erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (03/21/88)
I'm no fan of astrology, but I have a question or three... In article <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: > In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > >And yet, despite the fact that this shows > >there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will > >scoff just at hearing the very idea. > > The idea that planets influence you is subject to calculation, and hence can > be proved (and has been proved) absurd. Ok, first off, who's "proved" this, and how have they proved it? It seems to me that since: 1. Our brains are neurochemical devices that operate on a level somewhat close to molecular; 2. Our personalities are affected by chemical (thus particle) reactions in our brains; 3. Other plantes and solar bodies emit particles or affect particles that happen to be "in the neighborhood"; Then there is a possibility that planets and other objects floating around could affect our actions. Now we probably wouldn't be able to *predict* any of these affects, so in effect they become nuisance varibs, but hey... I'm not willing to automatically reject all theories that would suggest that "paranormal" events could be proved/explained with quantum physics, neurochemistry or coin flipping. > Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science -- Just say NO to skate harassment. Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) (03/22/88)
In article <465@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >I'm no fan of astrology, but I have a question or three... > >In article <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >> In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >> >And yet, despite the fact that this shows >> >there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will >> >scoff just at hearing the very idea. >> >> The idea that planets influence you is subject to calculation, and hence can >> be proved (and has been proved) absurd. > >Ok, first off, who's "proved" this, and how have they proved it? >It seems to me that since: > How about you? I provide some assumptions, you do the calculations and that way we may both be satisfied? Known influences: gravity & electromagnetic Test case for gravity: test object 1 - closest planet: venus test object 2 - biggest planet: jupiter (ineligable: sun: you said PLANET moon: ibid earth: nolo contendre on that, piedro! test object 3 - empire state building Look up masses & distances. What is the order they influence us? Test case for EM radiation: test object 1 - noisest EM planet: jupiter test object 2 - WTOP FM 105 on your dial, Washington DC test object 3 - doctor (ir emitter, 98.6, range < 1 meter) Look up transmitting power, look up distance. rank. What is the "relative influence"? (See, I trust you!) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (03/22/88)
In article <133@aplcomm.UUCP> jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: }In article <465@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: }>I'm no fan of astrology, but I have a question or three... }> }>In article <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: }>> In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: }>> >And yet, despite the fact that this shows }>> >there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will }>> >scoff just at hearing the very idea. }>> }>> The idea that planets influence you is subject to calculation, and hence can }>> be proved (and has been proved) absurd. }> }>Ok, first off, who's "proved" this, and how have they proved it? }>It seems to me that since: }> } } } } }How about you? I provide some assumptions, you do the calculations }and that way we may both be satisfied? } }Known influences: gravity & electromagnetic }Test case for gravity: }test object 1 - closest planet: venus }test object 2 - biggest planet: jupiter }(ineligable: sun: you said PLANET } moon: ibid } earth: nolo contendre on that, piedro! }test object 3 - empire state building } }Look up masses & distances. What is the order they influence us? } Yeah, but the theory is that people are somehow _tuned_in_ to the planets. Also (a) the Empire State Building doesn't move around, and (b) it's occluded from most persons. By the way, sun and moon are planets, astrologically speaking. }Test case for EM radiation: }test object 1 - noisest EM planet: jupiter }test object 2 - WTOP FM 105 on your dial, Washington DC }test object 3 - doctor (ir emitter, 98.6, range < 1 meter) } }Look up transmitting power, look up distance. rank. } See above. The only valid test I can see would be to choose some metric astrologers would agree on and measure a large population for it (them) over a reasonable period of time. We should then be able to use our ingenious machines to determine whether there was any correlation between astrological data and the results of the measurement. I don't believe the astrological columns in the newspapers will pollute the measurement because they contradict either other, insofar as they say anything. Of course, if you "disprove" astrology, it's going to take a lot of fun out of the world. No more walking into a bar and saying, "Hi, what's your sign?" On the other hand....
markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (03/23/88)
In article <133@aplcomm.UUCP>: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes: > In article <465@flatline.UUCP>: > erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >> In article <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>: >> lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: >>> In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP>: >>> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: <REFERRING TO THE POSSIBLE CONNECTION BETWEEN SEASONAL MATING CYCLES AND THE PERSONALITY INHERITED AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION>: >>>> >>>> And yet, despite the fact that this shows there to be nothing inherently >>>> absurd about Astrology, many scientists will scoff just at the very idea. <BLUFFING>: >>> The idea that planets influence you is subject to calculation, and hence can >>> be proved (and has been proved) absurd. <CALLING ON BLUFF>: >>Ok, first off, who's "proved" this, and how have they proved it? >>It seems to me that since: >> <CALLING ON CALL OF THE BLUFF>: >How about you? I provide some assumptions, you do the calculations >and that way we may both be satisfied? <I HOPE THIS DOES NOT EXHAUST YOUR STACK LIMIT ... 7 ISN"T IT?> <LAYING OUT THE CARDS>: Time to step in here. You want actual calculations? Well, you'll get them. You may not like the verdict however. > >Known influences: gravity & electromagnetic >Test case for gravity: >test object 1 - closest planet: venus >test object 2 - biggest planet: jupiter >(ineligable: sun: you said PLANET > moon: ibid > earth: nolo contendre on that, piedro! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, you'd be suprised! At the right frequencies Jupiter predominates over the Earth. >test object 3 - empire state building Let's put the moon in the calculations anyway for comparison. GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS: To really do this justice, we should be taking Fourier components of the gravity fields involved. What you'll find will suprise you. 1 nano-G = 1 billionth of the acceleration of gravity (1000-million)th for European readers. EMPIRE STATE BUILDING: JUPITER: 1.17 millionth of a nano-G 20 nano-G (DC) (DC component) AC components exist with a fundamental No appreciable AC components. frequency of .917 cycles per year. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only the first several harmonics are appreciable. To calculate the AC components for Jupiter, find the Fourier series of -1 20.9 nano-G * [ 1 + .371 * cos (2 PI t / T) ] where T = 1.08 years ( = 1/.917) I believe they are Legendre polynomials evaluated at .371 multiplied by 20.9. I am assuming that the Empire State Building is a million (metic) tons and about 1500 miles from where I sit (Milwaukee). The DC components alone: Jupiter's is about 20 MILLION times larger. You'd have to get within SEEING distance of the building for the gravity fields to be the same. Further, the Empire State building is not in orbit so it does not have any appreciable frequency components other than DC. The MOON: 36000 nano-G (DC). AC components exist with a fundamental frequency of 12.5 cycles per year. I've ignored the effects of the Earth's rotation here. However, there are harmonics with the fundamental requency of 1 cycle per day (thereabouts) that cause tidal actions on the Earth. Clearly, we are talking about response to low frequencies. The real question to ask is whether or not the fields of Jupiter and the Moon are drowned out by the noise around the Earth. The calculations involving the Empire State Building answer that question fairly well. NO. ... and this is the real issue here : the signal-to-noise ratio. >Test case for EM radiation: >test object 1 - noisest EM planet: jupiter >test object 2 - WTOP FM 105 on your dial, Washington DC >test object 3 - doctor (ir emitter, 98.6, range < 1 meter) > >Look up transmitting power, look up distance. rank. Turn on your radio for that. It is a measuring instrument, after all. A calculator, by the way, transmits in the FM band (at least the old ones do). A historical note : Astrology and Astronomy did not become fully distinguished until the end of the Middle Ages. Up to that time, both had been studied under the topic of "Astronomy", which was one of the four major fields in the Quadrivium. Now guess where the word "Trivia" came from? (A meta-Trivia question.)
kers@otter.hple.hp.com (Christopher Dollin) (03/24/88)
Someone said: |Nit pick: "Calling a spade a spade" is a racist cliche'. Like I said, ^^^^^^ |it's picky, but valid. Am I dim? What's racist about a blinkin' shovel? Regards, Kers | "Why Lisp if you can talk Poperly?"
ken@hslrswi.UUCP (Ken Ferschweiler) (03/24/88)
In article <743@actnyc.UUCP> gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: >By the way, sun and >moon are planets, astrologically speaking. I have noticed that when the sun is visible, I feel warmer and my vision improves. I guess the planets do affect us. -ken Opinions packed by weight, not by volume. Some settling may occur in shipment.
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (03/28/88)
In article <5331@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >Time to step in here. You want actual calculations? Well, you'll get them. >You may not like the verdict however. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Oh, you'd be suprised! At the right frequencies Jupiter predominates over >the Earth. > > >Let's put the moon in the calculations anyway for comparison. > >GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS: >To really do this justice, we should be taking Fourier components of the >gravity fields involved. What you'll find will suprise you. > >1 nano-G = 1 billionth of the acceleration of gravity > (1000-million)th for European readers. > >EMPIRE STATE BUILDING: JUPITER: >1.17 millionth of a nano-G 20 nano-G (DC) >(DC component) AC components exist with a fundamental >No appreciable AC components. frequency of .917 cycles per year. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only the first several harmonics are > appreciable. > >To calculate the AC components for Jupiter, find the Fourier series of > -1 > 20.9 nano-G * [ 1 + .371 * cos (2 PI t / T) ] >where > T = 1.08 years ( = 1/.917) > >I believe they are Legendre polynomials evaluated at .371 multiplied by 20.9. > >I am assuming that the Empire State Building is a million (metic) tons and >about 1500 miles from where I sit (Milwaukee). > >The DC components alone: Jupiter's is about 20 MILLION times larger. >You'd have to get within SEEING distance of the building for the gravity >fields to be the same. Further, the Empire State building is not in orbit >so it does not have any appreciable frequency components other than DC. > >The MOON: >36000 nano-G (DC). >AC components exist with a fundamental frequency of 12.5 cycles per year. > >I've ignored the effects of the Earth's rotation here. However, there are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^IT IS TO SNICKER^^^^^^^^ >harmonics with the fundamental requency of 1 cycle per day (thereabouts) that >cause tidal actions on the Earth. > >Clearly, we are talking about response to low frequencies. The real question >to ask is whether or not the fields of Jupiter and the Moon are drowned out >by the noise around the Earth. The calculations involving the Empire State >Building answer that question fairly well. NO. > >... and this is the real issue here : the signal-to-noise ratio. > > >Turn on your radio for that. It is a measuring instrument, after all. >A calculator, by the way, transmits in the FM band (at least the old ones do). > >A historical note : Astrology and Astronomy did not become fully distinguished >until the end of the Middle Ages. Up to that time, both had been studied under >the topic of "Astronomy", which was one of the four major fields in the >Quadrivium. Now guess where the word "Trivia" came from? (A meta-Trivia >question.) > > If I understand this posting correctly, the claim is that rhythmic gravitational forces from distant "plantes" might be a physical basis for astrological claims, which should therefore not be dismissed out of hand. ***I APPLAUD the injection of numbers into this discussion.*** BUT the 1/R^2 field of Jupiter influences the path of the Earth; what is observable by a critter such as you or me on the surface of said Earth is the somewhat!! weaker 1/R^3 tidal psuedo-force. Does this change your calculations? If so does it change your conclusions? If not why not? BTW, there is no such thing as meta-trivia - although there IS ortho, para, and meta-duvia! Cheers, Ed
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (03/28/88)
(This is an addendum to something I posted minutes ago. Sorry.) Since the earth's orbit is noncircular, the gravitational effect of the sun varies by 170 nano-gravities in three months. Again, the effect of the most powerful planet ( 18 nano-g in six months ) is completely dominated. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) (03/29/88)
In article <3021@gryphon.CTS.COM> edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes (in reply to Mark Hopkins): >BUT the 1/R^2 field of Jupiter influences the path of the Earth; what is >observable by a critter such as you or me on the surface of said Earth is >the somewhat!! weaker 1/R^3 tidal psuedo-force. Does this change your >calculations? If so does it change your conclusions? If not why not? Good point. The tidal forces matter. Actually, a tidal force is just the differential force that results when gravitional forces are not quite equal on the near and far sides of something. So, the tidal force has the same units, and competes on an equal footing with other forces. Tidal force (in nano-g's) across the earth, due to: Venus 0.0 note, Mercury is both smaller and further away Mars 0.0 Jupiter 0.0 note, Saturn is both smaller and further away Moon 224..225 due to elliptical orbit of moon Sun 103 earth's orbit is very near circular Tidal force (in nano-g's) across 2m (a human put lengthwise? outspread arms?), due to: a car 1 assume 1000KG, 3m away. a hill 75 assume 30x30x15m of rock, 30m away mountain 75 assume 2x2x1 km of rock, 2km away earth 630 i.e. the tidal stress from your toes to your nose (if flat on back, ~100 nano-g from spine to sternum) Again, the direct (not tidal) force due the most influential planet: Jupiter 15 to 33 Changes, at most, 18 nano-g per six months. Which is about the tidal stress from top to bottom on a Rubik's Cube. -- Don lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu CMU Computer Science
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (04/01/88)
In article <1246@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes: > In article <3021@gryphon.CTS.COM> edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) writes > (in reply to Mark Hopkins): > > >BUT the 1/R^2 field of Jupiter influences the path of the Earth; what is > >observable by a critter such as you or me on the surface of said Earth is > >the somewhat!! weaker 1/R^3 tidal psuedo-force. Does this change your > >calculations? If so does it change your conclusions? If not why not? > > Good point. The tidal forces matter. AAARGH! **ONLY** THE TIDAL FORCES MATTER!!!!
hdunne@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu (|-|ugh) (04/02/88)
How long are you guys going to leave the subject line mis-spelt?
Hugh Dunne | UUCP: ..{cmcl2,ihnp4,seismo!noao}!arizona!amethyst!hdunne
Dept. of Math. | Phone: | ARPA: hdunne@amethyst.ma.arizona.edu
Univ. of Arizona | +1 602 621 4766 | Bitnet: hdunne@arizrvax
Tucson AZ 85721 | +1 602 621 6893 | Internet: hdunne@rvax.ccit.arizona.edu