linchi wrote:I can assure you that some of the sign rulers who use vedic astrologers are wrong. How could they be using Saturn, Uranus and Rahu as rulers of Aquarius ? Because they do not know what they are doing.

The rulerships of Saturn and Uranus over Aquarius are in accordance with the domicile scheme and its modern extension. The latter beautifully stood the test of time in the experience of numerous practitioners.

You can forget tropical ones anyway.

I do agree with James that you sound pretty opinionated.

The astrologers do not even know which house represents the father.

The fact that there are different views regarding this issue does not suggest that the astrologers are the kind of ignorant bunch you are trying to make them. There are plenty of divergent views and opinions even in hardcore science.

Should I deal with political predictions instead of trying to solve such problems ? Do we know how much longer we will live and stay healthy ?

Such cannot be determined with certainty, as otherwise we would have to factor out free will in regard to our actions and their consequences.

Could you have answer me, James, If I asked you what planet or planet pictures are responsible for diabetes or heart disease? You cannot answer me, because no astrologer knows about these diseases. What should we as astrologers do if someone comes to us and asks about these diseases?

There is a rich body of astro-medical knowledge available to those who seriously investigate these matters. I have been personally working with that kind of information since many years. In my experience, there is a definitive correlation between diabetes and Venus/Pluto connections.

Is it not better that we investigate previous cases and try to find out what is going on ? If I were to provide the planet pictures, would you or would you not test my planet pictures for those who asked, James ?

You assume that the astrologers know everything and have the tools to do so. This is a big mistake, as my research shows that astrologers do not know many things, such as cancer, suicide, Alzheimer's disease, etc.

Again, there is very useful literature available on all kinds of different illnesses as seen from an astrological perspective.

You can read in the Skyscript how many opinions there are about homosexuality. If there is one more example, it will not be mentioned that I have the research on this topic. So absurd are my theories that they shouldn't even be mentioned. Or are there other reasons for this.

one of the main problems with all systems of astrology is in making a prediction in advance... if 'your system' can resolve this, i am sure many astrologers will be beating a path to your door!

Alfred Witte also made no predictions. He provided at least two powerful tools for the astrologers, Solar Arcs and four Transneptunians (Hades,Cupido, Zeus and Kronos). The test belongs to the astrologers whether these discoveries are helpful for predictions or not. If we are to say, that because he did not make predictions, we will not test them, wouldn't it be absurd.

In a community e.g. chemistry,physics etc. when someone on very important issues theories or solutions presents , these theories or theses are tested and checked by other community members. But if that is intentionally ignored, one can forget this community. I do not believe that my theories have not been tested by anyone. They can tell whether my theories are correct or not. As long as I live, nobody will come and confirm my theories. it is also clear to me.

I'm not selling anything, James. I don't want any astrologers coming to me. But if anyone had any questions, I would answer them. If anyone would bring other examples related to my work, I would also help and if someone wants, I can also make predictions about the diseases I have worked on so far. I am always ready to prove my theories.

until such time, i will continue to respect you for your theoretical work with higher numbered harmonics, but it doesn't transcend the level of theory for me at this point...

Thank you, I appreciate it. Don't you want to test if any new example comes up, if not, why not ? As a student of astrology I would be curious to know if it is true if someone had interesting theories.

until such time, i continue to believe hubris is a dangerous thing....

Again, I trust my system and I am proud that it is me who has discovered it. I think you would admit that my pride is no worse than ignorance of others. And the more I am ignored, the greater my pride.

Frankly, I would consider the latter a form of defensiveness.

don't mind the passing mercury- pluto square here..

Now I have seen. I don't usually look at what's going on in the sky right now.

Greetings

I can see that you pursue your research with passion and conviction, which is great, by itself. Furthermore, I respect Alfred Witte's work and believe it deserves a lot of attention from astrologers in general. That said, I feel you are doing its recognition as well as your own research a disservice by belittling previous astrological knowledge overall. Knowledge that you obviously have a very incomplete understanding of, at that.

Michael

Michael,

First we make it clear, my writing was to James not to you. This topic is about "Astrological Research - Abortions and Miscarriages". I would have expected those who call themselves astrologers to write something astrological about this topic. Apparently I am overstraining them. Of course they do not have to write if they do not know anything about it astrologically.

The rulerships of Saturn and Uranus over Aquarius are in accordance with the domicile scheme and its modern extension. The latter beautifully stood the test of time in the experience of numerous practitioners.

Do you mean sidereal or tropical ? if you mean tropical, the sidereal must be wrong, but if you mean sidereal, the tropical must be wrong. At least one of them must be wrong, if not both.

I do agree with James that you sound pretty opinionated.

That is a fact, no astrological school can check my theories if they are true. My system, however, can check all the claims of other schools, no matter which one, and determine whether they are true or not.

The fact that there are different views regarding this issue does not suggest that the astrologers are the kind of ignorant bunch you are trying to make them. There are plenty of divergent views and opinions even in hardcore science.

This is not about views and opinions and whether they exist, it is about a view being intentionally concealed.

Such cannot be determined with certainty, as otherwise we would have to factor out free will in regard to our actions and their consequences.

Hermann Lefeldt has already said :

"The fact remains: astrologers who talk about free will practise self-delusion"

https://www.astro.com/astrowiki/de/Hermann_Lefeldt

There is a rich body of astro-medical knowledge available to those who seriously investigate these matters. I have been personally working with that kind of information since many years.

Do you think that if you have been working with them for many years they must be absolutely right ? You don't have the tools to check them. It's just a belief that they are correct. Because it is only a belief, there are so many religions in astrology and many sects among them. I know many astrologers that the whole life long have not woken up. It's like enlightenment, it doesn't matter how many years you spend with it. It depends on the approach.

In my experience, there is a definitive correlation between diabetes and Venus/Pluto connections.

What do you mean by Venus/Pluto ? Is the midpoint of Venus and Pluto ?
It is a general astrological assumption that Venus plays a role in diabetes. Venus has absolutely nothing to do with diabetes. I can give you hundreds of examples. Can you give me only twenty examples with the same rules and the same approach ? Twenty would be too much, I think, and only five would be enough. I don't want to overstrain you. Here you can pick out examples :

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Ca ... poglycemia

That said, I feel you are doing its recognition as well as your own research a disservice by belittling previous astrological knowledge overall. Knowledge that you obviously have a very incomplete understanding of, at that.

What kind of astrological knowledge are they ?
These are not previous knowledge but only theories. These are not yet proven. These theories must be tested with reliable testing equipment. I provide these testing tools for the astrologers. I have not been able to decide which is the worse, that astrologers have not understood, realised what a powerful tool it is, or their ignorance.

I give an example , what the astrologers learn. Rulership in Astrology : Eight of these rulers are wrong when using sidereal zodiac. If you use tropical zodiac, they are even more wrong.

Aries: Mars
Taurus: Venus
Gemini: Mercury
Cancer: Moon
Leo: Sun
Virgo: Mercury
Libra: Venus
Scorpio: Mars
Sagittarius: Jupiter
Capricorn: Saturn
Aquarious: Saturn
Pisces: Jupiter

Here no astrologer can check and determine which are the right ones and which are wrong. They can speculate theoretically, but they cannot prove it. As long as they are not proven, they are just theories not knowledge. Then come the so-called modern versions for Aquarious and Pisces. I feel compassion for astrology, really. The main obstacle to astrology not developing as a science is the astrologers themselves. Because they seriously believe that their speculations are knowledge.
Actually, as a moderator in this forum, you should thank me for posting my astrological researches here. It is a shame for astrology that those who call themselves astrologers cannot bring astrological arguments.

linchi wrote:Michael,

First we make it clear, my writing was to James not to you.

Linchi,

That is of no consequence.

Any member is entitled to replying to any other member's posts on this forum.

This topic is about "Astrological Research - Abortions and Miscarriages". I would have expected those who call themselves astrologers to write something astrological about this topic. Apparently I am overstraining them. Of course they do not have to write if they do not know anything about it astrologically.

In fact, they do not have to write regardless of whether they do or do not know anything about it astrologically. Maybe they just don't feel like chiming in here.

The rulerships of Saturn and Uranus over Aquarius are in accordance with the domicile scheme and its modern extension. The latter beautifully stood the test of time in the experience of numerous practitioners.

Do you mean sidereal or tropical ?

I was not referring to any particular zodiac here.

At the time the domicile scheme was first published, there was little distinction between the two kinds of zodiac anyway.

if you mean tropical, the sidereal must be wrong, but if you mean sidereal, the tropical must be wrong. At least one of them must be wrong, if not both.

This is a non sequitur. The fact that one framework of reference is valid doesn't exclude the possibility that another one may be viable as well. If we talk for example about psychologically oriented native astrology, the two zodiacs may pertain to different levels of self.

To illustrate, in modern chemistry there are various models of the atom equally in use. Researchers simply apply to any particular case the one that happens to suit it best.

I do agree with James that you sound pretty opinionated.

That is a fact, no astrological school can check my theories if they are true. My system, however, can check all the claims of other schools, no matter which one, and determine whether they are true or not.

Well, that's your opinion!

The fact that there are different views regarding this issue does not suggest that the astrologers are the kind of ignorant bunch you are trying to make them. There are plenty of divergent views and opinions even in hardcore science.

This is not about views and opinions and whether they exist, it is about a view being intentionally concealed.

Right. I forgot that you are the hapless victim of some cruel conspiracy.

Such cannot be determined with certainty, as otherwise we would have to factor out free will in regard to our actions and their consequences.

Hermann Lefeldt has already said :

"The fact remains: astrologers who talk about free will practise self-delusion"

https://www.astro.com/astrowiki/de/Hermann_Lefeldt

Again, that is simply your opinion.

There is a rich body of astro-medical knowledge available to those who seriously investigate these matters. I have been personally working with that kind of information since many years.

Do you think that if you have been working with them for many years they must be absolutely right ?

Oh boy! When did I claim that all my assumptions are absolutely right? They help me to understand the cases I am presented with, while I remain open to correcting and/or expanding my knowledge.

You don't have the tools to check them. It's just a belief that they are correct. Because it is only a belief, there are so many religions in astrology and many sects among them. I know many astrologers that the whole life long have not woken up. It's like enlightenment, it doesn't matter how many years you spend with it. It depends on the approach.

I agree that we tend to interpret what we perceive through the filter of our belief system. This is true for you, me and any hardcore scientist.

In my experience, there is a definitive correlation between diabetes and Venus/Pluto connections.

What do you mean by Venus/Pluto ? Is the midpoint of Venus and Pluto ?

I have not been working with midpoints a great deal. But I noticed certain kinds of connections between these two planets recurring in the natal charts of diabetics. In a number of cases, a hard aspect or conjunction between them can be seen.

It is a general astrological assumption that Venus plays a role in diabetes. Venus has absolutely nothing to do with diabetes. I can give you hundreds of examples. Can you give me only twenty examples with the same rules and the same approach ? Twenty would be too much, I think, and only five would be enough. I don't want to overstrain you.

Hey thanks, that's so considerate of you!

Here you can pick out examples :

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Ca ... poglycemia

Alright, I consent to play the game. And I simply choose the first five cases from this list, so noone can say I have cherry picked my examples.

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Achard,_Marcel
Venus conjunction Pluto

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Re ... IDS_Female
Venus opposition Pluto

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Akram,_Wasim
Venus sesquisquare Pluto

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Re ... holic_5853
Venus conjunction Pluto

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Re ... holic_7060
Venus platick conjunction Pluto, with other contributing factors

Quod erat demonstrandum.

That said, I feel you are doing its recognition as well as your own research a disservice by belittling previous astrological knowledge overall. Knowledge that you obviously have a very incomplete understanding of, at that.

What kind of astrological knowledge are they ?
These are not previous knowledge but only theories. These are not yet proven. These theories must be tested with reliable testing equipment. I provide these testing tools for the astrologers. I have not been able to decide which is the worse, that astrologers have not understood, realised what a powerful tool it is, or their ignorance.

It is difficult to prove anything at all that is not subject to some kind of exact measurement. It has not even been possible to actually prove the effectiveness of any of the widely used methods of psychotherapy - even though there is little doubt that many patients treated by them would testify their being helpful.

Interpreting charts is as much an art as it is a science. And that's not because there were no definable rules underlying it. Rather, a chart is an organic, holistic construct whose constituents resonate with each other on multiple levels. It takes an intuitive and creative mind to read this correctly.

The methods that have been applied to either prove or refute this holistic science tend to be far too simplistic to actually do it justice. Astrology defies them in its very intricacy.

I give an example , what the astrologers learn. Rulership in Astrology : Eight of these rulers are wrong when using sidereal zodiac. If you use tropical zodiac, they are even more wrong.

If these assignment were indeed wrong, wouldn't they simply be wrong in either zodiac? I don't think they could be said to be "more wrong" in one than in the other.

But I think I know what you are getting at: To demonstrate your lack of understanding of the concept that underlies the tropical zodiac.

Aries: Mars
Taurus: Venus
Gemini: Mercury
Cancer: Moon
Leo: Sun
Virgo: Mercury
Libra: Venus
Scorpio: Mars
Sagittarius: Jupiter
Capricorn: Saturn
Aquarious: Saturn
Pisces: Jupiter

Here no astrologer can check and determine which are the right ones and which are wrong. They can speculate theoretically, but they cannot prove it. As long as they are not proven, they are just theories not knowledge.

According to your kind of argumentation, humanity would have very little knowledge at all. The history of science demonstrates that so much of what was at one time generally accepted as proven fact had to be reconsidered, revised and/or put into perspective at a later stage.

The domicile scheme makes sense. It is internally consistent and has proven its worth in the experience of countless practitioners, including my own. That is enough for me.

But I won't be losing any sleep over those who don't agree to it...

Then come the so-called modern versions for Aquarious and Pisces.

Umm, you left one out... (at the current stage, that is).

I feel compassion for astrology, really. The main obstacle to astrology not developing as a science is the astrologers themselves. Because they seriously believe that their speculations are knowledge.
Actually, as a moderator in this forum, you should thank me for posting my astrological researches here. It is a shame for astrology that those who call themselves astrologers cannot bring astrological arguments.

Well, if anything you should actually thank me for helping to run this forum that allows you to publish your conclusions. But don't bother, I don't really expect anyone to express their appreciation.

I will be satisfied if you don't piss off our members too much by your show of alleged superiority.

Now I know about your astrological level, Michael Sternbach.

I never thought that the level of discussion in Skyscript will also be zero.

How could you tell?

It takes a good astrologer to know one!