Off-topic, but pertinent to the sub-discussion going on...

The History Book Club is advertising Robert Dahl's "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?" Part of the review says, "...Jefferson called for frequent constitutional conventions at which the citizenry could assess the adequacy of our institutions. His close friend James Madison was quite appalled by this.... Instead, said Madison, the public should be encouraged to 'venerate' the Constitution; no one should be encouraged to think of its possible deficiencies." If anyone is interested, I'll post the entire review on a new thread. :smile:

Allybear, thanks for your question. One thing I could say is that your strongest aspect to the Moon is Saturn, and that would stabilize your home and work life. On the other hand, the Moon and Sun make strong aspects to Uranus too. Uranus doesn't necessarily mean that a person is changeable though; it means that a person tends to want to see strong changes in society of a liberating nature. Usually change with Uranus comes rarely, but when it comes it comes strongly, swiftly, suddenly and sometimes erratically and unpredictably. But Uranus also indicates a strong will and a tendency to insist on one's own way. There is also inventiveness, a liking for abstract or intuitive thought, and a sense that you have something unusual or creative to share. So having a strong will doesn't mean you change with the wind, but insist on your course of action once decided upon.

Of course, Jupiter is more changeable and adaptable than that, and loves variety.

On 2002-04-02 20:36, Sherry63 wrote:

Stone, I didn't try to give my planets an actual numerical score, because I wasn't sure at all how to do so. Eric's scores are his adjusted ones, found in the same post where he adjusted your scores as well. But I don't remember if that re-ranked your planets or not. I'm curious to see what you come up w/this time...

Sherry, thanks. I went back and took a look at Eric's rescoring and that is the one I did not particularly like. But it reminded me of a fundamental problem which needs to be resolved before I have any real confidence that we are capturing all relevant "energies" of the planets while excluding superfluous "energies" such that we get a proper weighting for the influence of each planet. Let me explain:

You can download some free software which will enable you to run your own chart. Here is the link:

http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm

I ran my own chart after figuring out how to set the thing to deal with the same aspects and objects used by Eric. I got a neat list of aspects, scored per a formula and ranked from strongest to weakest. The list included aspects to the Ascendant and Midheaven (which Eric did not provide) which are supposed to relate to temperament and destiny. And some of these Ascendant and Midheaven aspect descriptions really intrigued me since they seemed more specific than the more generic non-committal ones we generally see, and many seemed to apply to me. This software is worth your while just to get these aspects so as to better judge the validity of this business (and, no, I still have not made up my mind). Incidentally, you can find a rather complete list of aspect descriptions here:

http://www.geocities.com/rbltre/astro/mainindex.html

Now a problem existed in that there were minor differences between my list of aspects and the one Eric provided (excluding those ASC and MC ones of course). I picked up a few aspects which Eric did not and Eric picked up a few which I did not. At first, I was concerned that the software was not depicting certain planets' orbits accurately, but I eventually figured out that it was using default orb ranges for aspects which are different from what Eric uses. To make this clearer, let me show what degrees of orb the software uses for each aspect by default:

7.0 = Conjunction, Opposition, Trine, Square
6.0 = Sextile
3.0 = Semisextile, Semisquare, Sesquiquadrate

I am not sure what all Eric uses but I know that he goes to 8 or 9 degrees for trines and less than 6 for sextiles (and probably less than 3 for the minor ones). In the end, we get minor(?) differences between our lists of aspects. So the question becomes what size of orbs should be assigned to each of these aspects in order to capture the proper amount of each planet's energy?

I have done a little searching online and there seems to be widespread disagreement as to what orb sizes to use. Conjunctions are typically given anywhere from 8 to 12 degrees. Oppositions are given anywhere from 4 to 10 degrees. Sextiles from 3 to 6, I think. You get the idea. What I have not found is a simple explanation for the basis of this orb "theory" such that I might derive reliable values for these aspects. I mean why use any more than, say, 1 degree, or any less than, say, 15 degrees? Surely there is some sort of theory behind determining these orb sizes, so what is it?

Eric, if you could explain the "theory" behind orbs, I would appreciate it. If orbs are too small, then not enough of a planet's energy will be represented in the chart. If orbs are too large, then too much of a planet's energy will be represented. There must be some sort of theory behind orbs which will enable us to set the right sizes. Only then can we get a reliable assessment of each planet's influence upon us.

On 2002-04-02 20:48, Sherry63 wrote:
Off-topic, but pertinent to the sub-discussion going on...

The History Book Club is advertising Robert Dahl's "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?" Part of the review says, "...Jefferson called for frequent constitutional conventions at which the citizenry could assess the adequacy of our institutions. His close friend James Madison was quite appalled by this.... Instead, said Madison, the public should be encouraged to 'venerate' the Constitution; no one should be encouraged to think of its possible deficiencies." If anyone is interested, I'll post the entire review on a new thread. :smile:

Sherry, I just came across this book yesterday while reading Publishers Weekly, and I put it on my list of "must-reads." But it has to get in line behind When Generations Collide and one of the books that Brian Rush mentioned on the "Environmental" thread. :smile:

I'd be interested in reading more of this particular review, on the "Book Review" thread, perhaps? :smile:

_________________
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure....You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world." -- Nelson Mandela

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiff '61 on 2002-04-03 07:15 ]</font>

On 2002-04-03 07:14, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-04-02 20:48, Sherry63 wrote:
Off-topic, but pertinent to the sub-discussion going on...

The History Book Club is advertising Robert Dahl's "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?" Part of the review says, "...Jefferson called for frequent constitutional conventions at which the citizenry could assess the adequacy of our institutions. His close friend James Madison was quite appalled by this.... Instead, said Madison, the public should be encouraged to 'venerate' the Constitution; no one should be encouraged to think of its possible deficiencies." If anyone is interested, I'll post the entire review on a new thread. :smile:

Sherry, I just came across this book yesterday while reading Publishers Weekly, and I put it on my list of "must-reads." But it has to get in line behind When Generations Collide and one of the books that Brian Rush mentioned on the "Environmental" thread. :smile:

I'd be interested in reading more of this particular review, on the "Book Review" thread, perhaps? :smile:

Kiff, thanks for the "Book Review" suggestion. I'll get over there later this evening & type the review in. :smile:

On 2002-04-03 05:32, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Sherry, thanks. I went back and took a look at Eric's rescoring and that is the one I did not particularly like. But it reminded me of a fundamental problem which needs to be resolved before I have any real confidence that we are capturing all relevant "energies" of the planets while excluding superfluous "energies" such that we get a proper weighting for the influence of each planet. Let me explain:

You can download some free software which will enable you to run your own chart. Here is the link:

http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm

I ran my own chart after figuring out how to set the thing to deal with the same aspects and objects used by Eric. I got a neat list of aspects, scored per a formula and ranked from strongest to weakest. The list included aspects to the Ascendant and Midheaven (which Eric did not provide) which are supposed to relate to temperament and destiny. And some of these Ascendant and Midheaven aspect descriptions really intrigued me since they seemed more specific than the more generic non-committal ones we generally see, and many seemed to apply to me. This software is worth your while just to get these aspects so as to better judge the validity of this business (and, no, I still have not made up my mind). Incidentally, you can find a rather complete list of aspect descriptions here:

http://www.geocities.com/rbltre/astro/mainindex.html
....

Thanks for the URLs, Stone. I'll mess around w/them later tonight & see where I get. Now I'm wishing that I had gotten the ancient (published early in the 20th c.) copy of the astrology book my '08 grandfather used (he was a 33rd-degree Mason). Eric, I'll be interested to hear about orbs--all this is new to me!

On orbs: first of all, orbs depend on the importance of the aspect. Major aspects are those most related to the four cardinal directions. This is the same idea as the "four turnings;" the points at which we move from one turning to another are the four cardinal points. Same with the seasons: the equinoxes and solstices are the four cardinal points. So visualize the planets as they form angles to one another. You can also use the Moon in its aspect to the Sun. These aspects are commonly called New Moon, Full Moon, First Quarter and Last Quarter.

These aspects include conjunction (a "new moon" between any two planets in their mutual cycle) the opposition (full moon between planets) and the square (first or last quarter). These aspects get the widest orbs. The New and Full Moon (conjunction and opposition) get the widest orbs because they are the most basic aspects.

In addition, the trine aspect is based on a division of the circle into a triangle, or about 4 signs apart. This is also considered a major aspect and gets orbs as wide as the square.

The sextile is half of a trine. Thus it gets a somewhat narrower orb than the trine. The semi-square is half of a square, so it gets less of an orb than the square. Same with the Sesqui-square (square plus semi-square) The quincunx and semi-sextile are not based directly on the four cardinal points and get narrower orbs for that reason.

Astrologers disagree about how wide of an orb to use for each type of aspect. That is just a matter for further research I guess. The majority would probably agree with me that 8 degrees is a reliable orb for the 4 major aspects, 6 for the sextile and 2-3 for the others. But there is full consensus on what I wrote above.

Stonewall, it sounds like you are looking to quantify the strength of aspects in a way that can be computerized. This can probably be done, but I disagree that the program you have found on-line does this. I explained in my emails to you that significant factors have been left out. An astrologer like me can see them easily however and estimate aspect strength.

One factor I mentioned to you is the planets involved in an aspect. Few astrologers at this time would give a full orb to a planetoid such as Chiron, while most would give wider orbs to the Sun and Moon than to the other planets.

Remember also that in my revised scoring method I also added in the aspects between planets and angles.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-04-04 23:59 ]</font>

On 2002-04-04 23:47, Eric A Meece wrote:

In addition, the trine aspect is based on a division of the circle into a triangle, or about 4 signs apart. This is also considered a major aspect and gets orbs as wide as the square.

The sextile is half of a trine. Thus it gets a somewhat narrower orb than the trine. The semi-square is half of a square, so it gets less of an orb than the square. Same with the Sesqui-square (square plus semi-square) The quincunx and semi-sextile are not based directly on the four cardinal points and get narrower orbs for that reason.

I guess I do not understand why astrologers have seized upon these particular angles. It might make sense if a given angle repreated in a harmonic within a 360 degree range, I suppose, but obviously a quincunx does not. And if we went by harmonics, then the weight (and consequent orb) attached to each aspect would be different from what most astrologers use. For example, an opposition would be given half the orb of a conjunction. A trine would be given a third the orb of a conjunction. A square would be given a fourth, a sextile a sixth, and so on. But this is not what astrologers do.

The influence of each planet might also be weighted in proportion to its gravitational pull on the earth derived from G(m1)(m2)/r^2. But since the magnitude decreases exponentially with distance, even Jupiter would have a puny orb next to that of the moon, I would think. So this does not seem to be what we are after.

All I can conclude is that each planet is held to have an equal influence on each of us, irrespective of size differences. But obviously astrologers attach greater weight to the Sun and Moon. And I do not understand why certain aspect angles are seized upon and given apparently random orbs. I am still looking for a method to this madness. :wink:

Well, I don't think that "certain angles were seized upon;" I don't know what other angles would be any more logical to use than those.

The orbs sizes are based on experience, as well as what I suggested. But it is not as precise as it might be, that is true.

Eric:

I scanned over this report and five planets are moving into conjunction, if I interpreted it correctly. Would you care to comment on how such a conjunction would allegedly affect any child born under it? Also, is it supposed to suggest anything about politics or our nation in the immediate future? In other words, would you put yourself on the record now with a prediction such that we can look back and evaluate the validity of this later? Thanks.

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/sto...-2614222c.html

(For info and discussion)

Five planets line up in rare celestial array
By ANDREW BRIDGES AP Science Writer
Published 11:40 a.m. PDT Wednesday, April 17, 2002
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The five brightest planets visible from Earth have lined up in plain sight to form a spectacular celestial array that won't be seen again until 2040.

Through the next four weeks, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Saturn and Venus will appear tightly clustered in the western sky, forming a knot of planets that can be viewed in the evening despite the glow of light-soaked cities.

"The five naked-eye planets are converging in one part of the sky and from now until mid-May you can see all five at one glance, which is pretty unusual," said John Mosley, an astronomer at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles.

Each evening, the alignment will assume different shapes, as the five planets continue on the orbital paths that take them around the sun. The planets orbit in the same plane, like grooves in a phonograph record, only at different distances.

Each planet also varies in the amount of time it takes to orbit the sun: Mercury zips around once every 88 days; Saturn takes more than 29 years; other three fall in between. At times the planets appear to cluster together.

Similar bunchings occur every 20 years or so, although they are not always visible. The last they were this visible was in 1940. In May 2000, the five planets formed a tighter bunch, but were so close to the sun that they were washed out by its glare.

In 2004, they will appear together again in the night sky, but will be spread over a much wider area, said J. Kelly Beatty, executive editor of Sky & Telescope magazine. They won't be as easy to spy at a single glance again until 2040.

"This is the nature of the clockwork of the solar system," Beatty said. "We like to think of it as a way to remind people there is a simple beauty in the heavens that doesn't require any special training to appreciate."

Astronomers stress there is no astronomical significance to the pileup. It is, Beatty said, just a "pretty coincidence."

That hasn't stopped doomsayers in the past. In the months before the May 2000 lineup, some thought it foretold widespread catastrophe. No such disaster happened. In February 1954 B.C., a similar alignment led the Chinese to restart their calendar at year 0, Mosley said.

To view the planetary alignment, find a dark area and look west as twilight ends. Binoculars or a telescope are not needed.

The planets already are appearing together nightly, although they will be at their closest on May 14, when Jupiter will be high and bright in the sky. Below it, Venus will be paired with the crescent moon. Mars will lie below it, and Saturn below it. Farther down and to the right, Mercury will hug the horizon.

The appearances of the planets and whether they form patterns that are spectacular to see probably has little bearing on interpretation.

The most significant thing coming up is that Mars is aligning with the Saturn-Pluto opposition in early May. You recall that I and other astrologers used the Saturn-Pluto aspect of mid-2001 to spring 2002 to forecast the start of a major US war late in the summer of 2001. The best way to use planets to forecast events is IMO to look for repeating patterns and cycles in history that correspond with them and their astrological meanings. Some astrologers also use intuitive feelings by looking at the sky to forecast events. I usually don't do this, though at times I can "feel energies."
See
http://www.california.com/~eameece/attack.htm
to review the prediction I made about Saturn-Pluto, and what may be ahead.

The relationship of this aspect to the number 11 shows the kind of destiny patterns which I think are more significant than whether the planets are nice to look at. See the bottom of the article I linked to.

Now when in early May, Mars is due to join that aspect again, as it did during the month before Sept 11th, indicates that the war and violence of the current wars will reach some sort of climax. It seems hard to imagine, since it would seem the Mideast war can't get much worse. But it might, and so might the Afghan war, and I pinpointed this period in my book too. The fact that other planets are also close by only heightens the indication. I think I already successful predicted a major turn of events in March.

In an article I also predicted that the war starting in late summer 2001 would involve Venezuela and Colombia. Now it appears this prediction is being fulfilled in a johnny-come-lately way-- at least to the extent that Bush apparently backed a failed coup in Venezuela which was deadly, and is stepping up involvement in Colombia. The other planets now clustering around the great Saturn-Pluto opposition seems to be bringing its impact out more fully right now and through early May. These situations may also get worse in May.

The previous Saturn-Pluto opposition happened in the period in which you were born Stonewall, when the USA escalated the war in Vietnam (or actually, invaded). Jupiter in Gemini was also a part of this pattern both times, and has been during many other US wars. Not that this necessarily says anything about you. :smile:

Eric:

You got back to the subject of "contacting ETs" on another thread and, seeing as I have nothing to smoke, I thought I had better let that "wild" discussion slide for the night. But it got me to thinking about something else about which you should have some knowledge:

What do you make of the conjecture about the existence of a Planet X or Nibiru or whatever else it might be called? There certainly seem to be perturbations in the orbits of some of the outer planets which suggest the presence of another planet (or other body) out there. Assuming that there is another planet beyond Pluto, how will its discovery affect your field of astrology? Which sign would pick up this planet? What would this planet signify or represent? Add any detail which you consider to be relevant.

There are many small iceballs near and beyond Pluto. Pluto itself is just a very large one. I don't think there are any other larger planets, or we would have seen them by now.

Some astrologers make use of the smaller bodies in the solar system, including asteroids, the ice-ball Chiron between Saturn and Uranus, and others further out. They add some significance to the chart for these astrologers. I don't use them much, especially since I don't have an ephemeris for the far out ones.

On 2002-06-01 21:39, Eric A Meece wrote:

There are many small iceballs near and beyond Pluto. Pluto itself is just a very large one. I don't think there are any other larger planets, or we would have seen them by now.

Would these iceballs be able to account for these orbital perturbations? From what I recall reading, astronomers in the 1980s calculated that whatever is causing these perturbations must be at least five times the size of Pluto or Neptune (or maybe it was Earth). In other words, it is supposed to be pretty large. But iceballs could account for this as well?

The movements of Neptune and Pluto are what they are expected to be. I don't know how astronomers come up with the idea that there are perturbations, if they did. Nothing to get perturbed about I guess. :smile: Sorry but I know nothing more than that.

Some astrologers posit a planet called "Persephone" and say it rules Taurus or Libra.

The important thing is to understand what the cycles of the planets we already know are telling us. It's the same kinds of things I'm saying on my other posts. :wink: See my web page...

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-06-01 22:06 ]</font>

On 2002-06-01 21:59, Eric A Meece wrote:

The movements of Neptune and Pluto are what they are expected to be.

I'm not sure that is actually true. If I am not mistaken, the same perturbations which suggested the existence of and led to the eventual discovery of Pluto are still being exhibited today. In other words, Pluto was found purely by accident because it is not the source of those perturbations. However I am just not sure that an actual planet is necessarily responsible for those perturbations.

I don't know how astronomers come up with the idea that there are perturbations, if they did. Nothing to get perturbed about I guess. :smile: Sorry but I know nothing more than that.

Here is something I just found:

http://www.apollonius.net/planetX.html

(Excerpted)

SPECULATIONS ON "PLANET X"
By Raymond C. Vaughan, Hamburg, New York
KRONOS Journal, Summer 1983, Volume VIII, Number 4

The idea that there is a tenth planet or other body beyond the orbit of Pluto is becoming popular among astronomers. At a conference held at NASA's Ames Research Center in June, 1982, a number of researchers discussed the growing evidence that something is out there: perhaps a planet, perhaps the remnant of a burned-out white dwarf or neutron star that was (is) a binary companion to the Sun, perhaps even a black hole.[1]

The evidence for such a body comes from the fact that the gravitational forces among the Sun and known planets cannot account fully for the observed orbital motions of the planets, particularly Uranus and Neptune, which show tiny unexplained deviations or perturbations from their predicted orbits. The same situation existed prior to the discovery of Pluto, and the belief that an unknown planet was causing the perturbations was in fact the motivation for the search that led to Pluto's discovery in 1930. Nowadays it is clear that Pluto was found for the wrong reasons; its mass is too low to produce the observed effects. Hence the new interest in finding a body out beyond Pluto.

Until more is known, it is easy to speculate about what could be out there. Astronomers at the NASA-Ames conference suggested a planet the size of Uranus at a distance of about 100 A.U. [1 A.U. = 93,000,000 miles, the distance from the Earth to the Sun] from the Sun, or a burned-out star at a distance of about 500 A.U., or a black hole (10 solar masses) at a distance of about 1000 A.U. Others have argued that the available evidence implies a body of 2 to 5 Earth masses, lying out of the plane of the ecliptic.[2]

From a Velikovskian perspective, there are also other possibilities. One is simply the idea that the perturbations could be minor effects of electrical or magnetic forces superimposed on the gravitational forces that are mainly responsible for the orbits. The source of such electrical or magnetic forces need not be a solid body but could be the sort of large-scale fields in space that Ralph Juergens envisioned.[3]

Another rather speculative possibility is that an unknown body does exist beyond the orbit of Pluto, that is it on a highly elliptical orbit with its perihelion well inside the orbit of Pluto, and that it participated in at least one of the planetary interactions described by Velikovsky.[4] For example, the unknown body could have passed near the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn several thousand years ago and could have participated in the birth of Venus. Or it could have passed through the inner solar system in the fifteenth century B.C. and have been the cause or catalyst of some of the Venus-Earth interactions.

To conjecture about the details of any such interactions seems fruitless without more information. However, there are some things that can be said about the range of possible orbits that would allow the unknown body to be: (1) close enough to engage the known planets in a Velikovskian interaction within the past several thousand years, (2) close enough to perturb the known planets at the present time, and (3) far enough away to remain unnoticed in the interim. Much depends on the mass of the unknown body but, since it left behind a reasonably intact planetary system, it must have been much smaller than the Sun.

Suppose we assume the unknown body to be no larger than Uranus and to be following an elliptical orbit that meets the above conditions. Its orbital period must be at least 3500 years, so its semimajor axis must be at least 230 A.U. If it is now close enough to perturb the outer planets, it cannot be more than about 100 A.U. from the Sun, which means that it cannot be moving away from the Sun. It must already have passed aphelion and be heading back toward the inner solar system. As can be seen from Table I [below], all of the applicable orbits have rather similar properties within 100 A.U. of the Sun, regardless of whether the orbital period is 3500 years or 14,000 years. If there is indeed an unknown body on such an orbit, it is heading toward the inner solar system at roughly 1 A.U./year and will reach perihelion in a century or less.

The idea that the body now perturbing the outer planets has a highly ellipitical orbit is of course pure speculation; it is generally consistent with but not necessarily a consequence of Velikovsky's theory. Within a few years, the nature of the unknown body may become much clearer; astronomers are optimistic that its effect on the trajectories of Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 will be measurable as the two space probes move out past Pluto's orbit and will indicate the mass and location of the unknown body, even if it cannot be located visually. In the meantime, one can wonder whether the overall effect of a body returning to wreak interplanetary havoc in the solar system would be entirely bad. It could kill us all, though reports of previous encounters imply that some of us survived. Could it also make us realize the foolishness of our petty squabbles, over which we threaten to kill ourselves?

On 2002-06-01 21:59, Eric A Meece wrote:
The movements of Neptune and Pluto are what they are expected to be. I don't know how astronomers come up with the idea that there are perturbations, if they did. Nothing to get perturbed about I guess. :smile: Sorry but I know nothing more than that.

Some astrologers posit a planet called "Persephone" and say it rules Taurus or Libra.

The important thing is to understand what the cycles of the planets we already know are telling us. It's the same kinds of things I'm saying on my other posts. :wink: See my web page...

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-06-01 22:06 ]</font>

Yeah, ok. I'm curious, I was born in July 1976. What does that say about me?

On 2002-07-09 21:39, Shannon wrote:

On 2002-06-01 21:59, Eric A Meece wrote:
The movements of Neptune and Pluto are what they are expected to be. I don't know how astronomers come up with the idea that there are perturbations, if they did. Nothing to get perturbed about I guess. :smile: Sorry but I know nothing more than that.

Some astrologers posit a planet called "Persephone" and say it rules Taurus or Libra.

The important thing is to understand what the cycles of the planets we already know are telling us. It's the same kinds of things I'm saying on my other posts. :wink: See my web page...

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-06-01 22:06 ]</font>

Yeah, ok. I'm curious, I was born in July 1976. What does that say about me?

He would probably need to know at least what day in July. :smile:
July could be either Cancer or Leo. There are a LOT of Cancers on this board (we like cycles I guess), so I bet that's what you are.

This thread is about turnings and their relationship to astrological cycles. Since they are both long historical cycles, this interests me and some people.

However, although I'm an astrologer, this thread is not for me to do interpretations! Sorry, but I do hope you look further.

We did an experiment some time back in this thread, I believe, in which people ask themselves, what SHOULD astrology say about me if it were true?

That's what I did. Instead of ask an astrologer, I read about the meanings of the planets, and then asked, where would they be if astrology really works? My chart matched exactly my expectations. That's why I'm an astrologer.

BTW I never heard back from Robert Reed about this. He might find an interesting correlation with his planetary rankings!

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-13 20:26 ]</font>

Originally Posted by Eric A Meece

We did an experiment some time back in this thread, I believe, in which people ask themselves, what SHOULD astrology say about me if it were true?

That's what I did. Instead of ask an astrologer, I read about the meanings of the planets, and then asked, where would they be if astrology really works? My chart matched exactly my expectations. That's why I'm an astrologer.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-07-13 20:26 ]</font>

EM,
That's the best reasoning for, and defense of, Astrology that I have seen yet.

Eric:

This is the most honest astrology test I have seen yet:

www.elfdata.com/astrology/test.html

It showed that I came out strongest in Aquarius and weakest in Capricorn, and then it said:

"Astrology does not work on you." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Eric:

This is the most honest astrology test I have seen yet:

www.elfdata.com/astrology/test.html

It showed that I came out strongest in Aquarius and weakest in Capricorn, and then it said:

"Astrology does not work on you." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, well. This works. I came out highest in Cancer, which I am. But my scores in Libra and Aquarius were close.

Cancer: 17
Libra: 14
Aquarius: 12

My three lowest?

Aries: 4
Sagittarius: -1

I am very non-aggressive, perhaps even cowardly. :o

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Eric:

This is the most honest astrology test I have seen yet:

www.elfdata.com/astrology/test.html

It showed that I came out strongest in Aquarius and weakest in Capricorn, and then it said:

"Astrology does not work on you." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, well. This works. I came out highest in Cancer, which I am. But my scores in Libra and Aquarius were close.

Cancer: 17
Libra: 14
Aquarius: 12

My three lowest?

Aries: 4
Sagittarius: -1

I am very non-aggressive, perhaps even cowardly. :o

Xoomer, darling, according to emode.com, Cancer is my match:


http://www.emode.com/tests/zodiac/


And you also scored very well indeed at Selectsmart:


http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.p...astrologymatch

#1 Pisces
#2 Cancer
#3 Capricorn
#4 Taurus
#5 Scorpio
#6 Virgo
#7 Aquarius
#8 Libra
#9 Gemini
#10 Aries
#11 Sagittarius
#12 Leo


Wait, you jumped back in the lead with this one:


http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.p...=CafeAstrology

#1 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Cancer
#2 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Taurus
#3 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Pisces
#4 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Scorpio
#5 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Virgo
#6 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Leo
#7 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Libra
#8 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Capricorn
#9 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Aquarius
#10 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Aries
#11 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Gemini
#12 Sun, Venus, or Mars in Sagittarius


There is a fair bit of variation in these goofy things, but the following appear to be consistently toward the top:


Cancer
Pisces
Taurus
Scorpio
Virgo


Eric, analysis!

Aries: 8
Taurus: 12
Gemini: 3
Cancer: 13
Leo: 10
Virgo: 3
Libra: 4
Scorpio: 13
Sagittarius: 7
Capricorn: 1
Aquarius: 17
Pisces: 0

You mostly fit into an Aquarius, and not a Taurus. Which means that astrology does not work on you!

Another Aquarian? I think that it's more likely that this test does not work on me... Taurus was pretty high up there though!

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.p...astrologymatch

Here's what I got:

#1 Aquarius (Good news--my girlfriend is an Aquarius...as are my mom, dad, and little sister!)
#2 Virgo (That's me!)
#3 Taurus
#4 Aries
#5 Capricorn
#6 Sagittarius (my ex :P )
#7 Leo
#8 Libra
#9 Scorpio
#10 Cancer
#11 Gemini
#12 Pisces