A
Anonymous
Guest
melf said:
'...twisted fire horse!'
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
A new slant on an old topic:
Written in the stars
Millions may pore over their daily star signs, but scientists have always dismissed astrology as a load of old bunk. Now, a British astronomer has said that there might be something in it after all. Could the planets really control our fates? Ian Sample investigates
Tuesday May 18, 2004
The Guardian
There can be few scientists brave enough to stick their heads above the academic parapet and claim to have found proof that, contrary to hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, the movement of heavenly bodies does, after all, affect how we behave down here on the ground.
But few scientists are Percy Seymour. In his latest book, The Scientific Proof of Astrology (not to be confused with his earlier tome of 1997, Scientific Basis of Astrology), the former Plymouth University astronomy lecturer, and member of the Royal Astronomical Society, argues that, while he does not believe in horoscopes, the movement of the sun, moon and various planets undoubtedly hold an influence over us. Could it be that countless devotees ranging from Charles de Gaulle to Ronald Reagan had it right when they kept one eye on the stars?
The argument Seymour puts forward is that the movement of the Sun, moon and sundry planets from Jupiter to Mars, interfere with the Earth's magnetic field. In doing so, the unborn offspring of expectant mothers around the world are exposed to different magnetic fields that toy with the development of their budding brains.
Seymour's suggestion that the stars and planets rule over us has largely been received with the shortest of shrifts. "All I can say is that I have yet to meet another scientist that agrees with his views," says Jacqueline Mitton of the Royal Astonomical Society. "It's right up there with stuff like crop circles being made by extra-terrestrials," says Robert Massey, astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, where Seymour worked as a planetarium lecturer in the early 70s.
Seymour's book is just the latest salvo in an ongoing battle that pits the vast majority of scientists, on one side, against the substantially fewer (but better paid) astrologists on the other. Most scientists are happy not to bother with research into astrology; to them astrology is among the worst manifestations of pseudoscience, worthy of as little intellectual expenditure as homeopathy. Others dabble with testing astrology's claims, while a few, such as Seymour, hop the fence of tradition completely to become scientist turned believer.
Michel Gauquelin started the ball rolling in earnest with his 1955 study of the so-called Mars effect. Put simply, it states that Mars is more likely to be in certain parts of the sky when top sports stars are born. The study caused a predictable furore, but did not stand up to the barrage of criticism that followed. "It was held up as a success for astrology, but when the results were looked at in close detail, and when the experiment was repeated, it fell apart," says Massey.
Since Gauquelin, a steady trickle of papers, have appeared, often reported in minor scientific journals. A study of the 1991/92 English football league suggested players were nearly twice as likely to be born between September and November than in the summer months. Fast bowlers, according to another study, were more likely to be born in the first half of the year. Earlier this year, Richard Wisemann, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, published work suggesting summer babies were more likely to consider themselves lucky.
Most scientists dismiss Seymour's arguments simply because the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that he believes are so significant for our behaviour are so minute. The magnetic field, which is generated by the Earth's spinning molten iron core, is pathetically weak compared with the magnetic fields our gadgets and infrastructure produce. Earlier this year, the government's radiation watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, recommended that Britain cut magnetic field exposure from power lines to 100 microteslas, which is still twice the Earth's natural field strength.
The field is most disrupted by bad weather on the sun. A huge magnetic storm there releases clouds of particles that blast Earth. But at worst, these storms make the magnetic field waver by nothing more than 1% or 2%. As for seasonal changes that astrologers might unwittingly be picking up on, they do exist, but are so small as to be almost unmeasurable.
"If the Earth's magnetic field collapsed to zero, we'd get a higher dose of radiation from space and that would have an effect on our behaviour, but I don't think it would make it any easier to predict if you're going to come into money one week or the next," says Massey. "Your mobile phone, your television, your washing machine - any electrical equipment you have generates far stronger magnetic fields than the Earth's field."
While Seymour is widely seen as a scientist who has joined the defence of the astrologers, it was an ex-astrologer who helped deliver the most signifiant blow to the credibility of his former profession. Last year, Geoffrey Dean, who left astrology to become a scientist in Perth, carried out what is probably the most robust scientific investigation into astrology ever undertaken. He led a study of 2,000 people, most born within minutes of one another, and looked at more than 100 different characteristics, ranging from IQ to ability in art and sport, from anxiety levels to sociability and occupation - all of which astrologers claim are influenced by heavenly bodies. He found no evidence of the similarities that astrologers would have predicted.
But despite the intellectual mud-flinging that goes on between many astrologers and scientists, much to the latter's discomfort, science is too blunt a tool to definitively rule out that astrology is bunkum. Some scientists certainly believe there are valid questions to be asked. Dr Mike Hapgood, an expert in what astronomers refer to as "sun-Earth interactions" at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, says we have no real data on how, if at all, magnetic fields might affecthuman behaviour. "There's an interesting question there and it's not something that is well understood," he says.
Hapgood argues that it could be folly to dismiss outlandish ideas too easily. "You need to do the science properly to find out anything solid. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If anyone ever finds a cause, the subject will get out of it's trough and become truly interesting," he says.
The word "cause" is key. So far, studies that claim to support astrology point out correlations, merely observed links between one happening and another. But correlations do not always point to causes and effects. And with nothing else to go on, the nature of the real cause and effect can only be speculated upon. Can magnetic fields affect the way an unborn child's brain develops? Undoubtedly if the field is strong enough, but how strong is strong enough? And how do we know what difference those changes would make to behaviour? If a simple blast of magnetic field could turn your average unborn child into a future premiership footballer, neuroscientists would be tearing up text books quicker than you can say hippocampus.
The problem for those scientists keen on debunking astrology is that designing an experiment to prove one way or another whether the movement of the planets affects us is practically unachievable. With that in mind, some scientists, while privately laughing out loud at the suggestion that astrology could be for real, are publicly reluctant to dismiss it all together. "The difficulty for scientists is that we know the strangest sounding ideas can sometimes turn out to be true," says Mitton.
One of the few things that remains incontrovertible about astrology is its popularity. Mystic Meg et al don't need to look up their stars to know if they're going to be in the money or sleeping on the streets come Wednesday. Salaries for top players, among them Jonathan Cainer and Russell Grant, are reported to stretch to seven figures, once takings from related phone lines and websites are accounted for. And Seymour, with this, his second book on science and astrology, has undoubtedly benefited from the eagerness of people to give up their money for a heavenly belief.
The popularity of astrology, is to some at least, driven by a need for a substitute for religion, a desire to believe that life is reassuringly out of one's hands. "When you have the decline of organised religion in the conventional sense, you get people looking for other things, whether it's Californian crystals or a daily horoscope. It provides some kind of psychological prop. I have no wish to suppress it, I just don't think it's a useful way of interpreting the world," says Massey.
But there is one certainty that we can predict in confidence: Seymour's book will not be the end of the argument. While there is no proof that either side can trumpet, there will be noises made. "Maybe being born in the summer gives you a predisposition to a certain type of behaviour, I don't know. But I do know it's highly unlikely to have anything to do with where Mars, Saturn, Jupiter or Venus are in the sky that night," says Massey.
Written in the stars
Millions may pore over their daily star signs, but scientists have always dismissed astrology as a load of old bunk. Now, a British astronomer has said that there might be something in it after all. Could the planets really control our fates? Ian Sample investigates
Tuesday May 18, 2004
The Guardian
There can be few scientists brave enough to stick their heads above the academic parapet and claim to have found proof that, contrary to hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, the movement of heavenly bodies does, after all, affect how we behave down here on the ground.
But few scientists are Percy Seymour. In his latest book, The Scientific Proof of Astrology (not to be confused with his earlier tome of 1997, Scientific Basis of Astrology), the former Plymouth University astronomy lecturer, and member of the Royal Astronomical Society, argues that, while he does not believe in horoscopes, the movement of the sun, moon and various planets undoubtedly hold an influence over us. Could it be that countless devotees ranging from Charles de Gaulle to Ronald Reagan had it right when they kept one eye on the stars?
The argument Seymour puts forward is that the movement of the Sun, moon and sundry planets from Jupiter to Mars, interfere with the Earth's magnetic field. In doing so, the unborn offspring of expectant mothers around the world are exposed to different magnetic fields that toy with the development of their budding brains.
Seymour's suggestion that the stars and planets rule over us has largely been received with the shortest of shrifts. "All I can say is that I have yet to meet another scientist that agrees with his views," says Jacqueline Mitton of the Royal Astonomical Society. "It's right up there with stuff like crop circles being made by extra-terrestrials," says Robert Massey, astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, where Seymour worked as a planetarium lecturer in the early 70s.
Seymour's book is just the latest salvo in an ongoing battle that pits the vast majority of scientists, on one side, against the substantially fewer (but better paid) astrologists on the other. Most scientists are happy not to bother with research into astrology; to them astrology is among the worst manifestations of pseudoscience, worthy of as little intellectual expenditure as homeopathy. Others dabble with testing astrology's claims, while a few, such as Seymour, hop the fence of tradition completely to become scientist turned believer.
Michel Gauquelin started the ball rolling in earnest with his 1955 study of the so-called Mars effect. Put simply, it states that Mars is more likely to be in certain parts of the sky when top sports stars are born. The study caused a predictable furore, but did not stand up to the barrage of criticism that followed. "It was held up as a success for astrology, but when the results were looked at in close detail, and when the experiment was repeated, it fell apart," says Massey.
Since Gauquelin, a steady trickle of papers, have appeared, often reported in minor scientific journals. A study of the 1991/92 English football league suggested players were nearly twice as likely to be born between September and November than in the summer months. Fast bowlers, according to another study, were more likely to be born in the first half of the year. Earlier this year, Richard Wisemann, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, published work suggesting summer babies were more likely to consider themselves lucky.
Most scientists dismiss Seymour's arguments simply because the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that he believes are so significant for our behaviour are so minute. The magnetic field, which is generated by the Earth's spinning molten iron core, is pathetically weak compared with the magnetic fields our gadgets and infrastructure produce. Earlier this year, the government's radiation watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, recommended that Britain cut magnetic field exposure from power lines to 100 microteslas, which is still twice the Earth's natural field strength.
The field is most disrupted by bad weather on the sun. A huge magnetic storm there releases clouds of particles that blast Earth. But at worst, these storms make the magnetic field waver by nothing more than 1% or 2%. As for seasonal changes that astrologers might unwittingly be picking up on, they do exist, but are so small as to be almost unmeasurable.
"If the Earth's magnetic field collapsed to zero, we'd get a higher dose of radiation from space and that would have an effect on our behaviour, but I don't think it would make it any easier to predict if you're going to come into money one week or the next," says Massey. "Your mobile phone, your television, your washing machine - any electrical equipment you have generates far stronger magnetic fields than the Earth's field."
While Seymour is widely seen as a scientist who has joined the defence of the astrologers, it was an ex-astrologer who helped deliver the most signifiant blow to the credibility of his former profession. Last year, Geoffrey Dean, who left astrology to become a scientist in Perth, carried out what is probably the most robust scientific investigation into astrology ever undertaken. He led a study of 2,000 people, most born within minutes of one another, and looked at more than 100 different characteristics, ranging from IQ to ability in art and sport, from anxiety levels to sociability and occupation - all of which astrologers claim are influenced by heavenly bodies. He found no evidence of the similarities that astrologers would have predicted.
But despite the intellectual mud-flinging that goes on between many astrologers and scientists, much to the latter's discomfort, science is too blunt a tool to definitively rule out that astrology is bunkum. Some scientists certainly believe there are valid questions to be asked. Dr Mike Hapgood, an expert in what astronomers refer to as "sun-Earth interactions" at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, says we have no real data on how, if at all, magnetic fields might affecthuman behaviour. "There's an interesting question there and it's not something that is well understood," he says.
Hapgood argues that it could be folly to dismiss outlandish ideas too easily. "You need to do the science properly to find out anything solid. You don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If anyone ever finds a cause, the subject will get out of it's trough and become truly interesting," he says.
The word "cause" is key. So far, studies that claim to support astrology point out correlations, merely observed links between one happening and another. But correlations do not always point to causes and effects. And with nothing else to go on, the nature of the real cause and effect can only be speculated upon. Can magnetic fields affect the way an unborn child's brain develops? Undoubtedly if the field is strong enough, but how strong is strong enough? And how do we know what difference those changes would make to behaviour? If a simple blast of magnetic field could turn your average unborn child into a future premiership footballer, neuroscientists would be tearing up text books quicker than you can say hippocampus.
The problem for those scientists keen on debunking astrology is that designing an experiment to prove one way or another whether the movement of the planets affects us is practically unachievable. With that in mind, some scientists, while privately laughing out loud at the suggestion that astrology could be for real, are publicly reluctant to dismiss it all together. "The difficulty for scientists is that we know the strangest sounding ideas can sometimes turn out to be true," says Mitton.
One of the few things that remains incontrovertible about astrology is its popularity. Mystic Meg et al don't need to look up their stars to know if they're going to be in the money or sleeping on the streets come Wednesday. Salaries for top players, among them Jonathan Cainer and Russell Grant, are reported to stretch to seven figures, once takings from related phone lines and websites are accounted for. And Seymour, with this, his second book on science and astrology, has undoubtedly benefited from the eagerness of people to give up their money for a heavenly belief.
The popularity of astrology, is to some at least, driven by a need for a substitute for religion, a desire to believe that life is reassuringly out of one's hands. "When you have the decline of organised religion in the conventional sense, you get people looking for other things, whether it's Californian crystals or a daily horoscope. It provides some kind of psychological prop. I have no wish to suppress it, I just don't think it's a useful way of interpreting the world," says Massey.
But there is one certainty that we can predict in confidence: Seymour's book will not be the end of the argument. While there is no proof that either side can trumpet, there will be noises made. "Maybe being born in the summer gives you a predisposition to a certain type of behaviour, I don't know. But I do know it's highly unlikely to have anything to do with where Mars, Saturn, Jupiter or Venus are in the sky that night," says Massey.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Astrology is just another ancient superstition. Anyone who gives it any credence needs to get their critical thinking gland checked.
Yes, I'm judgemental, but the idea is so ludicrious I can't give any respect to it in this day and age.
Edit- Oh, didn't realize this thread was so old. I think i even voted on it ages ago.
ps. I'm a Virgo.
Yes, I'm judgemental, but the idea is so ludicrious I can't give any respect to it in this day and age.
Edit- Oh, didn't realize this thread was so old. I think i even voted on it ages ago.
ps. I'm a Virgo.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The food that a pregnant women would eat used to be seasonal. The climate is seasonal. It isn't a huge stretch to suggest that these influences may affect the development of an unborn child. What seems unlikely, however, is that any of the planets, other than the earth, have any influence on it. 
A
Anonymous
Guest
Bio-strology
ringwraith-
Guardian :"Since Gauquelin, a steady trickle of papers, have appeared, often reported in minor scientific journals. A study of the 1991/92 English football league suggested players were nearly twice as likely to be born between September and November than in the summer months. Fast bowlers, according to another study, were more likely to be born in the first half of the year. Earlier this year, Richard Wisemann, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, published work suggesting summer babies were more likely to consider themselves lucky."
Fortis-
"The food that a pregnant women would eat used to be seasonal. The climate is seasonal. It isn't a huge stretch to suggest that these influences may affect the development of an unborn child. What seems unlikely, however, is that any of the planets, other than the earth, have any influence on it."
~~~
Allow me to broaden that suggestion. Back when times were much tougher than they are today it really made a difference when you had a child. Nowadays its all the same but back then if you conceived a child right before winter the child would develop a little different than if it was conceived right before summer. It all had to do with whether there was a bounty of food available or if it was scarce. If you had a baby during the winter and there was no food around the baby likely died or close to it. If you had a baby in the summer when there was plenty of food the baby had a much better chance. Eventually genetics, evolution or whatever you want to call it tried to even things up. When a women conceived a child prior to winter her body would know that the baby would be born in a relatively foodless time. The development of the child would be altered to prepare it. The child would be born ready for a low calorie diet. If the child were to be born in the summer the child would be born ready for a high calorie diet.
The change in the body also changed the attitude of the brain. The winter child might be more frugal or possessive due to the lack of abundance. The summer child might be more wasteful or sharing due to the excess. These characteristics carried on into adulthood. This along with other influences is what started people thinking they could tell what type of person you are by the month you are born in. Today some scientists think that there is a remnant left over from those days.
There was also a study that found that babies born in the winter are more likely to be female. Females are usually born a little heavier than males. So to increase the likelyhood of survival girls are conceived more often than boys when they are to be born in the winter. The heavier the baby at birth the better its chances. Another remnant of harsher times.
Leo’s are always right.
ringwraith-
Guardian :"Since Gauquelin, a steady trickle of papers, have appeared, often reported in minor scientific journals. A study of the 1991/92 English football league suggested players were nearly twice as likely to be born between September and November than in the summer months. Fast bowlers, according to another study, were more likely to be born in the first half of the year. Earlier this year, Richard Wisemann, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, published work suggesting summer babies were more likely to consider themselves lucky."
Fortis-
"The food that a pregnant women would eat used to be seasonal. The climate is seasonal. It isn't a huge stretch to suggest that these influences may affect the development of an unborn child. What seems unlikely, however, is that any of the planets, other than the earth, have any influence on it."
~~~
Allow me to broaden that suggestion. Back when times were much tougher than they are today it really made a difference when you had a child. Nowadays its all the same but back then if you conceived a child right before winter the child would develop a little different than if it was conceived right before summer. It all had to do with whether there was a bounty of food available or if it was scarce. If you had a baby during the winter and there was no food around the baby likely died or close to it. If you had a baby in the summer when there was plenty of food the baby had a much better chance. Eventually genetics, evolution or whatever you want to call it tried to even things up. When a women conceived a child prior to winter her body would know that the baby would be born in a relatively foodless time. The development of the child would be altered to prepare it. The child would be born ready for a low calorie diet. If the child were to be born in the summer the child would be born ready for a high calorie diet.
The change in the body also changed the attitude of the brain. The winter child might be more frugal or possessive due to the lack of abundance. The summer child might be more wasteful or sharing due to the excess. These characteristics carried on into adulthood. This along with other influences is what started people thinking they could tell what type of person you are by the month you are born in. Today some scientists think that there is a remnant left over from those days.
There was also a study that found that babies born in the winter are more likely to be female. Females are usually born a little heavier than males. So to increase the likelyhood of survival girls are conceived more often than boys when they are to be born in the winter. The heavier the baby at birth the better its chances. Another remnant of harsher times.
Leo’s are always right.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,255
Yeah, I believe in astrology in a vague, middle aged male way. I certainly fit Virgoan characteristics to a T, my wife is a typical Aquarian and lots of friends fit their astrological frame, more or less. That isn't to say I believe in any daily precision in forecasts and couldn't care less about how it works, scientifically or otherwise.
I'm happy to accept people with time on their hands a few tens of thousand years ago worked out general traits for people born in different months. Many things are more improbable, IMO.
I'm happy to accept people with time on their hands a few tens of thousand years ago worked out general traits for people born in different months. Many things are more improbable, IMO.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
City looks to the heavens for answers
Last Updated: 12:02am GMT 19/03/2008
Can astrology really help predict the direction of financial markets? Danny Penman talks to two business people who believe the answer is yes
Christeen Skinner blinks at the screen of her computer and takes another slurp of coffee. It is half past seven in the morning and she's preparing for a crucial meeting with the chief executive of the High and Mighty fashion chain.
Apart from the black cat dozing on her lap, the only clue to Skinner's occupation as an astrologer is a copy of an ephemeris - a table of the predicted positions of celestial bodies - that lies open at a page marked "Mercury March 25th".
"The financial crisis has ensured that I'm busier than ever," says Skinner. "People in the City need to know what is just around the corner. I can help with that."
Skinner is one of a growing, albeit secretive, network of astrologers who work for seemingly conservative British institutions such as high street banks, City investment funds and retailers. Desperate to avoid financial meltdown and to spot fashions and consumer trends before they start, these institutions have turned to the planets to divine the future.
"Most academics distrust astrology and regard it as mumbo-jumbo," she says. "The thing is, it works. Nobody's sure how it works, but it does. Most of my clients are business people who are very canny. If it didn't work for them, why would they use it?"
One of Skinner's clients is Judith Levy, chief executive of the High and Mighty retail chain. "I'm fairly pragmatic," says Levy. "I will only spend money on an astrologer if the decision I have to take is very important - the kind of decision that will cost me a lot of money if I get it wrong.
"When we launched our Kayak brand a few years ago we used astrology to decide the launch date. Since then, Kayak has gone from strength to strength. It is one of our best-selling brands."
As a practitioner of heliocentric astrology, Skinner believes that the planets, not the stars, have influence over us: each planet has a subtly different effect on our behaviour as it sweeps through the zodiac on its journey around the Sun.
Mercury, for instance, can be generally positive, except when it turns "retrograde". This happens when it appears to reverse direction and travel backwards through the zodiac. When this happens, roughly three times a year, communication begins to break down and travel plans may go awry. It's seen as a celestial spanner in the works.
Mercury's potential to wreak havoc has led many world leaders and military figures to plan their lives and campaigns to avoid its influence. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin would only travel and hold press conferences when the planets, specifically Mercury, dictated.
Hitler, a keen user of astrology, notably failed to take into account Mercury's influence. He launched the Battle of Britain and planned Operation Sealion - the invasion of Britain - just as Mercury turned retrograde. Both mistakes dealt serious blows to his plans for world domination.
While many decry astrology as bunkum, Dr Percy Seymour, an astrophysicist recently retired from Plymouth University, has his own theory of how this inexact science might work. He believes that low-frequency magnetic fields emanating from the sun interact with those of the earth, which in turn affect the functioning of the human brain.
"The magnetic field of the sun can be affected by the movement and position of the planets," he says. "Having said all that, I don't believe that the cosmos controls us, but it can influence us."
It's a neat theory, but does it stand up to scrutiny?
Jim Porter (not his real name), chief technical analyst for one of the largest banks in Britain, believes it does. He uses heliocentric astrology to predict the direction of the international financial markets.
Millions of pounds' worth of commodities, shares and currencies are traded on his command. His decisions may affect the values of your pension and your home, and perhaps decide how long you hold on to your job.
When I spoke to him late last year, Porter informed me that the position of the planets indicated a 3.2 per cent fall in the American markets. The following week, they fell 3.5 per cent.
"My attitude is that if you can test it, and it works, then it's just another tool that you can use to predict the direction of the markets," he said when we spoke again yesterday.
"I have tested it and astrology works. Used with other techniques, it can give you confidence, and the more confidence you have, the bigger the risks you can take."
Porter has recently compiled a report for a major central bank charting the likely economic trends of the next few years. "At the moment," he says, "Mars in Cancer is in opposition to Pluto in Capricorn.
This indicates a polarisation of opposing sentiments. Turmoil, in other words. This cycle ends around April 6." The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, will be delighted. "Sentiment will then recover and will turn down in early August. That phase will last for four to five weeks. There will be another shake in October," Porter asserts.
"In 2012 we'll be entering the precession of the equinoxes, which is the most important thing that's happened in the last 26,000 years. That suggests that something mega is going to happen. There will be a huge change in the world's psychology caused by a huge natural disaster or a massive change in spiritual beliefs.
"We have an interesting four years ahead of us."
Some might say we have an interesting few months ahead of us, let alone four years. Perhaps, if more financial experts had consulted the planets we wouldn't be facing a global recession. Then again, I doubt it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main. ... ars119.xml
rynner says: This all seemed almost sensible, until it got to this part:
This statement makes as little sense as "At 2359 GMT we'll be entering the rotation of the Earth", or "On December the 31st we'll be entering the revolution of the Earth about the Sun"! :shock:
And what was the last most important thing, 26,000 years ago?
Last Updated: 12:02am GMT 19/03/2008
Can astrology really help predict the direction of financial markets? Danny Penman talks to two business people who believe the answer is yes
Christeen Skinner blinks at the screen of her computer and takes another slurp of coffee. It is half past seven in the morning and she's preparing for a crucial meeting with the chief executive of the High and Mighty fashion chain.
Apart from the black cat dozing on her lap, the only clue to Skinner's occupation as an astrologer is a copy of an ephemeris - a table of the predicted positions of celestial bodies - that lies open at a page marked "Mercury March 25th".
"The financial crisis has ensured that I'm busier than ever," says Skinner. "People in the City need to know what is just around the corner. I can help with that."
Skinner is one of a growing, albeit secretive, network of astrologers who work for seemingly conservative British institutions such as high street banks, City investment funds and retailers. Desperate to avoid financial meltdown and to spot fashions and consumer trends before they start, these institutions have turned to the planets to divine the future.
"Most academics distrust astrology and regard it as mumbo-jumbo," she says. "The thing is, it works. Nobody's sure how it works, but it does. Most of my clients are business people who are very canny. If it didn't work for them, why would they use it?"
One of Skinner's clients is Judith Levy, chief executive of the High and Mighty retail chain. "I'm fairly pragmatic," says Levy. "I will only spend money on an astrologer if the decision I have to take is very important - the kind of decision that will cost me a lot of money if I get it wrong.
"When we launched our Kayak brand a few years ago we used astrology to decide the launch date. Since then, Kayak has gone from strength to strength. It is one of our best-selling brands."
As a practitioner of heliocentric astrology, Skinner believes that the planets, not the stars, have influence over us: each planet has a subtly different effect on our behaviour as it sweeps through the zodiac on its journey around the Sun.
Mercury, for instance, can be generally positive, except when it turns "retrograde". This happens when it appears to reverse direction and travel backwards through the zodiac. When this happens, roughly three times a year, communication begins to break down and travel plans may go awry. It's seen as a celestial spanner in the works.
Mercury's potential to wreak havoc has led many world leaders and military figures to plan their lives and campaigns to avoid its influence. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin would only travel and hold press conferences when the planets, specifically Mercury, dictated.
Hitler, a keen user of astrology, notably failed to take into account Mercury's influence. He launched the Battle of Britain and planned Operation Sealion - the invasion of Britain - just as Mercury turned retrograde. Both mistakes dealt serious blows to his plans for world domination.
While many decry astrology as bunkum, Dr Percy Seymour, an astrophysicist recently retired from Plymouth University, has his own theory of how this inexact science might work. He believes that low-frequency magnetic fields emanating from the sun interact with those of the earth, which in turn affect the functioning of the human brain.
"The magnetic field of the sun can be affected by the movement and position of the planets," he says. "Having said all that, I don't believe that the cosmos controls us, but it can influence us."
It's a neat theory, but does it stand up to scrutiny?
Jim Porter (not his real name), chief technical analyst for one of the largest banks in Britain, believes it does. He uses heliocentric astrology to predict the direction of the international financial markets.
Millions of pounds' worth of commodities, shares and currencies are traded on his command. His decisions may affect the values of your pension and your home, and perhaps decide how long you hold on to your job.
When I spoke to him late last year, Porter informed me that the position of the planets indicated a 3.2 per cent fall in the American markets. The following week, they fell 3.5 per cent.
"My attitude is that if you can test it, and it works, then it's just another tool that you can use to predict the direction of the markets," he said when we spoke again yesterday.
"I have tested it and astrology works. Used with other techniques, it can give you confidence, and the more confidence you have, the bigger the risks you can take."
Porter has recently compiled a report for a major central bank charting the likely economic trends of the next few years. "At the moment," he says, "Mars in Cancer is in opposition to Pluto in Capricorn.
This indicates a polarisation of opposing sentiments. Turmoil, in other words. This cycle ends around April 6." The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, will be delighted. "Sentiment will then recover and will turn down in early August. That phase will last for four to five weeks. There will be another shake in October," Porter asserts.
"In 2012 we'll be entering the precession of the equinoxes, which is the most important thing that's happened in the last 26,000 years. That suggests that something mega is going to happen. There will be a huge change in the world's psychology caused by a huge natural disaster or a massive change in spiritual beliefs.
"We have an interesting four years ahead of us."
Some might say we have an interesting few months ahead of us, let alone four years. Perhaps, if more financial experts had consulted the planets we wouldn't be facing a global recession. Then again, I doubt it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main. ... ars119.xml
rynner says: This all seemed almost sensible, until it got to this part:
The precession of the equinoxes, a long astronomical cycle that does last about 26,000 years, is a continuous thing, not something that suddenly happens every once in a while.
This statement makes as little sense as "At 2359 GMT we'll be entering the rotation of the Earth", or "On December the 31st we'll be entering the revolution of the Earth about the Sun"! :shock:
And what was the last most important thing, 26,000 years ago?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
- Messages
- 784
rynner said:And what was the last most important thing, 26,000 years ago?
The question: is it getting colder, you think?
But, no. What if the practice of astrology were simply a method by which to tap into future information (in a very minor way). That is, the practice is important, not the astrology.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Child stars most likely to be Sagittarians
Child stars are most likely to be born under the star sign Sagittarius, a study has shown.
Published: 7:00AM GMT 28 Oct 2009
Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Scarlett Johansson and Miley Cyrus all share the same zodiac sign of Sagittarius.
Researchers studied the star signs of 100 of the most famous child celebrities from the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, Shirley Temple and Hayley Mills to present day stars.
They discovered children born under Sagittarius between November 22 and December 21 are twice as likely to hit the big time than those born under any other star sign.
Eighteen per cent of child stars have been Sagittarians, but second place Virgos, Cancerians, Librans and Aquarians can manage only nine per cent of child stars.
With a strong bias towards young pop stars, Sagittarians are said to be driven, ambitious and broad-minded, but can be argumentative and blunt.
Others in the group include Donny Osmond, Jenny Agutter, Vanessa Hudgens and Bruce Lee, as well Jermaine Jackson.
Virgos in equal second boast possibly the most famous child star line-up of all time - Michael Jackson and one of his closest friends, Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin, as well as Harry Potter stars Rupert Grint and Tom Felton, who plays Malfoy.
Taurians are the least represented in the child star zodiac with just five members, but in their number is Shirley Temple, who made her first hit movie at the age of eight in 1934 and was the highest grossing star in America during the 1930s depression.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rians.html
Child stars are most likely to be born under the star sign Sagittarius, a study has shown.
Published: 7:00AM GMT 28 Oct 2009
Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Scarlett Johansson and Miley Cyrus all share the same zodiac sign of Sagittarius.
Researchers studied the star signs of 100 of the most famous child celebrities from the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, Shirley Temple and Hayley Mills to present day stars.
They discovered children born under Sagittarius between November 22 and December 21 are twice as likely to hit the big time than those born under any other star sign.
Eighteen per cent of child stars have been Sagittarians, but second place Virgos, Cancerians, Librans and Aquarians can manage only nine per cent of child stars.
With a strong bias towards young pop stars, Sagittarians are said to be driven, ambitious and broad-minded, but can be argumentative and blunt.
Others in the group include Donny Osmond, Jenny Agutter, Vanessa Hudgens and Bruce Lee, as well Jermaine Jackson.
Virgos in equal second boast possibly the most famous child star line-up of all time - Michael Jackson and one of his closest friends, Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin, as well as Harry Potter stars Rupert Grint and Tom Felton, who plays Malfoy.
Taurians are the least represented in the child star zodiac with just five members, but in their number is Shirley Temple, who made her first hit movie at the age of eight in 1934 and was the highest grossing star in America during the 1930s depression.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rians.html
James_H
And I like to roam the land
- Joined
- May 18, 2002
- Messages
- 7,629
If anyone is still interested in the topic's poll, I just did a breakdown... Because I have so much to do with my time 
Both men and women who have responded are more likely not to believe in astrology (percentage of males 76%, percentage of females 58%)
Undecided: M 19%, F 15%
Do believe in astrology: M 5%, F 27%
Both men and women who have responded are more likely not to believe in astrology (percentage of males 76%, percentage of females 58%)
Undecided: M 19%, F 15%
Do believe in astrology: M 5%, F 27%
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
Here's a listing for the current series of constellations the sun 'visits' throughout the year, plus notes of the classical / traditional mapping of Zodiac constellations onto the calendar.
SOURCE: http://www.livescience.com/4667-astrological-sign.html
David Plankton
I AM HIM.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 6,077
Saw this on youtube and thought it might fit in here. 'Scientists' prove something. Apparently.
Does your month of birth match your personality? Mine does, strangely enough.
Does your month of birth match your personality? Mine does, strangely enough.
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,404
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
Here's an astrology-related anecdote which you can skip if you've heard it before.
My sister had her first tattoo and rushed round to tell me at my work. (It was a big deal for her as my family disapproved of tattoos. I already had them of course, being the Black Sheep.)
I expected her to show it to me, as you do, but as it was a little inaccessible and we were out in town she refused. So I said 'If I can guess what it is, will you show me?' and she agreed, as only she and the artist knew.
It went like this:
Me - It's a scorpion!
Sis - What! How do YOU know?
Me - You're a Scorpio, and Scorpios are proud of scorpions.
Sis - But you don't believe in astrology!
Me - YOU do though!
Me -
My sister had her first tattoo and rushed round to tell me at my work. (It was a big deal for her as my family disapproved of tattoos. I already had them of course, being the Black Sheep.)
I expected her to show it to me, as you do, but as it was a little inaccessible and we were out in town she refused. So I said 'If I can guess what it is, will you show me?' and she agreed, as only she and the artist knew.
It went like this:
Me - It's a scorpion!
Sis - What! How do YOU know?
Me - You're a Scorpio, and Scorpios are proud of scorpions.
Sis - But you don't believe in astrology!
Me - YOU do though!
Me -
Spudrick68
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,646
I chuckled to myself when I heard February and brutal honesty. My wife was born in February and that is her to a tee.
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,404
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
Hmmm, here's an old thread to drag up!
Yesterday I chatted with a bloke at work who's interested in astrology. He reckoned I was rather Gemini. I'm not, I'm Virgo, so he said I must have Gemini rising or summat and he'd check when he got home.
It was all very interesting. I mentioned that both my husbands have been Sagittarians. Apparently Virgos and Sagis are opposites and so drawn to each other. Hmmm, right.
Yesterday I chatted with a bloke at work who's interested in astrology. He reckoned I was rather Gemini. I'm not, I'm Virgo, so he said I must have Gemini rising or summat and he'd check when he got home.
It was all very interesting. I mentioned that both my husbands have been Sagittarians. Apparently Virgos and Sagis are opposites and so drawn to each other. Hmmm, right.
AlchoPwn
Public Service is my Motto.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2017
- Messages
- 2,527
It went like this:
Me - It's a scorpion!
Sis - What! How do YOU know?
Me - You're a Scorpio, and Scorpios are proud of scorpions.
Sis - But you don't believe in astrology!
Me - YOU do though!
Me -
LOL. It is not what you believe but what you believe others believe that matters. Without this reflective process we would not have a system of currency exchange, or half as many neuroses.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2017
- Messages
- 159
Like all Taureans, I don't believe in astrology.
I'm a cynic. I think the thought that the position of the planets can say anything in regards to your identity or future is the purest bunk.
Be that as it may, despite everything I have a rack loaded with books on crystal gazing, palmistry, tarot, and other hokum. Why? Well:
Interfacing planets to identity is BS. Be that as it may, similar to people pharmaceutical, the are some advantageous bits of knowledge in among the ineptitude. For this situation, about regularities in identity.
Cheers, Bitmann
Be that as it may, despite everything I have a rack loaded with books on crystal gazing, palmistry, tarot, and other hokum. Why? Well:
Interfacing planets to identity is BS. Be that as it may, similar to people pharmaceutical, the are some advantageous bits of knowledge in among the ineptitude. For this situation, about regularities in identity.
Cheers, Bitmann
Last edited:
JamesWhitehead
Piffle Prospector
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,202
Ghost In The Machine
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,521
- Location
- Yorkshire
We did our Chinese astrology signs and everyone else in the family was somehting cool like snake or tiger. I was a cow.
Not happy.
In the western one, people get to be more exciting things like unicorn goats or scorpions. I'm a set of scales.
I'd be more up for believing it if, for once, I was something glamorous and exciting not a cow or a measuring implement.
Although I was intrigued to notice my favourite ever drag queen in Ru Paul's Drag Race, the one who everything he ever says and does I agree with and think "That's exactly what I'd say/do in that situation" shares a birthday with me. And all my closest friends ever, turn out to have the same star sign. Still, that is statistically possible if not entirely likely.
I think of all the woo things, astrology is the one I least get and am least interested in.
Not happy.
In the western one, people get to be more exciting things like unicorn goats or scorpions. I'm a set of scales.
I'd be more up for believing it if, for once, I was something glamorous and exciting not a cow or a measuring implement.
Although I was intrigued to notice my favourite ever drag queen in Ru Paul's Drag Race, the one who everything he ever says and does I agree with and think "That's exactly what I'd say/do in that situation" shares a birthday with me. And all my closest friends ever, turn out to have the same star sign. Still, that is statistically possible if not entirely likely.
I think of all the woo things, astrology is the one I least get and am least interested in.
Count yourself lucky. I'm also a set of scales but my Chinese one is a sheep.
Baa.
Ghost In The Machine
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,521
- Location
- Yorkshire
Tribble
Killjoy Boffin
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 2,956
For the last two years, author David Jester has been researching his new thriller Clinic, which was released this week.
As a result of the research, he concluded that most serial killers were born under the Taurus star sign, which is between April 20 and May 20.
Also, the most serial killers were born on April 21, and February 18.
https://www.indy100.com/article/mos...rus-as-their-star-sign-research-finds-8355876
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,270
- Location
- Eblana
February 18 is my birthday.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 29,622
- Location
- Out of Bounds
Hmmmm ...
I can see why these birthdays might nurture a chip on one's shoulder ...
The former is a day too late to be a full-fledged global-scale genocidal maniac (Hitler's birthday is 20 April).
The latter represents the maximum number of days most folks could wait before concluding nobody sent them any Valentines at all.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2017
- Messages
- 159