Re: Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from Your birth ( e.g. 1957 instead of 1963). Just try once.
- From: ivars.fabriciuss@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 11 Aug 2006 15:59:27 -0700
Kermit wrote:
ivars.fabriciuss@xxxxxxxxx wrote:Yes we do but the position of crust and people against stars might have
I would like them to try if the choroscope(!) using 1957 fits better or
worse then the normal one with 1963.
How could I tell if a horoscope fits at all?
What I trying to claim ( it is only an idea which appeared because of
other issues- like our inability to determine exact dates in the first
430 years AD- but not only that.
The problem is the historical inaccuracy inherent in trying to map an
oral tradition (of a myth) onto historical events. We know very
accurately when 100, or 1000, or 2000 years ago was. What we don't know
is when the historical Jesus was born, or if he even was. Therefore, we
don't know what numbers to use on a calendar based on that possible
event.
been different from what we think
The uncertainty is 6-8 years) is
The uncertainty is using references like a census for taxes during the
reign of Augustus Caesar, which never happened.
Not only, that, I hope
that Earth crust has somewhere around AD 450 shifted relative to Earth
core.
The crust did not "shift" that year any more than another. It's always
shifting, a very little bit. When a very small section slides, we have
major earthquakes. Geographically, there was nothing unusual that year.
I disagree; major geological events are necesserily catastrophic, we
havent seen any of them lately
In this case , we can have 6 year deviation , but the same months and
hours.
At least I think so.
Deviation from what?
stars relative to earth surface point nnn years back.From astronomical calendar which we get by calculating the position of
The real position of crust was different then by 6 years than we think
because it slipped by a measurable distance - crust vs. core; because
of this, no big changes in earth rotation axis direction
The catastrophe as such might not have been very dramatic for people
on Earth ( why - I can explain) ,
Please do.
Because if crust is moving against core at the same time as it is
contracting, its rotational movement would ecranize us from core
gravitation and our inertia woul be in the Crust system- like in a
falling lift. Even if lift goes down quite fast, we would not feel it
too much.
Also because time of event probably was relatively long and distance
quite low - 1 day so acceleration was quite slow on human scale- not so
for atmosphere
but it was certainly felt
Cites?
Can You help Me to find them? Around AD 430 -450 - darkening of sky ,
shaking of earth, feeling of falling, flooding, coriolis type wind
/water formations
I trust people ability to record what they see, at least in such simple
and would
lead to loss of higher layers of atmosphere which COULD lead to dark
middle ages.
Ummm. The Dark Ages weren't really "dark". It's a metaphor, y'see...
issues. If we can not explain it, it is not the reason to doubt their
ability to tell the next generations what was going on.
Oh, hell. Losing the "higher layers" of the atmosphere? How high? And
how? And why do you think so?
If Earth crust relaitvely suddenly contracts and slips, the border
layer of atmosphere will be both dragged and falling . this would lead
to rupture and some part going into space. i can not tell how much
because i can not calculate this typeof maths yet; if some one could
show me where to look for a model. It must be acceleerated as a rocket
to leave Earth.
I assume not too much, maybe 1% ?
then of course some strange thing would follow as air from lower parts
would go up to restore equilibrium and air would become thinner.
Productivity of crops would go down as will general human activity.
Co2 concentration should slighly increase as in upper layers there is
almost no Co2.
May be it was not 6 years, but slighy more or less. As my choroscope
showed 6 years is one option, I asked You to make the same study. 2 of
my relatives reported the same fact,
So, this is genetic.
No, because both relatives are my wifes- genetically unrelated to me.
2 said the real horoscope fits
better.But they new the year was changed - some people can not judge
objectively after they receive such information.
Correct. And when such potential bias is corrected for, there is not
correlation between date and time of birth and personality. How could
*everybody have earthquakes especially associated with their birth?
Earhquakes are consequences of the same Cosmic clock (nothing fancy ,
just outside limited todays theories) triggering catastrophic events
with discharge of energy stored between e.g. tectonic plates. A forced
slip stick event.
External Gravitation starts to affect an organism only after its birth
Please think about this.Think of people born 6 years after you. Are
*they going to see an unusually high number of earthquakes? How about
the ones born 6 years after them?
.. before that it is shielded from these Clock triggers by its mother
body who absorbes them . So internal time of any organism in relation
to gravitational events begins at its birth. genes start to work much
earlier, of course.
Anyway now it is 3:2 in favour of -6 year choroscope - the -6 is a
CHOROSCOPE not horoscope. Therefore I continue to push the idea
forward.
Sure, why not?
Traditionally, sources of insane ideas have never been all that keen on
data, anyway.
I have data in my head , but selective- by reading a lot of information
i have gathered so much SELECTIVE info it will take me years to put it
on paper. From each data source I only extract the most relevant idea
for me. Sometimes it is not even a major theme for the authors.
I refuse to do literature study before I will have a body of idea which
can withstand it. Too early structuring of idea may lead to its
premature death or inability to cope with information overflow. Now it
is still time to use intuitive iterations from whole to detail and back
without having a fixed structure. In this time feedback is also very
valuable, both pro and contra.
Then, if idea survives, it is put in structure, if dies, new ideas are
generated before i have spent my whole life trying to prove wrong idea.
I thought this is what groups are for- to try to accelerate idea
forming process by sharing it early. It is better than to write a book
for 3 years, post it here and then realize that there was a basic
mistake on page 1.
Well I got a lot of negative energy, thanks, it motivates me like
hell, but so far no information. It is really easy to do it in
www.astro.com. Please try the simplest automatic horoscope and tell me
( I do not work for them, it is just a very convenient programm, free
of charge, really no registration)
You do realize, don't you, that you posted this to a newsgroup of
people devoted to debunking pseudoscience?
Now I do, but I am not exactly sure what pseudo science means. I can
understand engineering vs. Physics - there is a limit, but physics vs.
pseudoscience reminds me of correct way to dress vs. wrong type of
division as innovation in theories is as necessary as everywhere else,
and humans are pretty slow in this process. We stick to dogmas, for
some reason- to be safe i assume.
No . I use astrology the same way as everything else: not deny it, but
Trying to use anecdotal support for unconventional astrology to support
the thesis that a previously unknown historical cataclysmic event
explains the Christian calendar's uncertainty is just... wrong.
try to see if there is an element of truth we can extract.
I ancient times Priests who could read stars were the most powerful
people on earth. Today astrology is not. My conclusion again is simple-
ancients were not stupid, but their priests were better than ours.
Lack of technology was replaced by knowledge of natural rhytms. This
knowledge was lost in 430 AD.
I still don't know how the meteorological explanation for the Dark Ages
fits in there.
i tried to explain. i am 300% rational but very open to new ideas. I
would not be able to run a nuclear reactor , i admit; but I could steer
any uncertain evolving situation excellently wihout trying to degrade
it to a certainty.
Kermit
<snip>
.
- References:
- Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from Your birth ( e.g. 1957 instead of 1963). Just try once.
- From: ivars . fabriciuss
- Re: Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from Your birth ( e.g. 1957 instead of 1963). Just try once.
- From: Kermit
- Re: Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from Your birth ( e.g. 1957 instead of 1963). Just try once.
- From: ivars . fabriciuss
- Re: Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from Your birth ( e.g. 1957 instead of 1963). Just try once.
- From: Kermit
- Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from Your birth ( e.g. 1957 instead of 1963). Just try once.
- Prev by Date: Re: What's the Problem?
- Next by Date: Re: Election loser flails about
- Previous by thread: Re: Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from Your birth ( e.g. 1957 instead of 1963). Just try once.
- Next by thread: Coulter's sourcing problems
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
