From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:21:15 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Nov14.030624.23977@netcom.com> jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff) writes:
>In article <roelle.721602222@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>>
>>>... Her name is Sharula and that is the same name as a star
>>>in the Scorpius (sometimes called Scorpio) constellation. 
>>                  ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Scoropio is not a constellation; it is an astrological sign.  We 
>>realize you are unable to distinguish between astrology and astronomy 
>>John, as well as your other problem with fantasy V. reality. 
>
>
>I for one, do not appreciate anal comments like this in this group.
>You have to give people a break sometimes, and go with the larger
>picture.
>Jeff-

Actually, there is a constellation called scorpio, and it is 
part of the sidereal zodiac.  The constellations of the sidereal
zodiac vary in size, measured approximately by the extent of the
stars that make them up.  This zodiac constitutes the fixed stars,
whereas the astrological signs are made up of an imaginary structure
that you construct by extending the line between the sun and the earth
at the vernal equinox.  That yields "out there" the sign of Ares.
Then divide the circle into twelve equal parts and assign the con-
stellation names in order.  This is the zodiac (basically an earth-sun zodiac) 
that most astrologers use.

The sidereal zodiac is not based on the sun at all but on the earth and
the stars only.  The sun is just another planet that moves through it.
There is a smaller number of investigators who also study the sidereal 
zodiac as well as the traditional solar zodiac. The question arises, 
if there is really a relationship between the movements of the planets
through this zodiac and what goes on on the earth, is it of a different 
nature than that of the planets' movements through the solar zodiac 
(if indeed those movements have an influence)?  The answer is that there 
is a difference.

Much misunderstanding could be eliminated if the distinctions were kept
clearer, including the scoffing argument raised by scientists that the
precession of the equinoxes has shifted all the signs so they no longer
line up to the stars, thereby "proving" that astrology is intrinsically
nonsense. The fact is that the earth-sun zodiac does not precess, while
the sidereal one does. About 2,000 years ago they were approximately 
lined up (except for the varying sizes of the sidereal zodiac). Today they
are about one sign apart (the Platonic year being about 2160 years).

Scientific skepticism about astrology has never been based on solid 
scientific investigation.  It only is based on  a revulsion against the 
essentially non-scientific methodology of astrology and the often crude 
application of it in a superstitious way.  The result is that most scientists 
never get beyond the position that there is absolutely no reason to investigate
this "nonsense" anyway, so a few pot shots aimed at the astrology of
the National Enquirer variety are deemed to be enough. Then they say,
show me some evidence according to my standards of evidence.  Astrologers
are not forthcoming with this, so there it stands. No truly scientific
investigation is ever made.  For one thing that requires an objective scientist
who also has some faith that his investigations may yield concrete results,
not one who is determined to find the first piece of evidence that disproves
the hypothesis.  If the stars have meaning, then that meaning is as vast and
complex as life itself, and not the crude thing that most people make it out
to be.