planets from an Earthly perspective which could be used to base a prediction, however a major flaw with this theory is that the prediction would assume that the planets were operating on an individual located on Earth. Hence again the predictions would only be valid if the person returned to Earth. Its fair to say that modern Astrological science has some catching up to do when it comes to the expoloration of our solar system. There are certain groups of astronomers, called 'extreme astrologers' who believe one must take into account the position of every interstellar object in our Galaxy in order to gain a truly accurate prediction of the future. The advent of supercomputers will enable this more advanced form of Astrology to come to the fore in the future. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	ok i withdraw all my arguments (5.00 / 1) (#35)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 01:21:24 PM PST

	you obviously know more than me on this subject and its an interesting (and good) solution to my arguments to make other charts for different planets. I therefore withdraw my fundemental arguments against real astrology because I didnt know the facts about it. All my arguments have failed and been well counter-argued. Also I cannot continue argument as I cant conclusively prove that the planets and stars do not have effect on living organisms in some way not yet discovered by science. Therefore I dont feel im currently in a position to denounce something which so many, throughout history believe in. I still disagree with "magasine" astrology but then I now understand that this doesnt make up all of astrology at all - I understand that there can be bad astrology as well as good astrology - just as is true of science. Any negative statements I have made about astrology in previous posts are withdrawn and I apologise if they caused annoyance or anger because of my ignorance. This is not to say I now agree with astrology - just that my mind is now more open towards the subject than when I first read this article. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#53)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:04:21 PM PST

	You are leaving out a very new and highly exciting field in astrology today - "Atomic Astrologers". These young chaps are working on very accurate computer simulations that chart the position of every atom in our solar system to gain a full prediction of our future. As you can see planetary bodies are composed of very small peices known as atoms, which influence the behavoir of the planet. As you can see, by knowing each atoms position you can get a very, very clear understaning of the planets influence on earth (the center of the atrological solar system). Clearly they cannot use every atom in the universe (which clearly would lead to an even more acurate picture). However, with the advent of DNA computing, this goal might be acheved in our lifetime. -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

	Nope, (none / 0) (#86)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:38:34 AM PST

	Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle this is impossible. In order to make an accurate prediction you need the atmos' positions and their velocities. You cannot get both _________ Cuichulain

	silly boy (none / 0) (#102)
	by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 12:24:00 PM PST

	All we need is the instantaneous position of the atoms. You seem to think the astrological prediction is an attempt at predicting from mechanical causality (which is a major affront to the sovreignty of God.) What it is is an attempt at determining the planets' influences based on their position at a specific time. The planets' influences go far beyond whatever we might deduce based on the mere physical facts of them. Why don't you sign up an account? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	what?! (none / 0) (#123)
	by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 05:00:19 PM PST

	I realise the Bible is subjective and therefore not a good debating tool in these circumstances. I bring it up only as a byline... I think you mean "example" for "byline." This: Cuichulain is your byline. Anyway, what makes the Bible any more subjective (as if that were a bad word) than your beloved science? Have you once again failed to understand that science is a social construction? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	I meant to write sideline, (none / 0) (#126)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 05:41:30 PM PST

	This debate is about science. It's not about the bible. The implications and interpretations of that one verse are a whole debate unto themselves. My science, if I have my own personal science (which I must have since it doesn't appear to be the same as yours) is not subjective, apart from to the extent of which theory you suscribe to. An electron is an electron. It has a charge of minus one. You could say you don't agree with the valence shell electron theory but you can't say "Oooh, I think it should have a charge of minus three point nine". Subjectivity has little or no place in proper science. If it's not quantitative many scientists will scorn it, let alone subjective. The Bible, on the other hand, is open to many interpretations. There is a verse that says 'Suffer not a witch to live' but I don't see many bonfires in Church grounds. Society thinks science is a social structure. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. On the whole scientists don't care and carry on doing there own thing. Lastly, science is not 'beloved' to me and I did not mean to imply that subjectiveness is a bad thing, merely that it should be kept out of an argument that is becoming too subjective already __________ Cuichulain

	obvious gk** (none / 0) (#128)
	by nathan on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:14:21 PM PST

	My science...is not subjective. So you're saying that the people who perform scientific research don't have epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, and plain down-to-earth expectations? All science has an agenda. What makes a 'scientific' world-view more true than any other? Another poster on this topic made the excellent point that Newtonian and Einsteinian physics predicate wholly different models of the physical world. Was Newtonian physics more true than Aristotelian physics? Is Einsteinian physics more true than its successor will be? Science does not pretend to discover metaphysical truth. Science is tools for modelling, and if you ever shake hands with an electron or, for that matter, a canister of phlogiston, be sure to let me know. Have you ever heard of a nice man named Thomas Kuhn? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Elephants and Blind Men (none / 0) (#129)
	by dmg on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:14:33 PM PST

	An electron is an electron. It has a charge of minus one. Do not mistake the map for the territory. Do not mistake the model for the thing that is being modelled. It is useful to consider the three blind men and an elephant. Normally this story relates to the concept of God, but it also applies equally well to science. I hope this helps to explain in a roundabout way some of the points being made here. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	what if pigs slept in your belly button? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:49:19 PM PST

	what if a human is one day born on another planet Young man, the article is about science fact, not science fiction. We are alone in the Universe and will never stray beyond Earth. The reason you heathen scientificists cannot live with that knowledge is because you fear your own humanity and God.

	and will never stray beyond Earth? (none / 0) (#46)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:23:09 PM PST

	come on, we could do it now, we have the technology - straight to mars. But NASA has no incentive to do so. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	But but but... (none / 0) (#66)
	by elenchos on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:29:57 AM PST

	Always these "buts" with you, eh? We in the scientific community make falsifiable predictions, such as "man will never leave the Earth." You charlatans blow pink smoke with your pathetic whines of "we could do it, but..." But what? But Micro-Soft won't give us the hardware drivers? But the algorithm is patented? But the Trilateral Commission would intervene? How about this: "But my psuedoscience is false and useless." There's a but you can grab ahold of and keep a good solid grip on, unlike your flimsy little buts of fluff and nonsense. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	*But we could* send a human to mars....** (none / 0) (#82)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 10:22:35 AM PST

	Not that they would land safely (judging by the last two unmanned Mars missions). I dont think they'd mind though, as unless we somehow figured out how to build spaceships made out of lead 6ft thick they'd get cooked on the journey there by the solar radiation. Interestingly that last point is one of the most compelling arguments as to why the Moon landings were faked. Also, the pictures were quite good quality considering they used a fairly bog standard Kodak camera and were taken in what amounts to a sea of X/gamma/(insert favourite radiation band here)-Rays, dont you think? Either way, until we figure out how to build a long lasting power supply that can drive a big electromagnet to simulate the earths magnetic field in order to shield a spaceship from the solar wind and thats light enough to be taken into space on the shuttle or simple enough to be launched in parts and assembled in space, leaving this planet is pure science fiction. -- Nick I like my cat. Her hair is nearly as long as mine, and she insists on being groomed every day by me because she likes me too. She probably hates you though.

	Why astrology is incorrect (none / 0) (#24)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 06:57:51 AM PST

	"Getting accurate astrological information from newspapers and magazines is like getting computer science information from slashdroids" Okay fair point. I appologise. "Real astrologers cast charts based on the year, month, day, hour and second of your birth." This is the problem I have. They have to know you birth date exactly? What if they get it wrong by a second? My birth certificate doesnt even mention seconds. What clock are we supposed to use? Im sure the hospital clocks are that precise. And define when "birth" happens? Is it the moment when the head appears? or the whole body? Or is it shortly after conception. At best, astrology can only predict based on the nearest 15 minutes you were born on. And im SURE there are other people born at the same time as me who are vastly different - something which astrology doesnt deal with. I believe in astrology like I believe in the Force out of star wars. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Why potatoError is a cute. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:56:01 PM PST

	And define when "birth" happens? You strike me as someone who is rather young and I dont want to get you all excited.

	Dear Sir, (none / 0) (#52)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 09:56:06 PM PST

	Clearly you are the one who is confused. Astrology has to do with the study of the cosmos. What you describe, horoscopes, are the field of astronomers, who then interpret the finding of astrologers to very acuratly predict what will happen on earth using the Chaos theory. If you had actually read the article, and followed the links, you would be aware of this. Our society owes much to astologers. For example, who do you thing found the cosmic background radation proving that there was a giant explosion that spewed it's contents into space. Only fools, like yourself belive that time and space was somehow "created" during this huge explosion. Clearly this cannot be logical. How can space or time be created? Can you imagine that? In fact, these same puedo-scientists belive that space itself is expanding! Poppycocks I say. Clearly, the matter in our universe is moving at a high rate of speed away from the center of the universe. -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.

	argh (none / 0) (#56)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:29:26 PM PST

	Astrology - Astronomy. Im not going to be tricked into screwing it up - This is one point which my physics teacher managed to drum into my head. When you have an exam with a topic called Astronomy you pretty much remember the dreadful name and its meaning for the rest of eternity. The universe has no centre - otherwise it would have an outside :) I can never be sure if you really are serious or if you are trying to wind me up. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Dear Sir (none / 0) (#58)
	by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 10:48:48 PM PST

	Of course the universe has a center, it's where the big bang occured. As many physicscs and astrologer agree, the big band happened in the center of our universe, and everything is rushing away from it at a high velocity, almost as fast as the speed of light in a vacuum. As I said, it would be foolish to belive in some fairy tail like space expanding, just as it would be foolish to belive that there is a cheese king of the moon. However nobody knows for sure, have you been to the moon to see for yourself? If you have not, then you are just relying on somebody else telling you that such a king does not exist. This is the problem with science today. Just because we can't claim is does exist immediatly triggers us to respond that it certianly does not exist. Take god: scientists will tell you god most certainly does not exist because we cannot prove it's existance. Does this not sound silly? Do see my other post about god - obviously we need another method to implore about such things. -- Dr Martino Cortez, PhD CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation Copyright © 2002, Martino Cortez.