Who will win January 8, 2015 for Governor? Will Astrology and Astronomy combined, tell us?
Astrological analysis of the top 2 voter getters, keeping in mind that the 3rd, Dan Feliciano, might win – a meteor may fly over Montpelier, a falling star could hit the Capital Dome, so don’t discount Dan; after all, I think he and his wife are definitely the friendliest of the bunch!
PETER
Looking first at Peter Shumlin, he was born on March 24, 1956 in Brattleboro, Vermont with his natal Jupiter in 22 degrees Leo.
Jupiter takes 12 years to Orbit the Sun. It is utterly amazing that on January 8, 2015 Jupiter will be in 21 degrees Leo. That’s like hitting the bulls-eye.
www.astrology-x-files.com/transits/jupiter-cj-jupiter.html
“Transiting Jupiter conjunct your natal Jupiter…. happens once every 12 years starting from the birthdate…. reflects a change in philosophy and potential lifestyle changes based upon widening opportunities.
… an optimistic time…a time of learning and re-adjustment. … a good period for writing and publishing. … a good time for a first contact with a lawyer…
…represents a time of deepening religious convictions.”
SCOTT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Milne
Scott Milne (born March 10, 1959) hits a different bulls-eye on
January 8, 2015 when the General Assembly will vote for
Governor at 10:00 a.m. in Montpelier, Vermont.
Scott was born with his “North Node” in 13 degrees of Libra,
and just by pure luck, on Jan. 8, 2015 the North Node
will be in precisely 13 degrees of Libra.
www.elizabethspring.com/North_Node__South_Node.html
“The North Node is the single most important point in the chart
…describes what your Soul wants to learn and experience in this life.
It is a Soul Messenger.”
PETER
Now, let’s look at Peter Shumlin’s astrology chart again,
born with Saturn in 2 degrees Sagittarius in 1956.
By utter and outright coincidence, on Jan. 8, 2015
Saturn will be in 1.5 degree Sagittarius, so what does that mean?
It takes Saturn 29.45 years to Orbit the Sun.
www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/005354.html
“This transit is known in astrology as the Saturn Return…
every 29 years… reviewing your life through new, more mature eyes.
… your past comes under close scrutiny…. face life with a new maturity.
… new responsibilities to be shouldered…”
SCOTT
On Jan. 8, 2015 three planets, Mercury, Venus and Mars
will all be in Aquarius, an air sign. Air feeds Fire, just like
Water nourishes Earth. With these three air signs like a
card hand with 3 of a kind, Scott is more likely than Peter
to be the one who benefits because Scott
apparently has Moon, Mercury and Venus in the
Fire sign of Aries. (Air feeds Fire).
Peter, on the other hand, has Moon, Venus and Mars
in Earth signs and Mercury in a Water sign.
He won’t be nourished by Mercury, Venus and Mars in
Aquarius – Air on Jan. 8, 2015.
So, as an entirely amateur astrologer (and I’m waiting for
real astrologers to speak up!), I see this as a total
wait-and-see situation. Both these men should be
experiencing an astrological life event on Jan. 8, 2015.
There are lots of online places to get free astrology
charts for a person’s birthday, or an event. I enjoy
using www.alabe.com
Solar system:
www.solarsystem.nasa.gov
“The four planets closest to the sun — Mercury, Venus,
Earth, and Mars — are called the terrestrial planets
because they have solid, rocky surfaces.
Two of the outer planets beyond the orbit of Mars —
Jupiter and Saturn — are known as gas giants; the more
distant Uranus and Neptune are called ice giants.”
Solar System Map www.maps.com/ref_map.aspx?pid=12865
A curious relic of the primitive mind
Astrology is merely another belief system, with absolutely no scientific merit except as a curious relic of the primitive mind, both today and in the past.
a curious relic
Vidda,
While I enjoy reading your views on different subjects, especially politics, your statment about astrology is off base. Your view of astrology is itself a relic of its own belief system. To be clear, I am not talking about newspaper horoscopes, but legitimate astrology. Without a doubt, there is the question of what constitutes legitimate astrology. Astrology is both an art and science. The art aspect involves intuition and counseling skills, and the scientific aspect requires an accurate birth time, spherical trigonometry, an ephemeris, and use of logarithm tables.
And there has been a few scientific studies that supports specific aspects of astrology (sun sign is NOT one of them), the most notable studies done by French statistician Michel Gauquelin which noted a link between planets on the horizon or midheaven at the time of birth and the careers of individuals.
And as we are discovering that the universe is not empty space, but rather electromagnetically charged, the support for the physical explanation of magnetohydrodynamics becomes more feasible.
The current dismissal of astrology without examination is not science, it is belief.
I started studying astrology to find out for myself if there was anything to it, and what I found was not soothsaying or wish-fulfillment but a coherent system that has helped me understand myself (and others) in ways that were not previously possible. I rate it as the best typology system available, with Myers/Briggs second.
It’s very fashionable to take pot-shots at astrology without even looking into it, people use it to make themselves feel more “skeptical.” We could definitely use some skepticism instead of a priori assumptions about a subject unknown to the writer.
A very curious George
That’s why I prefer casting bones. The science and mathematic formulae explaining their trajectory and rotation from release their ultimate landing position is unassailable. It’s the interpretation that’s pure balderdash.
ASTRONOMY is a Science
That’s about all I will say on the subject.
Astronomy is...
…indeed a science, Rolf, and one of the ‘magnetoscopes’ that turns worlds.
And to round things out...
Science requires belief in the scientific method.
Coming out of Blackout...Stay Tuned
…so just saw this. Okay guys, let me collect some thought and I’ll be back…if this arctic blast doesn’t take out the power again…
Not enough to build a typology sys where none is known to exist
DavidT,et al
My philosophies are an estimation and explanation of realities as best as I can make them. Knowing that you enjoy one discipline of mine but not another gives me a half-full glass kind of feeling – which is fine.
While I haven’t much to say on newspaper astrology, to the best of my knowledge the best universities do not have accredited degrees in astrology (for good reason).
Moreover, while some people consider astrology an art and science, it is more treated like a pseudoscience. Art, as held more in the eye of the beholder, can easily be assigned to ‘creative’ astrology.
However, by stating that my “dismissal of astrology without examination is not science, it is belief” – is pure conjecture on your part because on these community pages you could not possibly know what ‘examinations’ I have made… or not.
I should say that as a nonbeliever I am not possessed of beliefs and it would not occur to me to express any. I am delighted in saying that science is self-correcting and subject to change, yet a wonderful and engaging “study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” None of which is accomplished through a requirement of “belief in the scientific method.”
The mysteries of our singular universe fascinate me, but not enough to build a typology system where none is known or proven to exist.
Just a couple of points
‘However, by stating that my “dismissal of astrology without examination is not science, it is belief” – is pure conjecture on your part because on these community pages you could not possibly know what ‘examinations’ I have made… or not.’
Yes, this is conjecture on my part, so let me ask, what examinations have you made? One would think you would have presented any scientific evidence if you had it.
‘I should say that as a nonbeliever I am not possessed of beliefs and it would not occur to me to express any.’
I know this is going to be a shocker for you–but you do in fact have a belief system! Everyone does. Whether that belief system is grounded in consensus reality or not is a different question. Everything we think we know about the universe is just a statement of how our nervous systems are interacting with energy and molecules around it. To ascribe an independent “out there” is not accurate, but a manner of thinking and speaking. The observer determines and conditions the observed, this is now a scientific fact of quantum physics. The classic on these matters is still the seminal “Nature of Physical Reality” by late Yale professor Henry Margenau.
The scientific method itself is not in question, it is undoubtedly the best method we have to for observation in the physical world. It is the body of accumulated data known as scientific knowledge that requires belief. Here is an example: the Bering Strait land bridge theory. A plausible theory when first proposed, there has been so much contradictory data produced in the following decades that no one who examines the evidence would be able to conclude that the data supports the theory. There is a huge body of evidence against it in the fields of linguistics, genetics, archaeology, and geology. Paleoclimatologists get a good laugh with the belief in this theory, they know it is extremely unlikely nomads would have been able to cross the glaciers existing at the time. This house of cards was predicated on the “scientific” observation at the time that “Indians didn’t build seaworthy vessels.” Why do we still cling to disproven theories as part of our scientific knowledge? “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn answers that question.
‘…to build a typology system where none is known or proven to exist.’ No typology system has ever been “proven to exist.” Typologies are useful or not depending on whether they can be used to extract useful information. Success criteria for typology systems is whether or not the individual benefits from the information. Scientific validation in this case is only statistical.
So, it a nutshell, we all have beliefs and belief systems. Some are aligned with consensus reality, some are not. One more example: the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow (or I should say, the earth will keep turning tomorrow). If I do not have any personal experience with measuring the parameters involved in calculating orbits and planetary rotation, then my assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief based on the authority of science. In this case, it is a useful belief because I can then plan for tomorrow. But understand it is a statistical probability, not a certainty. There are only 2 types of knowledge: personal experience and authority (Margenau, ibid).
One other major factor that impacts this discussion is money. Acedemia is a slave to the university funding system, so if a professor wanders outside the realm of the moneyed interests, (s)he may lose tenure and respectability. Let’s face it, studying astrology is not profitable or respectable. There are no products to be manufactured with this knowledge, so why would investors be interested in that? No, scientists will scurry back to their Lethal Dose 50 tests in which they mass murder rodents to produce a new floor cleaner or antacid. That is where the money is.
A "leading principle" of science
cgrotke points out that science requires faith in the scientific method.
Philosophy of Science analyzes the scientific method, and the logic structure of science. A key element in scientific thought is the notion of causality, about which much has been written.
In order to understand and explain the world’s phenomena, science relies on causality, yet philosophers of science understand that the principle that everything has a cause cannot be confirmed nor can it be disproven. Causality is not a hypothesis or a theory because in science a hypothesis or theory must be refutable.
But causality cannot be refuted because if you found a phenomena with no apparent cause, you would not say, “The idea of causality is hereby refused,” but rather you would say, “We have not yet found the cause of that phenomena.”
Yet science relies so heavily on the notion of causality, as to make science impossible without it. So philosophers of science resolve that dilemma by saying that causality is a leading principle of science.
Personally I have no problem with that: Science is a powerful tool, and causality is necessary for it to work.
For similar reasons I have no problem with religious faith. Both science and religion rely on faith. Both are powerful. Both can be important to our lives.
Support for science
DavidT makes excellent points about real science being an unbiased, objective examination of the facts. He points out that it is unscientific to dismiss astrology without testing it.
I have wondered why it seems that no one has ever defined what a fair test of astrology would be: Supporters and detractors simply took sides, each making assertions.
Previous to reading what DavidT wrote, I had not heard of the work of Michel Gauquelin. I want to read about it, and I plan to comment later. For now though, I want to support DavidT’s reasonable suggestion that — like any other hypothesis or theory — astrology should be examined fairly and objectively.
Will the Planets Magnetic Force Help Peter Pull Himself Together
Vidda,
Let me help you understand the “utterly amazing” part of the
astronomy here. Set aside the astrology for a moment, O.K.?
Each planet travels through constellations of stars.
Over history, the constellations of stars have been given names,
just like the planets.
Leo is a constellation of stars, and so are the other
astrological “signs”.
When a planet travels through an astrological sign,
in astronomy,
it means the planet is travelling through a
constellation
which has the same name in astronomy.
The planet Jupiter takes 12 years to travel in orbit
around the Sun, during which time Jupiter passes through
12 constellations.
So, at the time you are born,
Jupiter just happens to be travelling through a
constellation with a name, and that name in
astronomy, is also used for the same constellation
in astrology.
So, for the pure facts of science of when and where a
planet is, and what constellation it is travelling through
in its orbit around the sun, these facts are the same for
astronomy and for astrology.
Astrology just takes a leap further, by observation of
human behaviour over hundreds of years.
If you ignore the astrology, the study of behaviour of people
born on different dates of the year,
and ignore the predictions
based on study of human behaviour of people with certain
astrological signs,
and just look at the astronomy only,
you will see that this situation January 8, 2015
is quite surprising.
On Jan. 8, 2015,
Jupiter comes around a 12 year orbit of the Sun and ends up
in the same part (degree) of the same Constellation (Leo) that
it is was in on the day Governor Peter Shumlin of Vermont was born.
That is a very surprising coincidence.
Also, on Jan. 8, 2015, Saturn, which has a 29 year Orbit around the
Sun, comes to the same part (within a degree) of the same
Constellation (Sagittarius) that it was in when governor Peter Shumlin was born. That is a very surprising coincidence.
So, skipping the astrology, and just looking at the pure science of
astronomy,
there are 2 major coincidences, one which can only
happen once every 12 years,
and one which can only happen
every 29 years.
The fact that 2 coincidences occur on the same
day is exceptionally surprising.
Now, whether or not Governor Peter Shumlin feels a magnetic
pull, we’ll just have to wait and see.
Maybe he can pull himself
together and pull this whole thing off, get himself re-elected.
If he does,
as usual,
I’ll run against him in 2016.
Cris Ericson
http://crisericson.com
Oh I do think you mean well Cris...
But as Carl Sagan said to one of his students a long time ago when pressed about an astrological bent to astronomy, he said something like, that, the metal cabinets in the delivery room would have more of an impact on the destiny of the newborn than some distant planetary bodies and space rocks could have…
Sagan quote
This Sagan quote if oft used (misquoted here–Sagan says the doctor exerts a greater gravitational force on the newborn than the planet Mars), but no intelligent astrologer claims that the mechanism of astrology is gravity, so the statement is meaningless.
It is interesting to note that Carl Sagan, demigod of the rationalists, believed that ancient Sumer was visited by extraterrestrials. When I say he “believed” I mean he examined the evidence and developed an opinion based on available data. Even the legendary Carl Sagan has a belief system!
Constellations - mythological figures
Here comes an opinion – personally, even at young age with plenty of night sky and a carpet of stars above me I have always thought the idea of and giving names to star positions truly one of the sillier holdovers from ancient astrology. Constellations are the product of primitive imaginations back then by people who didn’t even have crayons, much less an iPad.
Astronomy should have dropped those so-called recognizable patterns named after mythological figures a long time ago.
silly holdover
I think naming celestial objects is fine. There already is a scientific nomenclature for celestial objects. Identifying star patterns was essential to oceanic navigation. I think saying “the whirlpool galaxy” is more poetic than M51a. Scientific nomenclature arose because of regional differences in common names.
So if you need a high degree of accuracy, you would say “M51a, Right Ascension 13h 29m 53s, Declination 47° 11.718′”
In common speech, “the Whirlpool Galaxy in Canes Venatici” suffices, and actually, would allow me to find the celestial object in question more quickly than calculating right ascension and declination.
So while the origins of constellation patterns likely derive from paleolithic observation of the night sky, it doesn’t detract from their usefulness.
This makes sense
At last an analysis worth reading.
Mirth
How droll…
Does this mean that if
Does this mean that if Shumlin doesn’t run Chris will bow out of the competition also? Somehow I find that hard to believe….and I get my info from things the the Man in the Moon whispers in my ear and reading bear scat.
lol!
I know that’s a stupid acronym but there’s not many ways to ‘laugh out loud’ in print.
Whenever Nonbelievers Engage Belief-dependent People
I opened my desktop this morning to find it unresponsive. I shifted to my old HP Mini, with it’s reduced capacity with limited tedious speed. Getting my desktop repaired and up to speed is an involved process: scheduling an appointment with the best PC guy I know in town, financial concerns, etc. My regret isn’t that I cannot reply to DavidT or others here on iBrattleboro in detail, it is that, as a writer my writing (typing) and research is at an agonizing snails pace, and all my projects are on hold.
So…
For now I will say that whenever nonbelievers engage belief-dependent people attempting to merge belief systems with knowledge and science (astrology with astronomy; religion with science, etc., etc.) we enter different worlds that are not compatible and can never be reconciled.
(Crap, this feels like I’m on a computer back in 1997. Time for a glass of sherry, cheese snack, good reading light and a great Victorian murder mystery by Giles Brandreth. Giles, get me the hell outta here!) ~
belief dependent
I’m not sure I stressed this enough—we all have belief systems. This is a widely accepted scientific psychological fact. Every single person has a belief system, no exceptions, not even you. Have you studied epistemology? It’s often incredibly boring, but to understand knowledge you must understand how that knowledge is obtained.
So to insinuate anyone who disagrees with you is belief-dependent while you yourself are not is a most ridiculous statement. The average person who has not studied epistemology, human perception, and reality constructs might make such a statement, but if you educate yourself on what we know and how we know it, you would understand you have created a reality tunnel for yourself just like everyone else.
Of course, if you want a really incendiary idea to get a debate going, here you go–I am a believer in consciousness. Yes, it’s true, I firmly believe I have a consciousness that interacts with the world. This is the real crazy part: I believe that consciousness/energy is the primary mode of the universe and matter is secondary (“trapped energy”).
belief dependent
I’m not sure I stressed this enough—we all have belief systems. This is a widely accepted scientific psychological fact. Every single person has a belief system, no exceptions, not even you. Have you studied epistemology? It’s often incredibly boring, but to understand knowledge you must understand how that knowledge is obtained.
So to insinuate anyone who disagrees with you is belief-dependent while you yourself are not is a most ridiculous statement. The average person who has not studied epistemology, human perception, and reality constructs might make such a statement, but if you educate yourself on what we know and how we know it, you would understand you have created a reality tunnel for yourself just like everyone else.
Of course, if you want a really incendiary idea to get a debate going, here you go–I am a believer in consciousness. Yes, it’s true, I firmly believe I have a consciousness that interacts with the world. This is the real crazy part: I believe that consciousness/energy is the primary mode of the universe and matter is secondary (“trapped energy”).
consciously "belief dependent"
DavidT points out that the person who realizes that his or her beliefs can create a bias is more likely to be self-critical and objective than the individual who is uncritical of his own fixed ideas.