skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

What might this say about the "birth" of astrology

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mrtinps



Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 8

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:38 am    Post subject: What might this say about the "birth" of astrology Reply with quote

Hi,

I see somebody has already posted about Electric Universe theory earlier. I started looking into this recently and it is fascinating, both scientifically and in terms of what it means for astrology (not that the two things are separate!!).

One thing I found interesting to ponder in terms of the history of astrology was the theories of David Talbott which challenge the idea that the planets have been pootling along in their current orbits since for ever (in human terms at least). Based on fairly compelling evidence from myth and neolithic art he suggests that in fairly recent history, a few thousand years ago, there were cataclysmic events in the sky involving the planets Saturn, Mars and Venus. These planets were seen to be in alignment with the earth's north pole and close enough to the Earth to be a commanding presence in the sky. Over time these planets reacted violently and electrically both with each other, and with the Earth before settling into their current orbits as we see them today. David's theory is that a great deal of the inspiration for neolithic and mythological art forms and god stories comes from the documenting of these cataclysmic events.

EU theory explains this apparently outlandish theory by suggesting (quite reasonably in my opinion) that the electrical force is the predominant force in the universe, not the gravitational force and that solar systems can quite easily capture planets from other solar systems, and suns and gas giants can "birth" other planets. Planets/suns are charged bodies floating in plasma currents so when they come in close contact interact they interact with each other electrically and violently. This means that the solar system could quite easily undergo radical changes in structure that are not imagined within the current gravity-only model of solar system creation.

Interesting stuff anyway, whether you choose to believe it or not. I would strongly suggest having a watch of this video as a taster anyway. I think this EU stuff should be interesting to astrologers, and that they should be aware of it at least!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vicki



Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 182
Location: Nottingham U.K.

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin this is very interesting. I know nothing about EU theory however I've been thinking about the birth of astrology for some time.
Recently I saw a BBC programme "Seven Ages of Starlight" and one of many interesting facts to come out was that in the time of the dinosaurs there would have been no Pleiades. That star cluster hadn't formed at that time and it made me think that this must have been true of other stars we currently use in astrology.

If we accept that some "higher" power is behind astrology (which I do) then when did it begin? If, as you say, David Talbott, has what he considers to be evidence that the planets in the Neolithic Age were not necessarily as they are now, then what indeed does that tell us about the birth of astrology and its purpose?
You mention cataclysmic events involving, Mars, Saturn and Venus. Mars and Saturn are the two malefics and I speculate as to whether there might have been a time when, either there was no astrology or when there was astrology without Mars and Saturn. I say this because human recorded history is littered with violence and suffering. Was it always so?

I am currently reading a book called "The Origins of Violence" by John Docker who goes back to the dawn of agriculture, through classical civilisation to the present, showing that violence has been integral to all periods of history. He speculates that there may have been an upsurge in violence with the emergence of the territorial agricultural-commercial society which had a catastrophic impact on hunter-gatherer societies which were more peaceful.

So then, were hunter gatherers governed by astrology? If so, perhaps there was no Mars and Saturn as we know them today - the skies would have been different. Or perhaps astrology only dates back to the emergence of agricultural societies when human beings first became violent. All highly speculative but fascinating and of course, dismaying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated