Guest guest Posted May 24, 2003 Report Share Posted May 24, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > >>The positions of the cardinal ingress points has been demonstrated > scientifically for all to see (although I'll be the first to admit that the > research hasn't been terribly extensive); > > This is an important point because research has become much more stringent > since Bradley's time. It all needs to be done over again to be convincing. How exactly has statistics changed in the past 60 years? Remember Bradley's study wasn't of the experimental variety so fraught with problems; it was pure statistical analysis. And remember that independent statisticians reviewed Bradley's analysis process and found no problems. > >>and Bradley's fairly extensive research on weather and natural disasters > would seem to be pretty convincing for demonstrating the position of the > zodiac's cardinal points... > > I'd say, not really, especially in view of today's dramatic weather shifts > and conditions. Again, you'd have to start all over again to produce > anything convincing. I asked on this list, but neither you nor anyone else > pointed me to Bradley's original work. We need to test zodiacs (sidereal > ingresses and the Tropical cardinal ingresses) in terms of modern day > research. What dramatic weather shifts and conditions? Global warming has been very minor. El Nino and La Nina happened a century ago too and their effects would have been included in Bradley's weather data. Also, climate changes wouldn't affect things like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions anyway. > >> In an > >> earlier post Ken Bowser cited Epping, Strassmaier, Kugler and > >> Schaumberger's work as the references for this claim. But their work was > >> published around the turn of the 20th century!! > > > >'Old' does not necessarily mean outdated or inaccurate. > > Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older research!! You haven't shown anything that does. > >Nowadays, through the use of mathematics and physics, we have the > technology to be much more precise about the location of everything, and we > should rely on that instead of ancient approximations. > > Yes, we have a great opportunity for zodiac research, but no one is doing it. Instead of complaining that nobody is doing it, why don't you get to work and start doing it yourself? That's been my basic point throughout this whole conversation: if you're so skeptical of Donald Bradley's work, then try to disprove (or verify) it. Nobody wins if all we get is complaints about how such-and-such research was done 40 years ago, etc. > >Any interesting information you have is certainly welcomed by me, Therese. > Can you point me to the post you reference here? > > The posts were on this list, but unfortunately I printed them out without > the dates. Sometime in April, I think. If you can't find them, I'll try to > find them and re-post them. Please let me know. I did not post the entire > star list from AS. I looked through your posts from this April and didn't see anything of that sort. > >>I don't think the comparison here is fair. I don't see anybody blindly > accepting what they hear--far from it, most people are here because they > questioned what they thought was true. I also don't see anyone appealing > to authority; just to the fact that the zodiac as Fagan and Bradley have > defined it is highly effective in practice, is verified at least at a > rudimentary level by statistical studies--and that no other zodiac matches > those two criteria. > > " No other zodiac matches these two criteria? " I'm not clear on what you > mean, because other modern zodiacs would have been verified by the same > statistical studies (planets in relation to the angles), and the modern > sidereal zodiacs are all highly effective in practice. I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts and their correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc. The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri ayanamsas is 53 arcminutes. That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion--which means the moon position would be about 15 degrees separated and the angles would be very different. > >>--but in my experience it does work and describe things better than > other zodiacs, > > Better than what other zodiacs?? There is only the Tropical and another > very close to Fagan-Bradley zodiac (Lahiri/Krishnamurti), which would give > exactly the same results as F/B. See above about ingress timing. Also, the flavoring the signs give to the planets (and especially the luminaries) would be different. Highly different in the case of tropical vs. sidereal, but also between Fagan-Bradley and Lahiri. > > " Getting back to basics " may in fact be a good idea, but it may also be a > waste of time. If you have any reason to suspect that our > currently-accepted zodiacal positioning is wrong, please tell us. > > Jesse, I didn't say anything was " wrong! " I only pointed out that modern > research seems to say that Babylonian zodiacal boundaries were somewhat > fuzzy and not as fixed as modern siderealists believe. Who believes that ancient Babylonians knew precisely where everything was in the sky? I sure never assumed that. Also, what reason is there to *care* that they didn't know the exact starting point of the zodiac to the arcsecond? Like I tried to explain in my last post, finding and measuring the ecliptic visually is nigh-impossible work; it's understandable that people would come up with different answers since they didn't have very precise tools. > I already posted the > data on that topic from MA. The zodiac boundary question rages on and on in > India, no where near to being settled. Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing research on the question or looking at past research. Jesse M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2003 Report Share Posted May 25, 2003 At 09:03 AM 5/24/03 -0000, Jesse M. wrote: >How exactly has statistics changed in the past 60 years? Remember Bradley's study wasn't of the experimental variety so fraught with problems; it was pure statistical analysis. And remember that independent statisticians reviewed Bradley's analysis process and found no problems. Jesse, did you read the article that Jack posted? (The letter from Ken Irving) That says it all, the problems with Bradley's research and how it can be questioned by professionals. That is a very interesting article! Every siderealist should have a copy. >What dramatic weather shifts and conditions? Are you serious?? Do you read the daily newspaper?? The weather is weird almost everywhere in the world, with much more severe flooding or draught or whatever. It's all been in the news over and over again. Broken records everywhere. >> Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older research!! > >You haven't shown anything that does. Yes, I posted data from MESOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY. I will be happy to post it again. >> Yes, we have a great opportunity for zodiac research, but no one is doing it. > >Instead of complaining that nobody is doing it, why don't you get to work and start doing it yourself? Good idea! I shall try to get to work. But as I said, good reserach is a group effort. Who on this list would like to contribute to some really good research? Also we need a professional who knows statistics. >I looked through your posts from this April and didn't see anything of that sort. I will post them in the next day or so. >I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts and their correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc. The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri ayanamsas is 53 arcminutes. That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion--which means the moon position would be about 15 degrees separated and the angles would be very different. Yes, and who has compared the two?? >Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing research on the question or looking at past research. You know what, Jesse? I don't like arguing with you. You don't sound like a nice person at all, and you're not all that logical, though you think you are. Arguing or discussing with Ed Kohout is a lot more fun!! I will repost the data from MEOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY and also a new post on the Aldebaran/Antares axis and calendars and lunar mansions. My apologies to list members for repeating posts. And sorry I have my personal complaints with Jesse here. That is going off track and not staying strictly with astrological concepts. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2003 Report Share Posted May 25, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > >How exactly has statistics changed in the past 60 years? Remember > Bradley's study wasn't of the experimental variety so fraught with > problems; it was pure statistical analysis. And remember that independent > statisticians reviewed Bradley's analysis process and found no problems. > > Jesse, did you read the article that Jack posted? (The letter from Ken > Irving) That says it all, the problems with Bradley's research and how it > can be questioned by professionals. That is a very interesting article! > Every siderealist should have a copy. I did. I have now read it three times. Have you read it very closely? The criticisms mentioned are: * Bradley did his research assuming that cardinal ingresses 'work' in the first place. Hardly unreasonable for an astrologer. Also, he stated that he tried his data points with the tropical zodiac and a couple other configurations, and came up with no meaningful results. * His later work involving correlation between groups of people (professional groups, alcoholics, etc.) and astrological signs was spotty. * In an astrological setting, he didn't have the benefit of peer review, but rather an audience impressed by graphs. * Bradley was self-taught in mathematics. Each one a crushing blow to the integrity of his ayanamsa-rectifying work, I'm sure. > >> Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older > research!! > > > >You haven't shown anything that does. > > Yes, I posted data from MESOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY. I will be happy to post it > again. Thank you. The argument here, however, is whether there is serious reason to believe the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa to be incorrect. Ancient star position measurements are interesting, but not really relevant to what works -now-. > >I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts and > their correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes, earthquakes, > floods, etc. The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri ayanamsas > is 53 arcminutes. That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion--which > means the moon position would be about 15 degrees separated and the angles > would be very different. > > Yes, and who has compared the two?? Bradley! He didn't do a direct comparison, but as has been pointed out several times, solar and lunar ingresses at any but the correct time produce unmeaningful results and no correlation with events. > >Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing research on > the question or looking at past research. > > You know what, Jesse? I don't like arguing with you. You don't sound like a > nice person at all, and you're not all that logical, though you think you > are. Arguing or discussing with Ed Kohout is a lot more fun!! I remind you that you have yet to point out a specific logical error to back up your slur. Also, my apologies for not peppering my arguments with smileys or whatever to " sound like a nice person " . Now, I would have just said we're having a failure to communicate instead of making personal attacks, but since you opened... You seem to have a problem stating why you think what you do, or even what you think. You're quite slippery; always implying, trying not to say anything concrete so as not to be proven wrong. However, you're certainly good at fomenting baseless doubt through your implications, and foiling any attempt to reach common ground so that the conversation--and the list--can move forward. It would be far more constructive for us all to actually discuss astrology, using whatever ayanamsa we favor, than to post ancient star position calculations and pretend that they show or cast doubt on anything. IF this list ever reaches that point (which I doubt), you'll probably find me downright pleasant. The last word is yours; I will not continue this conversation. Jesse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > >What dramatic weather shifts and conditions? > > Are you serious?? Do you read the daily newspaper?? The weather is weird > almost everywhere in the world, with much more severe flooding or draught > or whatever. It's all been in the news over and over again. Broken records > everywhere. As a sidebar, there was an article posted recently about the Mayans and their possible observace of the Sun's 208-year internal cycle of brightness. This is believed to have caused droughts at times of peak intensity, though I have no idea when that is. > > >> Of course it means 'outdated' if newer research negates the older > research!! > > > >You haven't shown anything that does. > > Yes, I posted data from MESOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY. I will be happy to post it > again. > > >> Yes, we have a great opportunity for zodiac research, but no one is > doing it. > > > >Instead of complaining that nobody is doing it, why don't you get to work > and start doing it yourself? > > Good idea! I shall try to get to work. But as I said, good reserach is a > group effort. Who on this list would like to contribute to some really good > research? Also we need a professional who knows statistics. Ahh, yes. There is complaining, and then there is complaining about complaining. I don't know which is worse. Too bad we can't have theoretical discussions about things on a without the " do your own research " clause being invoked. As if we can all just drop everything and do three years of research to justify some Internet mail! > > >I looked through your posts from this April and didn't see anything of > that sort. > > I will post them in the next day or so. > > >I was referring to the Capricorn/Cancer solar/lunar ingress charts and > their correlation with unusually-heavy rainfall, tornadoes, earthquakes, > floods, etc. The difference between the Fagan-Allen and Lahiri ayanamsas > is 53 arcminutes. That's about 22 hours' worth of solar motion-- which > means the moon position would be about 15 degrees separated and the angles > would be very different. > > Yes, and who has compared the two?? Weather patterns seem (to ne) to be the worst possible data set for research. > > >Yes, they keep quoting differing holy books instead of doing research on > the question or looking at past research. > > You know what, Jesse? I don't like arguing with you. You don't sound like a > nice person at all, and you're not all that logical, though you think you > are. Arguing or discussing with Ed Kohout is a lot more fun!! I'm flattered. > > I will repost the data from MEOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY and also a new post on > the Aldebaran/Antares axis and calendars and lunar mansions. My apologies > to list members for repeating posts. And sorry I have my personal > complaints with Jesse here. That is going off track and not staying > strictly with astrological concepts. Complaints, complaints, complaints. hehe - Ed > > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.