Wyz_sub10

Agreed.

Also agreed....but!...astrology has to demonstrate consistency - it has to show that there is something consistent worth explaining.

Quote:

A claim 'Astrology is a pseudoscience - there is nothing scientific about it', is yunk or politics, but not a scientific result of methods.

It isn't politics. I have no vested interest for or against astrology. When I was younger, I was quite open to astrology. But the data was not there to support it. There needn't be a scientific method in place to disprove astrology.

Quote:

'If two medicine Doctors are agree, then one of both is not a Doctor.' You comes up with persons, not with valid arguments against the science of astrology.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.

Quote:

You can ignore astrology, but you cannot judge about it, powered by a belief in the religion of science and its 'Gods'. It is a religious claim of believing scientists, to discredit astrology.

Science is not a belief system - you said so yourself. So what are you saying here? That science is science unless it does not credit astrology, then it becomes religion?

Come on, you must know how bad that sounds. Scientists do not work to discredit astrology. There is nothing to gain by doing so.

It was be immeasurably beneficial to be able to predict things like earthquakes. If astrology could do this, why would mainstream science not embrace it - or at least this part of it?

Quote:

There is nothing of scientific methods to be shown by this believers. Still superstition. No serious scientists would judge about QM or GR in this way, lacking in knowlede of the matter.

You are saying, if I understand you, that science does not support astrology because they do not understand it? Then why does mainstream science support QM, or plate techtonics, or evolution, even though most scientist do not specialize in it?

Quote:

It is your forum. I think, I have given a lot of specific reasonable arguments, relating to the subject. And my impression is, that there was no adequate counterarguments ever.

Honestly Volker, I think there have been some valid challenges that you have simply ignored. I cannot provide a counterargument to something for which no argument exists.

You say there is a correlation between celestial bodies and character. Yet, I do not see proof of this. If I could see this proof, then we could try to explain it. As it stands, you have an explanation for something that is not even demonstrated to be true.

Quote:

From my side you can close the thread.That's the joke of the day. I have never seen a scientific proof or paper, that a specific individual character of a being can be proved from DNA. It is still a superstition of pseudoscientists. Volker

I said DNA + environment, but I could still find you papers to support DNA-based traits to some degree. Can you match that with an explanation of how celestial bodies "give" you character?

Wyz_sub10

Volker, there are still defined limits and it is still one rotation. There is a date line that still encompasses one earth circumference.

It is never the 25 in one place and the 27 in another - it's still a span of 24, and only 24, hours.

Volker.Doormann

I have said, that a date is 'a moving point on earth' and 'at the same time UTC there can be different dates in Australia and Hawaii. This means, that if it has a date of 28th in Sydney the date moves to the 27th in Honolulu. No one can claim a date of only on number (i.e. 27th) as definend fix on earth. Your arguments did not affect this.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

Blaah, Blaah. I am off.

Volker.Doormann

Wyz_sub10,

I have given lot of data, and a lot of arguments in this long thread.

No one of this data or arguments were accepted as data, or were verified in an adequate scientific manner. Still abusing science to claim the superstitions of all the poster here in total, directed to a science, which they have absolute no knowledge about. I will do my examination on EQ further on, but I do finish my answering and posting to this thread.

Thank you.

I am off.

Armchair dissident

The data was based on flawed algorithms and assumptions, and the arguments were routinely shown to be invalid, much less sound.
You did not recognise the counter-arguments. You insisted - despite all evidence to the contrary - that you were right. That does not mean the arguments against you were not there, and that they were not valid. Indeed; when valid arguments were put to you, you ignored them, and failed to respond.

It's nice to know that you alone of all people on earth have the absolute truth. It's just a shame that - like religion - you can neither prove it, nor demonstrate it's usefulness.

I doubt it.

echidna

And when questioned in detail over this data, you repeatedly failed / refused to answer questions. Disappointing, because for a moment I hoped you were even just a little more substantial than all the other quack astrologers out there.

For future reference, if you are ever seeking to "prove" a hypothesis in future, please be prepared to explain it in substantially more detail than you have been able to on this occasion.