Basic HTML Version
An Astronomer Grades
Astrology:
AZEROFÓR
THEZODIAC
-"-'>>!teoes. astrolog>¡e
haw&
a ·rational , scien-
• tofic basis? ls
th~re·
any conceivable' way
that the celestial location of stars. plan–
ets. and nebulae at the t ime of one·s
binp could influence an individual"s per–
son'ality, his health, his marriage. his
career, and a host of other personal
events?
·Millions of people have thought their
lives were cóntrolled or at least strongly
influenced by events in the heavens.
lndeed, it seemed almost self-evident to
the peoples of ancient Greece. Egypt.
and Babylon. The eanh, in their minds,
was the center of the unlverse and the
sun, moon. planets, and stars revolved
around this all.important center of
Sctiv·
Íty.
Since these heavenly luminarias.
often associated with various gods and
spiri ts. seemed relatively close (surely
not much higher than the birds could
fly), it followed that
they
C·ould and
should have an ever-present celestial in–
fluence on mundane matters here on
eanh.
Do Olstant Stars Determi'ne
Oestiny?
But the heliocentric universe
Ot
Co.
pernicus
(1 543)
dethroned the eanh .
And since then. the advance of astro-–
logipal knowledge has rel entlessly
pushed the eanh fanher and fanher
from any privileged position in the cos–
mos. The sun. too. has been demoted to
an inconspicuous suburb in a rather
unexceptional gafaxy in a relatively
small group of galaxies in a universe of
uneounted billions of Stars.
In such a universe, it becomes
in~
creasingly difficult to believe the heav–
ens were created to have a specil ic
influence on the eanh and on individual
humans· in particular. How would such
WEEK
ENOJNG
MAY
3,
1975
an influence occur? Through gravity?
Radiation?
The immense distances encountered
in the universe - usually measured in
Jight years - rule out any such in·
fluences. The gravitational attract ion of
the doctor standing at the delivery table
would be lar great er than the ' grav–
itational influence of
any
star or galaxy
,_
on a nei(Vrbom baby:_r
••
· And the radiation from
even
the
brightest star would be thousands of
times weaker than a single light bulb in
the delivery room.
The conclusion is inescapable: No
known force emanating trom the con·
stellations of the heavens could be ex–
pected to exert a unique. l ile-long
influence on anyone.
Even if the stars did exert an ever-s<>–
subtle influence at the time of an indi..
viduars binh, can anyone seriously
be–
lieve their inffuence is important when
compared lo the multitude of much
stronger environmental
torces
on earth
that direcly affect our lives?
Signs. Cycles, and Clocks
All lile on eanh is affected by periodic
changes in the environment. Such
cy–
clic variations are often the basis for
natural rhythms callad biological clo¡:ks.
The most obvious example is the rising
and setting of the sun. a daily cycle of
light and dark which di rectly affects the
activi ties of vinually all plants and ani–
mals.
The seasons, caused by the eanh' s
rev~ution
around the sun. also have a
marked annual influenc.e on living
things. Similarly, the tides. driven pri–
marily by the gravitational attraction of
the moon. affect countless creatures in
the sea on roughly a 12-hour basis.
Research has demonstrated that man
too may 'be perceptibly influenced by
lunar and solar radiation and / or
grav.
itational auraction .
However. such "'celestiaf cycles.. op·
erate on al/ men, regardless of when or
where they were b.om. lndeed. the read–
justment
of
one·s
biological
clock
after
a
change in environment - as occurs in
"jet lag" - proves that such biological
cycles are not rigidly determinad or inr
mutably fixed.
Rather, each person's bio-ctock can
be revised and reset numerous times
throughout one·s lil e as the environ–
ment changes..
There
is no question that
biological
rhythms and clocks are often linked to
the motions of the sun and moon. But
this.. fact, in no way justifies. the beliet
that astrological signs and the positions
of the sun. moon. planets, or stars at
the time of binh can be used to predict
one' sfuture.
Horoscopes Out of Date.
There is. however.
an
even more dev–
astating reason why belief in astrology.
in the light of modem knowledge. is
totally untenable. The whole structure
of astrology revolves around the " to–
diac" - or " circle of the beasts" (in
reference
to
the animal figures imagined
19
populate the sky) . The zodiac is ac–
tually an arbitrarily arranged " betr· in
the heavens that includes ce-rtain con·
stellations and the paths of the moon.
the sun, and the planets.
According to astrologers. the zodiac
hás twelve divisions (or signs). each 30
degrees long and 16 degrees wide.
marked off eastward from the spring
equinox.
The
names of
these
divisions
were originally the names ol the con–
stellations - groups of fi xed stars -
within them.
About 2000 years ago, these anificial
divisións of the zodiac and the con–
stellations coincided. But no longerl
Today. these divisions or signs have
shifted about 30 degrees away from
their corresponding constellations. This
shift in position is due to the precession
of
the
earth-'s
rotational axis.
Precession
is a phenomenon com–
monly seen in the slow ..;obbling of the
axis of a child's toy top. 1t occurs with
almost
any
object that is spinning. But
since the eanh (a very big top) takes
about 26.000 years t o make jusi one
wobble, the precession ot the eanh' s
axis was too slight to be noticed when
astrology was first established thou–
sands of years ago.
lt was not until about a hundred years
before the birth of Christ that the Greek
astronomer Hipparchus detectad the
slow shift of the spring equinox - the
point from which the astrological signs
are measured. Yet, however slight these
precessional changes may be, their
long-terrn effect is substantiaL
The result is that the constellation of
Pisces.
is now
in
tbe. next.
divi~Qn
the
sign ot Aries. The constellation' ot
ti
tira
is now in the sign ot Scorpio. The con–
st ellation of Cancer is now in the sigo
of
leo, and so on through the twelve signs
of the zodiac.
None of the constellations of the zo–
diac
are
now
in
their appropriate
astro–
logical signs. But i ronlcally. it is the
astral bodies (whatever torces they are
presumed 'to represent) in a partiCular
"sign" that are supposed to determine
one's horoscop81
The simple truth is that astrologers·
horoscopes are !Dtally. out-of-date. In
fact, precession is continuing to carry
the signs
of
the zodiac even funher from
their original constellations, so that the
sigo of Aries, for example. is now ap·
proach_ing the astrological constellation
of Aquarius. Hence. the " age of Aquar–
ius."
Astrologers are fond of talking about
the new "age" in which we are suppos–
edly living. Yet, in cast ing their horo–
scopes. they largely ignore this new
"age.. that has resulted from pre–
cession . They continuo to imagine the
sky ip arranged as it was 2000 years
ago - in what would seem to be a
direct oontradiction
of
the fundamental
" principies.. of astrology.
In shon. astrology is based solely on
the imaginary. mythical. and mystical
"signs" of the zodiac which no longer
even correspond
to
their
constellations
in the heavens.
The unalterable facts -
from the
eanh's place in the universo. to the im–
mense distances between the astral
bodies. to the precession of the signs of
the zodiac - all testi fy to the absurdity
.of believing that astrology is anything
more than an entertaining form of
sophisticated superstition. O
9