Astronomy vs Astrology

all this discussion reminds me of what Dr.Lokanathan had to say about astrology when he was questioned about it :
"i'll agree if you tell me that the planets affect the people's life on earth, but i wont agree if you tell me that the planets affect your life differently than it will for mine."

My father is professional Astrologer Vs myself an amature astronomer..
you can imagine the rest @ my home :)

I do agree that research is the only way to prove it.But my problem is that I find it hard to digest the fact that the movement of planets can determine the life of an individual.And considering the fact that there are billions of planets shouldnt they all be considered while determining the life of an individual. I know I am a bit harsh on this topic. But I really feel that if we are doing something related to astrology then the whole of the universe should be taken into consideration rather than simply using our planets as parameters. Hope you will agree on that fact?
Maybe if you can provide me with substantial evidence I will surely agree. But simply because we have been practicing this tradition does not
mean that it should be agreed upon instantaneously by everyone. I do agree that some things are beyond the reach of man and science itself but
the very characteristic that shapes and differentiates humans from other
beings is our ability to reason. If we start to classify all the things that we dont understand as true and beyond the scope of Human thinking then it shows that we are losing our strongest characteristic which is the ability to reason. Astrobrat, I really dont have any prejudice on astrology. As a matter of fact both of my parents know astrology very well but the point is that the more I think about the more I reason against astrology.
The late astrophysicist Carl Sagan used to say
" The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Maybe this is true with astrology or maybe this is not.

Who knows?

he worst part is that a lot of well educated people in India fall for these myths very easily I think tahts an unfair statement.Thats completely up to the individual. Some people feel much more secure when they have done something in the good time. Talkinga bout the shred of evidence part, it again boils down to people calling astrology a pseudo science and not even trying to find any evidence(Nothing personal arun, its all in good sport I hope).
As far as I can see the research is way to behind to actually say that astrolgy is non science or an art for tat matter.

Astrology is a art, a mystic art..like many others. And all that is art is beyond science and determinism.
From the theistic point of view, You'd hold god responsible for the arrow of time and the consequences thereof. You'd also then believe that, defying relativity and shedding light on a point arbitrary on the timeline isn't really impossible, that through an art that's beyond science, just like god is. There's probably reason to believe that there'd be a mystic art that would let you draw conclusions off planetary motions, et al and try find some symmetry that would reflect upon a person's future.

On the other hand, If you ask for a scientific backup, Then there'd be no way to refute. But again, there 're a lot of things that 're beyond science.. The unification of physics is still beyond materialism and existentialism isn't it ?

I'd accept Astrology as a mystic art as I said, And art shows no symmetry or continuity.(Not everybody, with a practice of a lifetime, can manage to produce a Da-Vinci masterpiece ?).. It's done a difference to many people's lives and there 've been other people who've thought of it to be bullshit.

hi all,

I am entering into this article very late as its a topic on which i am pretty unaware .

Neither i know Astronomy fully nor Astrology . but 1 point that's coming into my mind from few days back I wanna put it into this forum topic discussion. During our Melkot trip while we all were standing on the road ... some topic on Astrolgy was going on .... I listened Hemant gave a point that was strong enough to prove Astrology an imaginary subject. Argument was "What are Rahu & Ketu ? planets that don't exist ... In astrology they are termed as chaaya greha ( shadow planet ). Now how a planet's shadow can exist without having the planet itself ?!!!!" Later on when i thought over this arguement ( by using my brain that rarely works :D )

the only thing came to my mind for its answer is :

Take the subject mathematics ...that is considered as a pure science with all its equations get proved . In complex algebra there is a variable termed as iota. eq of a complex number has eq: a and b are real numbers, and i is the imaginary unit, with the property i ² = −1. eg:3 + 2i is a complex number, with real part 3 and imaginary part 2. But using these complex & imaginary equations mathematicians have solved many esoteric problems in space & still doing R&D.

At least i don't know that number / digit whether real or imaginary having its sq root = i. but then also i had no choice in my graduation to accept imaginary numbers & solve its problems to get pass in exams.

(It may happen that in future i get replaced by some other variable or may get its value)

As per the books & Professors i is an imaginary unit complex algebra taken for reference to calculate the equations in 3 D .

 for example complex plane , complex coordinates . while converting cartesian plane to its polar form , polar to exponential form etc. Not only i there are many other constants which scientist frequently use to get resolve their eq. like E=hν, (planck’s constant)

Newton’s F directly proportional to a (acceleration) F=m.a

Where m is constant (mass) ( mass also never remain same its constantly varies but its rate is too slow ) many more examples are there like probability factor in probability amplitudes . I wanna say here is that when we ( refers to people like me ) don’t question about the validity of these constants & its values Why we doubt over existance of Rahu & Ketu .

It might be possible that in olden days Astrologers have used these shadow planets as a constant factor( like i in complex var). Because they were using some different frame of references that were not based on movement of earth around Sun so they might have chosen some constant factors like Rahu & ketu to calculate Exact date & timing of solar & lunar eclipse. But any way for most of the times we get timings of eclipse correctly in Panchang (Astrology calender).. Who knows tomorrow calculations may get based on some other reference . Only thing that is certain in this universe is uncertainity ( donnow who said this )

 I cann’t make any decision at the end but 1 thing I realized is that Astonomy is flexible rather than Astrology . Astronomy keeps on adding information as new parts of universe are being explored but Astrology is always constant so its calculations are not correct in today’s perspective. Astrologers based their calender on 12 Zodiac may be because of 12 months. At that time sun was never in 13 zodiac . There was not always a 13th sign. The 12 signs of the Zodiac we are all aware of are the 12 star constellations the Sun passes through on this yearly track, but this Zodiac is very outdated. The most common Zodiac in use, the Tropical Zodiac, which, was created about 2000 years ago, problem is that nothing in the cosmos is stationary and the stars and planets are constantly in a state of movement. About 2000 years ago, the Sun would travel from the star constellations Scorpius and then directly into Sagittarius, but due to the constant motion of the cosmos, the Sun now spends a few days in the star constellation Ophiuchus before entering Sagittarius from Scorpius, hence the birth of the 13th sign of the Zodiac, Ophiuchus .

 But Astrologers today don’t agree on this & keep doing calculations based on old zodiac. So in today’s perspective it has lost its relevance in few cases. As Arun has termed astrology as Pseudo science I think Astrology is a science that has stopped developing furthur rather than it to be a pseudo science . Also people used to relate astrology with their life as a factor influencing their life conditions that seems to be too ridiculous. More over relating it to various religious beliefs had also distorted it a lot. While Astronomy being flexible enough keeps on developing & is capable to give currently the answers of almost all questions with evidence. 

 I am not sure up to which extent i am able to put my views through this  topic but 1 thing that I feel is that To oppose a thing one need to support it & to support a thing one need to oppose it.

I agree with the fact that a lot of work has gone into astrology like mapping of planets and all that stuff but I always feel that where astronomy is a science astrology is nothing but Pseudo science.The worst part is that a lot of well educated people in India fall for these myths very easily.As a matter of fact I would say that atleast in astrology a lot of substantial work has been done in mapping of the planets but in other things like numerology there is not even a shred evidence to prove what these people predict.My final say is that as people interested in astronomy we will be doing justice to the science only if we dispel the myths of astrology and make people realise the fact that astronomy and astrology are completely unrelated.

I completely agree with Hemant that at present we do not have any theoritical backing to even debate on it.As a matter of fact from what we know as of now, is that it is at best a statistical analysis. In fact the known and accepted compiler of Jyotisha , Maharishi Bhardwaj was a statistitian par excellence.
But one thing we need to acknowledge at this point is also the excellent sutras compiled by him to describe the motion of the planets across the horoscope. Also Varahamihira et all have done voluminous work on astronomy in realtion to astrology. Evidence suggests that work has gone into painstakingly noting down coordianates and mapping the path of planets.
It is also to be noted that Shankarachrya had categorized the shastra as a vedanga and awe would scarcely see an intellectual luminary as shankara through the pages of history or even mythology for that matter.
Why then has this brilliant science been eclipsed into the oblivion of darkness and obvious non cognitives by the so called keepers of science. Isn't it true that even astronomy was mocked on by the then so called keepers of science for over 300 years.
I personally believe that there is a lot more to this than what meets the eye!!