More Probabilities (Astrological Nakshatras and Padas)

[Guest guest]

Namaste friends,

I want to go further with the probability analysis for the benefit of

those who have a background in mathematics and modern science and

intend to apply it to astrology research.

This analysis will dramatically strengthen the argument that the

findings of Moses don't mean anything.

Anyone who's listened to what i've been saying will know quite clearly that i

have yet to claim that the results definitely mean something. I began by

stating my initial results using a small sample size, and asking if the

corresponding nakshatras and padas had any significance, because i was curious.

With this small sample size, i determined that there may be something

significant, and am looking into it further.

> Actually it's even more than this. The actual arc that i used was

five

> degrees, so it's .725, meaning that 27.5% should be the average. And

since

> the nodes and all four angles are guaranteed to be in different

locations, it

> would actually be a bit higher than this. However, this seems

strange to me

> compared to what seemed to be seeing amongst the charts i looked at,

but i'll

> know more soon.

Well, the calculation is based on the assumption that each planet's

position has a uniform distribution in the zodiac. We assumed that the

probability that a planet is within 2.5 deg (BTW, thanks for

updating/correcting 2 deg as 2.5 deg) from a point is 355/360. The

fact that your sample set is small introduces some deviation. But,

even if you take 50,000 examples, still the expected percentage can be

differewnt for different points in the zodiac. The reason for this is

that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto move very slowly (I don't know abouyt

some other bodies you considered, like Chiron). Their positions in a

chosen period may NOT have a uniform ditribution across the entire

zodiac!

No doubt about it, and i certainly already recognized this. However, if say, 13

Leo, tropical comes up far more significantly than say, 5 Leo, or 22 Leo, then

we still might want to wonder why, right? Pluto and Uranus would have gone over

all of these degrees, so that would even the score, at least within certain

territories where the outer planets have been travelling.

Let me demonstrate this for 20deg Cn (sidereal) or 13 deg Le

(tropical) - your 49% point.

You haven't given the birthdata of your 52 astrologers, but let me

make the assumption that most of them were born in 1941-1960.

Let me give the sidereal Vedic positions during this time. Uranus was

between 29.5 deg in Ar and 2 deg in Le. Neptune was between 4.5 deg in

Vi and 17.5 deg in Li. Pluto was between 10.5 deg in Cn and 14.5 deg

in Le.

If we compute the probabilities of NOT being within 2.5 deg from 20

deg in Cn (sidereal), it is NOT 355/360 as calculated earlier. For

Uranus, it is 87.5/92.5. For Neptune, it is 1. For Pluto, it is 29/34.

Assuming other planets (incl Chiron) had a uniform distribution in the

zodiac for the sample set, the probability that NONE of the planets

was within 2.5 deg from 20 deg Cn is ((355/360) power 20) x

(87.5/92.5) x 1 x (29/34). It is 0.6. See that 1-0.6 is 0.4, i.e. 40%.

So 40% of ALL the people born in the period have atleast one of the 23

bodies within 2.5 deg from the point you chose. Well, if 49% of all

astrologers born in the period have the same thing, it is not really

significant. Considering that your sample set is small, 49 is not

considerably higher than 40.

Bottomline: Your findings don't have any significance. Sorry friend,

but I've already given the reasons.

Bottomline: i never said they did, but i am curious, and i am very interested to

find out if they do or not, after further testing. How scientific is it to say

that my findings do not have any significance before you or i have done any

further testing? Maybe you should wait before offering your pronouncement, as i

am. I'll admit that what i am searching for seems to be a longshot, but i found

interesting enough results already that i am personally interested in finding

out more.

Another fine point: We assumed planets to have a uniform distribution

in the arcs they traversed during 1941-1960. If Uranus, Neptune or

Pluto was retrograde at a point in this period and spent a long time

there, it will skew the probability near that point!

No, this is not a big concern, as much as it would be for say, Jupiter or

Saturn. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto go retrograde ever year, and on average do

not spend much more time on any certain degrees because of this, especially

Pluto and Neptune. For example, Pluto moves about two degrees forward, overall,

every year, so it doesn't have time to skip over certain degrees, like Saturn

could, for example. Anyone who works with the outer planets will recognize

this. And even if we do factor in this difference, who's to say it might not

even make the data even stronger? It could go either way.

Pluto spent about 40 months around your 49% point in late 40s and

early 50s. Millions of people were born during that time. Presumably,

a very small percentage of them were astrologers. Not only your

current findings are statistically insignificant, but they will be

USELESS even if they turn out to be statistically significant after

more research with a huge sample set. One can';t make any predictions

with it.

Easy, Narasimha. Without a doubt my current findings are statistically

insignificant, as i thoroughly admit. But if they turn out to be statistically

significant, they will not be useless. They could provide great leads for

further testing, like wondering if it is say, Mercury that comes up a lot

around 13 Leo; then that could be direct proof that Mercury in padas 1 or 2 of

Ashlesha could be a statistically significant placement for astrologers. Or

this information could be some evidence of the importance of the planetary

nodes, which are at more-or-less fixed positions. And bottomline, it would be

interesting to know, and who knows what other information could come out of it.

> What i'm just as interested in is this: The northern heliocentric

planetary

> node of Neptune is around 12 Leo. If this degree comes up in the

tropical

Now, what is this "planetary node of Neptune"? When I asked you for

the total number of bodies you considered, you listed 23 bodies. But

you did NOT mention this. By "north and south nodes", did you mean the

nodes of all planets? Then the probability I calculated is wrong. The

percentage will be MUCH HIGHER (with more bodies considered). Can you

answer that question accurately and give the correct number of bodies?

Did you consider planetary nodes of all planets? How many nodes did

you consider? Do these nodes move fast or slowly? What is the total

arc traversed by this north node of Neptune during the time period of

interest?

Narasimha, i did give you the correct number of bodies that i looked at, which

was 23. It is not higher. The planets have nodes, similar to the way in which

the moon has nodes. The moon's nodes move very rapidly, while the planetary

nodes move incredibly slowly. They stay essentially fixed around the same point

during any generation.

This would mean that any planets around 11.48 Leo, tropical, are conjunct the

northern heliocentric planetary node of Neptune. If (please notice the if, my

friend) it turns that that a statistically significant number of astrologers

have any placements, or certain placements, around this degree, then it could

be one more thing to consider in defense of the special nature of the degrees

around which the planetary nodes fall. Since the first three degrees that i

came up with turned out to be close to planetary nodes, it struck me as

possibly significant. And btw, i had no intention at all to notice this

connection. It occurred to me after i looked at everything.

Of course what i have found might not amount to anything, which would be fine

with me. I'm just curious enough to check and find out.

I cannot speak very eloquently about the heliocentric planetary nodes, because i

do not know a great deal about them. But if you are interested in knowing more,

there is a page from Carl Payne Tobey on them at:

www.flash.net/~blhill/pages.aux/astrology/tobey/tobey.14.html

If you considered nodes other than lunar nodes, then 40% actually

becomes much higher. With 8 more nodes considered and the

probabilities for node pairs and angles calculated correctly, the

probability becomes

1 - [ (355/360)power15 x (350/360)power9 x (340/360) x (87.5/92.5) x 1

x (29/34)]

= 0.52.

So 52% of ALL people born in 1941-1960 had one of the 31 bodies

(including 8 additional nodes) within 2.5 deg from your 49% point.

What if 49% the astrologers you considered had the same thing? Big

deal.

No, not at all, Narahimsa. As i said before, i used 23 bodies, no more.

If you consider 1900-1975 instead of 1941-1960, then 46% of ALL the

people born in the period had one of the 31 bodies in the 5 deg arc.

Again, 46% and 49% - your finding means nothing.

> If this is the case, then i think this study just might be an

intelligent

> formulation, complete with a sanity check.

:-) It's easy to say it, but tough to back up. I've already given you

pointers on this and dissected some of your findings. I may be able to

throw further light if I understand the second part of what you are

doing better (nodes etc).

Statistical studies done without intelligent sanity checks and clear

understanding will only lead to scientists making a mincemeat of

astrologers. Our community needs to be more intelligent.

Yes, you are certainly right. I assume you are not speaking of me, however,

since i had yet to claim anything for certain. I came here asking for possible

connections with the nakshatras and padas, hoping that i could perhaps find

significant statistical evidence of certain degrees or nakshatras or padas

being astrological in nature, since there is some tradition both east and west

to claim this. I am hoping to gain some clearer proof or disproof of this. And

yet you seem to be insinuating that what i am doing is not intelligent or sane,

which i find insulting, and incorrect.

You may disagree with me, but Vedic astrology has the answers to a lot

of questions. It allows far more intelligent formulations and

studies.If one learns real Vedic astrology from a competent teacher,

one will be able to do much more useful statistical studies.

Good for you Narahimsa, i love Vedic astrology as well as western astrology. But

how can you claim that Vedic astrology 'allows far more intelligent formulations

and studies?' There are countless intelligent formulations and studies that one

can conduct with either Vedic or Western astrology. I'm sure you recognize

this.

peace and aloha to you and all,

moses

www.astrologyforthesoul.com

> thanks again my friend,

> love and aloha,

> moses

My pleasure. Good luck anyway.

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Namaste friends,

 

I want to go further with the probability analysis for the benefit of

those who have a background in mathematics and modern science and

intend to apply it to astrology research.

 

This analysis will dramatically strengthen the argument that the

findings of Moses don't mean anything.

 

> Actually it's even more than this. The actual arc that i used was

five

> degrees, so it's .725, meaning that 27.5% should be the average. And

since

> the nodes and all four angles are guaranteed to be in different

locations, it

> would actually be a bit higher than this. However, this seems

strange to me

> compared to what seemed to be seeing amongst the charts i looked at,

but i'll

> know more soon.

 

Well, the calculation is based on the assumption that each planet's

position has a uniform distribution in the zodiac. We assumed that the

probability that a planet is within 2.5 deg (BTW, thanks for

updating/correcting 2 deg as 2.5 deg) from a point is 355/360. The

fact that your sample set is small introduces some deviation. But,

even if you take 50,000 examples, still the expected percentage can be

differewnt for different points in the zodiac. The reason for this is

that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto move very slowly (I don't know abouyt

some other bodies you considered, like Chiron). Their positions in a

chosen period may NOT have a uniform ditribution across the entire

zodiac!

 

Let me demonstrate this for 20deg Cn (sidereal) or 13 deg Le

(tropical) - your 49% point.

 

You haven't given the birthdata of your 52 astrologers, but let me

make the assumption that most of them were born in 1941-1960.

 

Let me give the sidereal Vedic positions during this time. Uranus was

between 29.5 deg in Ar and 2 deg in Le. Neptune was between 4.5 deg in

Vi and 17.5 deg in Li. Pluto was between 10.5 deg in Cn and 14.5 deg

in Le.

 

If we compute the probabilities of NOT being within 2.5 deg from 20

deg in Cn (sidereal), it is NOT 355/360 as calculated earlier. For

Uranus, it is 87.5/92.5. For Neptune, it is 1. For Pluto, it is 29/34.

 

Assuming other planets (incl Chiron) had a uniform distribution in the

zodiac for the sample set, the probability that NONE of the planets

was within 2.5 deg from 20 deg Cn is ((355/360) power 20) x

(87.5/92.5) x 1 x (29/34). It is 0.6. See that 1-0.6 is 0.4, i.e. 40%.

 

So 40% of ALL the people born in the period have atleast one of the 23

bodies within 2.5 deg from the point you chose. Well, if 49% of all

astrologers born in the period have the same thing, it is not really

significant. Considering that your sample set is small, 49 is not

considerably higher than 40.

 

Bottomline: Your findings don't have any significance. Sorry friend,

but I've already given the reasons.

 

Another fine point: We assumed planets to have a uniform distribution

in the arcs they traversed during 1941-1960. If Uranus, Neptune or

Pluto was retrograde at a point in this period and spent a long time

there, it will skew the probability near that point!

 

Pluto spent about 40 months around your 49% point in late 40s and

early 50s. Millions of people were born during that time. Presumably,

a very small percentage of them were astrologers. Not only your

current findings are statistically insignificant, but they will be

USELESS even if they turn out to be statistically significant after

more research with a huge sample set. One can';t make any predictions

with it.

 

> What i'm just as interested in is this: The northern heliocentric

planetary

> node of Neptune is around 12 Leo. If this degree comes up in the

tropical

 

Now, what is this "planetary node of Neptune"? When I asked you for

the total number of bodies you considered, you listed 23 bodies. But

you did NOT mention this. By "north and south nodes", did you mean the

nodes of all planets? Then the probability I calculated is wrong. The

percentage will be MUCH HIGHER (with more bodies considered). Can you

answer that question accurately and give the correct number of bodies?

Did you consider planetary nodes of all planets? How many nodes did

you consider? Do these nodes move fast or slowly? What is the total

arc traversed by this north node of Neptune during the time period of

interest?

 

If you considered nodes other than lunar nodes, then 40% actually

becomes much higher. With 8 more nodes considered and the

probabilities for node pairs and angles calculated correctly, the

probability becomes

 

1 - [ (355/360)power15 x (350/360)power9 x (340/360) x (87.5/92.5) x 1

x (29/34)]

 

= 0.52.

 

So 52% of ALL people born in 1941-1960 had one of the 31 bodies

(including 8 additional nodes) within 2.5 deg from your 49% point.

What if 49% the astrologers you considered had the same thing? Big

deal.

 

If you consider 1900-1975 instead of 1941-1960, then 46% of ALL the

people born in the period had one of the 31 bodies in the 5 deg arc.

Again, 46% and 49% - your finding means nothing.

 

> If this is the case, then i think this study just might be an

intelligent

> formulation, complete with a sanity check.

 

:-) It's easy to say it, but tough to back up. I've already given you

pointers on this and dissected some of your findings. I may be able to

throw further light if I understand the second part of what you are

doing better (nodes etc).

 

Statistical studies done without intelligent sanity checks and clear

understanding will only lead to scientists making a mincemeat of

astrologers. Our community needs to be more intelligent.

 

You may disagree with me, but Vedic astrology has the answers to a lot

of questions. It allows far more intelligent formulations and

studies.If one learns real Vedic astrology from a competent teacher,

one will be able to do much more useful statistical studies.

 

> thanks again my friend,

> love and aloha,

> moses

 

My pleasure. Good luck anyway.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Initially i appreciated your help, but now you're quoting blatantly inaccurate

data, and i also do not appreciate your condescending attitude about all of

this. More below.

Aloha Moses,

> Anyone who's listened to what i've been saying will know quite

clearly that i

> have yet to claim that the results definitely mean something. I

began by

> stating my initial results using a small sample size, and asking if

the

> corresponding nakshatras and padas had any significance, because i

was

> curious. With this small sample size, i determined that there may be

> something significant, and am looking into it further.

You did not claim any conclusive results, but what I am saying is that

there isn't even an initial result here that should create much

interest! My point is that presenting something without doing the kind

of sanity checks that I demonstrated serves no purpose.

If a combination is found in 46% of ALL people and you find it

satisfied in 49% of astrologers, there is no correlation between the

combination and being an astrologer. Period.

No. You obtained the 46% figure from the calculations when you added 8 extra

points to the mix, and i clearly told you that these were not considered.

The sample size is from a vast range of time, going back to last century, and

using many, many astrologers from earlier this century, and even many centuries

before that. So:

1) Uranus: since Uranus has a roughly 84-year period, for our simple discussion,

Uranus's position should not be considered at all differently than any other

position. On the whole, it is not very favored in my tests in any certain

territories. The differences in its location should be very minimal in the

sample that i was using. So no change in the figures from Uranus's location.

2) Neptune: it is true that Neptune will show up more in some territories than

others in my sample data. In the time period that i used, Neptune had travelled

about half of the zodiac. So for simple purposes, for now, we can count Neptune

'twice' in the number of placements considered between 10 Gemini and 10 Sag,

since it's approximately twice as likely to come up between say, 10 Gemini and

10 Sag, tropically, in the time periods that i covered. This would make it more

likely in the zone between these degrees, and less likely in the zone beyond

these degrees. So to adjust we can change the number of parts looked at to: 24

for 10 Gemini to 10 Sag, and 22 for 10 Sag to 10 Gemini (instead of 23 for all)

3) Pluto: In the time that i surveyed, Pluto had travelled from about 10 Gemini

to about 10 Libra, which is about 1/3 of the zodiac. To simplify, we could

count these degrees as having 2 more placements, since Pluto is three times as

likely to come up in these ranges, and the degrees outside of these territories

of having 1 less placement. So the grand totals for a simple formula:

10 Gemini to 10 Libra: approximately 26 placements considered

10 Libra to 10 Sag: approximately 23 placements considered

10 Sag to 10 Gemini: approximately 21 placements considered

Granted this is not perfect, but it is very close to accurate. More on this below.

The main point that i made that you did not reply to is this: even if we factor

in the above influences for Neptune and Pluto (not Uranus), that would not

explain why certain degrees that Neptune and Pluto went over would be more or

less common than other degrees that Neptune and Pluto also went over, if this

is the case. This is obviously a very important point. And my point about the

relative uselessness of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto retrogrades in altering the data

was also understood, i assume.

So the updated percentages, of random chance for each territory, taking into

consideration the disproportionate influence of Neptune and Pluto, would be:

10 Gemini to 10 Libra: equivalent of 26 placements: 30.5% (355/360 x 26 power)

10 Libra to 10 Sag: equivalent of 23 placements: 27.5% (355/360 x 23 power)

10 Sag to 10 Gemini: equivalent of 21 placements: 25.5% (355/360 x 21 power)

These figures do not take into consideration the fact that the angles and the

nodes would be in different territories, so the results should be a bit more

than this, but not that much more. Even though these random likelihoods are a

bit lower than they should be, they are reasonably close.

Therefore, a finding of 49.0% was enough to make me think that i could be on to

something. Additionally, since this degree was conjunct the north node of

Neptune, and would correspond with early Ashlesha, i thought it might indeed

turn up some interesting statistical significance.

Bottom line: don't try to tell me that this is unintelligent, insane, or

insignificant, all of which you have insinuated, without investigating further.

That's unscientific, not to mention rude. While we're on the subject of

problematic information, would you like to discuss the many contradictions and

deceptions on your piece on the twins, on your website? I can list even more of

them than i did in my private email to you the other day.

As to the potential validity of these degrees in prediction: it could simply be

one other thing to consider, particularly if this information leads to

discovering more certainly which particular bodies show up in certain degree

territories. Of course no astrologer in their right mind would predict an

astrologer simply based on this information. We have lots of influences to

consider.

But more importantly if my initial results are to be found significant, which

they still might or might not be, it could yield clues to other kinds of

research leads. To me, any statistically significant astrological proof is

worth looking at, since we don't have enough of it in astrology. I'm simply

investigating.

much love and aloha to all,

moses

[Guest guest]

Aloha Moses,

 

> Anyone who's listened to what i've been saying will know quite

clearly that i

> have yet to claim that the results definitely mean something. I

began by

> stating my initial results using a small sample size, and asking if

the

> corresponding nakshatras and padas had any significance, because i

was

> curious. With this small sample size, i determined that there may be

 

> something significant, and am looking into it further.

 

You did not claim any conclusive results, but what I am saying is that

there isn't even an initial result here that should create much

interest! My point is that presenting something without doing the kind

of sanity checks that I demonstrated serves no purpose.

 

If a combination is found in 46% of ALL people and you find it

satisfied in 49% of astrologers, there is no correlation between the

combination and being an astrologer. Period.

 

> Bottomline: i never said they did, but i am curious, and i am very

interested

> to find out if they do or not, after further testing. How scientific

is it to

> say that my findings do not have any significance before you or i

have done

> any further testing? Maybe you should wait before offering your

> pronouncement, as i am. I'll admit that what i am searching for

seems to be a

 

Let me summarize what happened. You found 49% of the astrologers you

considered to have some planet/body within 2.5 deg from a particular

point. It appeared to me that 49% seemed like a big number to you.

Granted, you recognized that the sample set was small and wanted to

try a bigger sample set. To that extent, you were being rational.

 

But my point is that around the same percentage of ALL people are

mathematically expected to have some planet/body within 2.5 deg from

that point. Then 49% astrologers having it does not mean much. The

whole test is ill-conceived.

 

I did not give a subjective pronouncement, but offered a mathematical

argument.

 

Let me now offer another scenario. Suppose you tested a different

combination on the same 52 astrologers. Suppose it is satisfied only

in 10% of ALL people, but satisfied in 40% of the astrologers you

considered. THEN I will say that you may be onto something and ask you

to study with a bigger sample set. Your study did not do these basic

sanity checks.

 

> Easy, Narasimha. Without a doubt my current findings are

statistically

> insignificant, as i thoroughly admit.

 

I hope you realize that they would've been insignificant even if the

sample set was much larger. My main point is not the size of sample

set, but the expected percentage among all people (not just

astrologers).

 

> Narasimha, i did give you the correct number of bodies that i looked

at,

> which was 23. It is not higher. The planets have nodes, similar to

the way in

 

Thank you for the clarification. Looking at your mail, I wondered if

you were considering all planetary nodes along with lunar nodes.

 

Anyway, I've told you what I thought would be worthwhile to know. I

don't see much value in a further discussion of this. Thank you for

the education on planetary nodes. Sounds interesting and I'll keep

them in mind. Good luck with your researches and please keep me

informed!

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Aloha Moses,

 

> Narasimha,

>

> Initially i appreciated your help, but now you're quoting blatantly

> inaccurate data, and i also do not appreciate your condescending

attitude

> about all of this. More below.

 

After all, you first said 2 deg and later changed it to 2.5 deg; I

first had a simple model and later went to a complex model. In all

this, a lot of numbers came up. I may have quoted in a wrong number in

a particular paragraph, but the points are there for the interested

people to see and judge.

 

Just one more comment before I say bye to this thread: You said you

took astrologers from last century too. So you dismissed the special

handling of Neptune etc. But what matters in deciding the probability

is when the majority of them were born. If you took 10 astrologers

born before 1940 and 42 astrologers born in 1940-1960, then it will

greatly bias the probability towards the assumption I made.

 

If you publish your findings complete with birthdata, I will be able

to give a definitive mathematical analysis.

 

> The main point that i made that you did not reply to is this: even

if we

> factor in the above influences for Neptune and Pluto (not Uranus),

that would

> not explain why certain degrees that Neptune and Pluto went over

would be

> more or less common than other degrees that Neptune and Pluto also

went over,

> if this is the case. This is obviously a very important point.

 

I did not answer it, but thought it should be clear to anyone.

 

With a small sample set, you cannot expect every point in the zodiac

(or the arcs traversed by Uranus etc) to be covered. Each point has a

certain expected percentage, but it may or may not happen in such a

small sample set. But that's not the point. Even for the points that

were covered (like your 49% point), the percentage among astrologers

was not considerably higher than the expected percentage among all

people. If we are expecting 35-40% at each degree (among all people)

and get 49% at one degree and 10% at another degree, it means nothing.

Considering that your sample set is small, I do NOT have to answer why

it is low in some places (like 10% in above example). The only point

of interest is if it is too high (compared to expected percentage

based on all people) at some points. If it is, those points qualify

for a more vast study. I do not see that here and I guess you do.

Well...

 

Anyway, I hope you realize what you consider "a very important point"

is no point at all.

 

> And my point

> about the relative uselessness of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto retrogrades

in

> altering the data was also understood, i assume.

 

I've already addressed it.

 

> further. That's unscientific, not to mention rude. While we're on

the subject

> of problematic information, would you like to discuss the many

contradictions

> and deceptions on your piece on the twins, on your website? I can

list even

> more of them than i did in my private email to you the other day.

 

I do not understand. I did NOT receive any email from you on any of my

addresses. Resend it if you want a reply.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Aloha Narahimsa,

Aloha Moses,

> Narasimha,

>

> Initially i appreciated your help, but now you're quoting blatantly

> inaccurate data, and i also do not appreciate your condescending

attitude

> about all of this. More below.

After all, you first said 2 deg and later changed it to 2.5 deg;

No, you misundertood me, i didn't 'change it' to 2.5 degrees. And i admitted

this openly and immediately when i realized you misunderstood me, because i am

not biased to seeing or not seeing this data in any particular way.

first had a simple model and later went to a complex model. In all

this, a lot of numbers came up. I may have quoted in a wrong number in

a particular paragraph, but the points are there for the interested

people to see and judge.

Yes, let them look and judge. In your previous message you came up with a 46%

probability AFTER YOU ADDED 8 MORE POINTS. You should have realized this 46%

figure wasn't accurate anyway, since i could only come up with one degree

around 46% of the time. Then you tried to compare this incorrect 46% figure to

my data, and then say, let's not talk about this any more. No chance. If you're

being reasonable with me, i'll stop talking about this, but you haven't been

yet.

Just one more comment before I say bye to this thread: You said you

took astrologers from last century too. So you dismissed the special

handling of Neptune etc.

No, i dismissed the special handling of Uranus, since Uranus has a roughly

84-year period, and my sample size is widely spread over a period longer than

84 years. But i did in fact factor in special handling for Neptune and Pluto,

which made the random chance probabilities much more accurate. See my last

email again if you need to.

But what matters in deciding the probability

is when the majority of them were born. If you took 10 astrologers

born before 1940 and 42 astrologers born in 1940-1960, then it will

greatly bias the probability towards the assumption I made.

No kidding. But since only 18 out of the 52 were born during this time, it's not

a big deal, which is what i tried to tell you. And Neptune wasn't even in Leo

during these times! I used astrologers over a wide spectrum of time, many from

the 1800's and the beginning of the 1900's.The last estimates that i made

should be reasonably accurate because no particular time was heavily favored,

in terms of when the astrolgers were born, but it's plain for all to see that i

did factor in the particular positions of Neptune and Pluto to make the data

more accurate.

If you publish your findings complete with birthdata, I will be able

to give a definitive mathematical analysis.

> The main point that i made that you did not reply to is this: even

if we

> factor in the above influences for Neptune and Pluto (not Uranus),

that would

> not explain why certain degrees that Neptune and Pluto went over

would be

> more or less common than other degrees that Neptune and Pluto also

went over,

> if this is the case. This is obviously a very important point.

I did not answer it, but thought it should be clear to anyone.

With a small sample set, you cannot expect every point in the zodiac

(or the arcs traversed by Uranus etc) to be covered. Each point has a

certain expected percentage, but it may or may not happen in such a

small sample set. But that's not the point. Even for the points that

were covered (like your 49% point), the percentage among astrologers

was not considerably higher than the expected percentage among all

people. If we are expecting 35-40% at each degree (among all people)

and get 49% at one degree and 10% at another degree, it means nothing.

Again, you're quoting the wrong data. Out of a chance probability of about 30.5%

(see my last email for where i determined the 30.5%--actually, it would be a bit

higher than this, but not much) i only came up with one degree around 49.0% of

the time. The next closest degree was more than 10 percentage points less, and

none of the other degrees around the 49.0% degree came up that high. That's

enough to make me inquire more, which for some reason you seem to have a

problem with. How would we discover anything statistically significant if we do

not follow the potential good leads that we get?

Considering that your sample set is small, I do NOT have to answer why

it is low in some places (like 10% in above example). The only point

of interest is if it is too high (compared to expected percentage

based on all people) at some points. If it is, those points qualify

for a more vast study. I do not see that here and I guess you do.

Well...

I'm not talking about a vast study, i'm talking about plugging this data into a

program that's already set up to do this, and inquiring further. Why wouldn't

we?

Anyway, I hope you realize what you consider "a very important point"

is no point at all.

> And my point

> about the relative uselessness of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto retrogrades

in

> altering the data was also understood, i assume.

I've already addressed it.

No, you actually never addressed this point. Initially you claimed that outer

planet retrogrades would favor certain degrees, and i explained that on the

whole they would not, since the outer planets do not skip over certain degrees

in their cycles, such as Saturn would. For example, if Pluto at this time goes

forward an average of about 2 degrees per year, there is little statistical

difference in the degrees in which it travels. And even though there is a VERY

slight difference, this difference could just as easily favor OR disfavor any

certain degree to a very slight extent, so it could just as easily support or

not support my initial findings, yet still only to a VERY slight extent.

> further. That's unscientific, not to mention rude. While we're on

the subject

> of problematic information, would you like to discuss the many

contradictions

> and deceptions on your piece on the twins, on your website? I can

list even

> more of them than i did in my private email to you the other day.

I do not understand. I did NOT receive any email from you on any of my

addresses. Resend it if you want a reply.

I sent it to you from your website. I'll send an another one to the list so we can all look at it.

much love and aloha to all,

moses

www.astrologyforthesoul.com

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha