Kepler

http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:08 GMT, "mitch" wrote:

http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html

Your point?

The history of astronomy suggests that people first looked to the skies
to make connections with patterns in nature. Some of those were real,
and others were imagined. Astrologers made many useful observations. At
various times, but especially around 500 years ago, modern astronomy
began to develop from astrology. Many early astronomers were also
astrologers.

Today, of course, astrology is relegated to a sort of side stream
religion, unrelated in any way to astronomy. Such is the evolutionary
process.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:08 GMT, "mitch" wrote:

http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html

Your point?

The history of astronomy suggests that people first looked to the skies
to make connections with patterns in nature. Some of those were real,
and others were imagined. Astrologers made many useful observations. At
various times, but especially around 500 years ago, modern astronomy
began to develop from astrology. Many early astronomers were also
astrologers.

Today, of course, astrology is relegated to a sort of side stream
religion, unrelated in any way to astronomy. Such is the evolutionary
process.

Yours is the common misconception fraught with bias.

Chris L Peterson wrote in
:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:08 GMT, "mitch" wrote:

http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html

Your point?

The history of astronomy suggests that people first looked to the skies
to make connections with patterns in nature. Some of those were real,
and others were imagined. Astrologers made many useful observations. At
various times, but especially around 500 years ago, modern astronomy
began to develop from astrology. Many early astronomers were also
astrologers.

Today, of course, astrology is relegated to a sort of side stream
religion, unrelated in any way to astronomy. Such is the evolutionary
process.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

I read the Tycho and Kepler biography by Kitty Ferguson which suggested
that Kepler didn't have much time for astrology himself but was required to
do horroscopes by his imperial patrons. He always stressed to his patrons
that their own free will could circumvent any astrological prediction.

Klazmon

On 17 Jul 2007 12:20:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
wrote:

I read the Tycho and Kepler biography by Kitty Ferguson which suggested
that Kepler didn't have much time for astrology himself but was required to
do horroscopes by his imperial patrons. He always stressed to his patrons
that their own free will could circumvent any astrological prediction.

Yeah, an interesting time, as rational thought started becoming a
dominant force amongst thinkers. Of course, it didn't happen overnight,
so by modern standards some of these early scientists had somewhat
schizophrenic world views!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

mitch wrote:
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:08 GMT, "mitch" wrote:

http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html
Your point?

The history of astronomy suggests that people first looked to the skies
to make connections with patterns in nature. Some of those were real,
and others were imagined. Astrologers made many useful observations. At
various times, but especially around 500 years ago, modern astronomy
began to develop from astrology. Many early astronomers were also
astrologers.

Today, of course, astrology is relegated to a sort of side stream
religion, unrelated in any way to astronomy. Such is the evolutionary
process.

Yours is the common misconception fraught with bias.

It is the point of view of those who subscribe to a newsgroup in the
sci... hierarchy. Perhaps you should consider taking your drivel
someplace where people prefer mere fantasy to objective reasoning.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jul 2007 12:20:30 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
wrote:

I read the Tycho and Kepler biography by Kitty Ferguson which suggested
that Kepler didn't have much time for astrology himself but was required
to
do horroscopes by his imperial patrons. He always stressed to his patrons
that their own free will could circumvent any astrological prediction.

Yeah, an interesting time, as rational thought started becoming a
dominant force amongst thinkers. Of course, it didn't happen overnight,
so by modern standards some of these early scientists had somewhat
schizophrenic world views!


And your point is about modern standards? You me and all the rest are here
due to
all that that went before us...so....what went on before us, oh learned one?

On Jul 17, 1:13 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:45:08 GMT, "mitch" wrote:
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplerastrol.html

Your point?

The history of astronomy suggests that people first looked to the skies
to make connections with patterns in nature. Some of those were real,
and others were imagined. Astrologers made many useful observations. At
various times, but especially around 500 years ago, modern astronomy
began to develop from astrology. Many early astronomers were also
astrologers.

Today, of course, astrology is relegated to a sort of side stream
religion, unrelated in any way to astronomy. Such is the evolutionary
process.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

The fact that you are the first people on the planet to believe that
the noon cycles are of equal length in order to justify the motions of
the Earth using the return of a star to a meridian makes you actually
lower than the astrolgers -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...3%A9reo.en.png

The evolutionary process went from geocentricity to Copernican/
Keplerian heliocentricity and slid down into Flamsteed/Newtonian sub-
geocentricity in the late 17th century where it remains.

A people who cannot determine that the daily noon cycles are unequal
or rather believe they are 24 hours exactly are hardly intelligent or
civilised,at least thos who proffess an interest in astronomy for not
even the creationists are this bad and that may be the only fact that
you can understand

On Jul 16, 9:29 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

[Kepler's age was] an interesting time, as rational
thought started becoming a dominant force ...

I would argue that that happened about 2,000 years earlier, in ancient
Greece. Conceivably even earlier, though if so, the records are lost.

Kepler was an extremely odd duck, with a strong mystical side, and I'm
not at all surprised that he was attracted to astrology.

I'm more intrigued by the case of Ptolemy. He was unquestionably a
true believer in astrology, applying arguments in its favor that must
have seemed pretty dubious even back then. But in just about
everything else, he was the scientist's scientist, always attentive to
detail, well aware of opposing schools of thought, and eager to weigh
their merits.

But just as his towering intellect laid the groundwork for modern
astronomy, so also it laid the groundwork for modern astrology. The
Almagest was immensely influential, but not as influential as the
Tetrabiblos, his tome on astrology.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:56:52 -0700, wrote:

[Kepler's age was] an interesting time, as rational
thought started becoming a dominant force ...

I would argue that that happened about 2,000 years earlier, in ancient
Greece. Conceivably even earlier, though if so, the records are lost.

That's why I mentioned earlier that it had happened at various times,
but most recently about 500 years ago. Rational thinking processes
developed by earlier cultures basically failed to stick- they were known
to a few people, but didn't really influence either the thought
processes or knowledge base of the majority of people, including many
who were considered well educated for their time.

Who knows... maybe this won't stick either. There is certainly strong
evidence that in the U.S. irrational thinking is on the rise, and there
is a growing divide between what those formally trained in science
believe as opposed to what most others believe.


I'm more intrigued by the case of Ptolemy. He was unquestionably a
true believer in astrology, applying arguments in its favor that must
have seemed pretty dubious even back then. But in just about
everything else, he was the scientist's scientist, always attentive to
detail, well aware of opposing schools of thought, and eager to weigh
their merits.

Not to create another long religion thread here, but there's no
fundamental difference between astrology and any other religion. So if
you allow that a "scientist's scientist" can maintain religious beliefs,
there's really no conflict. In fact, given that astrology seeks to find
some sort of cause-and-effect mechanism between the Universe and human
events, it's not surprising that these early scientists found it a
particularly appealing subject.

This was well before methods of statistical data analysis had been
developed. In the absence of such ideas, astrology can seem to work
(which is one reason it has survived so long).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com