Astrology is considered unscientific by academics but remains popular. Richard Dawkins argued it should be seriously opposed. Early astrological studies failed to prove it scientifically due to oversimplifying its complexity. The presenter argues astrology works and aims to provide scientific credence. All sciences deal with phenomena beyond complete facts or understanding. Forces like gravity and magnetism were once invisible but astrological influences may operate through forces like the Earth's electromagnetic field. The zodiac maps planetary positions and the equinoxes/solstices mark astronomical transition points, like signs in astrology. Complex wave interference patterns could underlie astrological correlations.

1. Astrology Fights Back
Based on a presentation given at
Bath Spa University.
November 2005
© M C Philp 2009

2. The practice of Astrology is academically unacceptable.
It is considered an outdated residue of a previous superstitious age.
In spite of this negative academic ruling just about
everyone knows their Sun sign.
In 1995 Richard Dawkins, an Aries, at the time Simoni Professor of
Science at Oxford and therefore personally responsible for the
nation’s clarity of perception, was not happy.
He wrote:
„We should take astrology seriously.
No I don‟t mean we should believe in it.
I am talking about fighting it seriously ….‟
Richard Dawkins, “The Real Romance in the Stars”,
The Independent on Sunday, 31 December 1995.

3. In the 1980s a few hopeful astrologers using scientific methodology
had attempted to prove their subject was worthy of academic
respect. The tests they devised did not take the complexity of
astrology sufficiently into account. They did not understand that
their subject had a great deal in common with meteorology – never
an exact science - a point Claudius Ptolemy made in his
Tetrabiblos.
The exercise was, on the whole, a humiliating failure.
BUT … I happen to know for a fact that astrology works, which is
why, in this presentation, I shall attempt to win the subject some
scientific credence and illustrate, in response to Dawkins, why it
may be worthy of intelligent consideration.
First, lets look at how science itself gets things wrong.
Ptolemy Tetrabiblos, Robbin, F.E. ed., (CAM,MA, Harvard University Press, 1980,
London, William Heinemann Ltd, 1980), Book 1, pp. 15 and 19.

4. Here is an innocent looking bar magnet.
Does it look as if it is influencing its
environment? I don’t think so.
And here is the same bar magnet with
iron filings sprinkled around it
indicating the presence of a previously
invisible field.
The iron filings allow you to see the influence this little piece of metal
extends beyond its physical boundary.
Scientist call this a force field.

5. John Maddox was editor of Nature, a prestigious science magazine.
In 1995 he wrote:
„How can one thing tug at another? If Newton submitted his theory of
gravity to a journal today it would certainly be rejected …‟
The Principia Publishable Now? John Maddox. Nature, 3 Aug 1995.
Maddox can’t have read Newton’s Principia, which states:
‟I use the words attraction, impulse, or propensity of any sort towards
a centre…: considering those forces not physically, but
mathematically: wherefore the reader is not to imagine that by these
words I anywhere take upon me to define the kind, or the manner of
any action, the causes or physical reasons thereof, or that I attribute
forces, in a true and physical sense ..‟(My underlining).
Definition VII.
Newton knew that describing phenomena that we cannot see or touch is
fraught with difficulties. He is undoubtedly attempting to avoid
misunderstandings by stating his case with firmness and clarity but even
with the editor of an esteemed science magazine he has failed.

6. Here is another example of ambiguity.
This is Aristarchus of Samos’ idea that 310-230 BCE ?
the planets, including Earth (of
course) orbit the Sun. It was a really
neat idea as it explained retrograde
planetary motion so simply.
Unfortunately when Aristarchus came
up with this idea the paradigm was:
the perfect circle is divine. (Johannes
Kepler was not going to annihilate this
erroneous mind-set with his discovery
of elliptical orbits for another one
thousand eight hundred plus years).
As all inspiration conceded to this
erroneous mind-set this model,
incorporating the perfect circle, failed Aristarchus of Samos
to make accurate predictions on the
position of the planets which was a
distinct handicap.

7. -180 CE ?
This is Ptolemy's model.
The epicycles performed by a
single planet are pictured here.
The Sun orbited the earth –
obviously –- and the planets rode
on crystal spheres.
Ptolemy’s model worked. It was
mathematically successful.
You could work out from this
model where the planets would
be (sort of) at a particular time.
Aristarchus’ model - the one that Claudius Ptolemy
suggested the planets orbit the
Sun - was clearly wrong.

8. But we know now that Ptolemy’s model was the one that was
wrong so what does this tell us?
It tells us that we can only trust mathematics if we are sure
that we are in possession of ALL of the necessary facts.
Quantum physics and cosmology deal with phenomenon way
beyond present scientific bounds - beyond the point when there
can be acquisition of all of the facts. In these subjects speculation
is the order of the day
When it comes to ambiguity Astrology is not alone, it is one of a
crowd.

9. Astrologers of the past have thought in terms of planets
‘influencing’ life on Earth (the word ‘influenza’ blames flu on the
planets). So what’s the influence?
Gravity is strong enough to stop us falling off the surface of our
round planet but considered too weak to have a subtler influence.

10. Dr Percy Seymour of Plymouth University has suggested that Earth’s
electromagnetic field influences life on Earth and is itself influenced by the solar
wind and other factors in the space-time field.
The Earth is a giant
magnet (remember the
magnet) and its field is
contorted by the Sun’s
electromagnetic field
which is in turn contorted
by the orbital position of
the planets.
The electromagnetic
field, he explains, is
therefore a candidate for
Earth‟s electromagnetic field. Seymour, P, Astrology; The consideration.
Evidence of the Stars (UK, Lennard Publishing, 1988).

11. Sir Arthur Eddington suggested we visualise the fabric of space-time in
terms of a stretched rubber sheet with dimples caused by balls of
different weights. This is what we are looking at here. We can imagine a
putting green. Whether the golf ball falls in the hole, circles it, or shoots
off into the rough, depends on the velocity of the ball, the direction of
motion and the contours of the ground. This is a two dimensional, ‘flat’
view, of three dimensional space.
A geometric picture of space-time, Hey, T, and Walters, P,
Einstein’s Mirror (UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 192.

12. This is a useful analogy when working out trajectories for space
vehicles but it is simplistic. To visualise a space-time field four-
dimensionally – which is how it really is - taking into account up-
down/backwards-forwards/side-to-side and time, all at once, is
difficult, as we have only our subjective experience to call on
safely pinned down by gravity on the two dimensional surface of
our planet.
If we accept (if only as a mind-game) that astrology works then
clues to what is really going on must be looked for in astrology
itself.

13. By 360 BCE we find Plato recording Timaeus, an Italian Greek - a
student of the great Pythagoras - calling the fixed stars „divine and
eternal animals ever abiding‟ and the moving stars „deities‟,
„subject to deviation ... circling as in dance‟. He laments the
complexity of their perambulations, the juxtapositions, returns,
conjunctions, oppositions and eclipses of the planets … which he
added sends „terror and intimations of the future to those who
cannot calculate their movements‟. … to attempt (he says) to tell
of all this without a visible representation of the heavenly system
would be to labour in vain.
Plato, Timaeus, Jowett, B. trans., The Internet Classics Archive,
http/classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html 1b.text, [hereafter Plato, Timaeus, pp 13-14 of 26.
The heavens wield regulatory power: Watches and clocks still rule our
lives reflecting the circling of heaven as the Earth spins on her axis.
This is why Plato called for ‘an accurate representation of the
heavens’ which resulted, after years of observation, in the construction
of the modern horoscope.
A horoscope - an accurate representation of the heavens - is the
astrologer’s main tool, so let’s look at a horoscope.

14. There are two pivotal positions on a horoscope. Point 00 Aries – the point
that decides the starting point of the Zodiac, the map of the heavens upon
which the planets are plotted - and the Ascendant - the point that decides
the starting point of the horoscope placing this map in relation to space-time.
The Ascendant is one end of a line called the Horizon. The horizon marks
the sunrise and sunset position for the particular day and place for which the
horoscope is set.
Ascendant
HORIZON
00 Aries
Solar Fire v5 (Esoteric Technologies Pty Ltd).

15. We often hear non-astrologers who are familiar only with Sun sign
columns say they were born on the cusp of a sign, but astrologers
know that signs have definite boundaries in seconds of arc.
Scientists talk about phase translation points. When water falls to a
specific temperature it freezes. In his book a Guide for the Perpexed
Schumacher writes about what he calls the ‘ontological discontinuity’
between life and death.
Astrologers understand that there is a ‘phase translation’ point or an
‘ontological discontinuity’ at thirty degree intervals around the
circumference of the chart.
Why ?
To answer this question we need to take a closer look at the Zodiac.

16. Sagittarius Scorpio
Capricorn
Aquarius
Tropical 00 Aries
2009 Virgo
Pisces Leo
Cancer
Aries
Sidereal 00 Aries Taurus Gemini
2009
TheThe Zodiac
Two Zodiacs
There are two Zodiacs, a virtual Tropical Zodiac with exact 30 degree
sections called signs, and a Sidereal Zodiac of real stars that make up
the constellations you see in the night sky.
Around four thousand years ago they were aligned but his is no longer
the case.

17. North Pole Because of the gravitational pull of
2009 the Sun and Moon the Earth wobbles
Polaris on her axis causing the Tropical
Vega Zodiac to move against the
background of the fixed stars of the
North Sidereal Zodiac one degree every
pole
14009 seventy two years.
The Tropical Zodiac is seasonally
accurate. It maps Earth’s relationship
to the Sun. When the Sun is in
tropical Aries it is always spring.
The zodiac of the fixed stars - The
Sidereal Zodiac - maps Earth’s
relationship to the Galaxy.

18. Imagine that this is Earth.
When I was very small I was told that the equator was an imaginary line that ran
around the Earth. I thought they said ‘imaginary lion’ – you can see him here.
The equator divides the Earth into two halves relative to the Poles.
The Horizon on a horoscope divides the Earth into two halves relative to the event.
You can see that the equator is to the North pole what the Horizon (the white line) is
to an event?
The celestial
equator is a great
skirt projected into
space. I have
drawn it with a
boundary but it
actually cuts
through the fabric
of space time,
ostensibly, ad
infinitum.

19. If you sprinkle iron filings around a
magnet you will see the magnet’s
magnetic field. If there is dust
around a planet we can see the
planet’s celestial equatorial field.
We are all familiar with Saturn’s
rings.
You can see, looking at Saturn,
just how ‘real’ an equatorial field Saturn’s rings – from the Hubble space telescope.
seems to be.
The Sombrero Galaxy also
displays a dusty celestial equator
… on a much bigger scale.
The Sombrero Galaxy Discovered by Pierre
Mechain in 1781. It is a member of the Virgo
cluster. Diameter thought to be in excess of
135,000 l.y.

20. Uranus has a ring, and Neptune, and of course the planets in the
solar system orbit on or near the celestial equatorial field of the
Sun.
If we sprinkled dust around Earth she would have a ring too.
Indeed she is fast acquiring a ring. It is made up of satellites in
Geostationary Earth Orbit, GEO.
The Earth’s angle of obliquity – the tilt of her equatorial field
relative to the Sun’s equatorial field - is tilted at an angle of
23.44 degrees.

21. In figure 1 and 2 I have used a yellow line to mark the ecliptic – the Sun’s equatorial field. From
our point of view this is the path of the Sun around Earth. Figure 1 shows the Sun on the Earth’s
equator at midday. The Sun is on the equator at midday only twice a year at the Autumnal and
Vernal Equinoxes. Figure 2 shows the Sun rising over the Horizon on the day of an event.
Astrologers call this the Ascendant. It is analogous to 00 Aries and defines the beginning of the
First House, a house which carries Arian qualities. Point 00 Aries is to the Earth in relation to the
Sidereal Zodiac (the Galaxy), what the Ascendant is to the horoscope in relation to the Tropical
Zodiac (the Solar System). You can think of 00 Aries as ‘Earth’s Ascendant‘ relative to the fixed
stars
In figure 3 I have
drawn a man standing
on the equator at the
vernal equinox
Fig.1 Fig. 2
pointing at the Sun.
Because the Earth
spins, he could stand
on any point on the
equator at midday and
the Sun will be directly
over his head.
The point in space
directly behind the
Sun on the Vernal Fig. 3
Equinox is
designated 00 Aries.

22. Point 00 Aries is presently between the constellation Pisces (where
it has been for the last 2000 years) and the constellation Aquarius.
Everyone knows that it is ‘The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius’.
An astrologer, Ed Gillam, has recently written an article for the
Astrological Journal (Spring 2010) wondering if the star Regulus –
the only bright star on the ecliptic – marks the changeover point
between Cancer (the Moon’s sign), and Leo (the Sun’s sign). The
Sun and Moon – the Lights - are All-Important. Astrology respects
symbols and word Regulus suggests regulation. If Ed is correct then
00 Aries moves into Aquarius sometime between 21st November
and 3rd December 2011.

23. This is what Earth, orbiting on the Sun’s equatorial field, would look like if we could
look down on it from above. I have taken a major liberty with scale but you get the gist.
The Sun’s celestial equator is pictured in grey. The Earth’s celestial equator is pictured
as white where it lies above the plane of the Sun, dark grey when below.
We can’t see celestial equators but we know from looking at Saturn’s rings and the
planets orbiting the Sun that they are there, just as we could see the invisible field
when we sprinkled iron filings around the magnet.
I want you to note that at
the equinoxes the two The relationship between the Sun‟s Celestial Equator
and the Earth‟s Celestial Equator.
fields are running right
through the centre of the
Sun and Earth. The pink
line. From the point of
view of the space-time
scenario, this is what
makes this position so
special.
At no other times do the
crossing of the two fields
pass through the Sun and
the Earth. Solstice Solstice
The Equinoxes

24. The electromagnetic spectrum propagates in waves. We hear sound
waves, see light waves, feel infra red waves. There are other waves, radio
waves, X rays, nuclear waves and cosmic waves, for example, that we
can only pick up with special equipment. The room you are in is packed
with waves. Einstein predicted gravity waves which have been observed
indirectly by pulsar astronomers. Jocelyn Bell Burnell. New Scientist, 14
May 2005, p39.
This is a picture of water waves passing through two slits. The merging of
waves creates an interference pattern.

25. The lower diagram shows light passing through two slits. You can see an
interference pattern here too. This is the experiment that told scientists
that light propagates in waves.
Intermingling waves make complex patterns. First think of the ripples
caused by a pebble thrown into a still pond. Then think what happens
when a handful of pebbles are thrown into the pond. If you photograph
the pattern you can interpret the ripples and recreate exactly where each
pebble landed on the water.
Brian R. Greene, The
Elegant Universe;
Superstrings, Hidden
Dimensions and the Quest
for the Ultimate Theory
(UK, Jonathan Cape,
1999), pp 100-1.

26. This is how to make a Hologram
A hologram is ‘an advanced form of
photography that allows an image Light waves
to be recorded in three Laser beam
dimensions’. Wikipedia
The holographic plate records an interference pattern. (interesting?)
Beam splitter
Reconstituted
image
Mirror Interference
pattern
captured on a
photographic
plate
Viewer

27. The images you see in Star Wars are volumetric displays. This quote
is from the internet.
‘A volumetric display device is a graphical display device that forms
a visual representation of an object in three physical dimensions as
opposed to the planar image of traditional screens that simulate depth
through a number of different visual effects. One definition offered by
pioneers in the field is that volumetric displays create 3-D imagery via
the emission, scattering, or relaying of illumination from well-defined
regions in (x,y,z) space.
The image can be reconstituted in a medium that need not be
tangible such as a gas.‟
I want you to remember this.

28. Here, to remind you, we N The Earth‟s
are back with celestial
equatorial fields. Celestial Equator
I have drawn Earth’s
field in blue and the
Sun’s in orange. S The Solar System
Saturn
And here is Saturn’s –
lovely isn’t it?

29. And here you see Earth’s and
the Sun’s fields at the equinox
when the two fields cross
through both bodies of mass
(the pink line).
At the solstice you can see that
the interference of the two fields
only passes through Earth.
00 Aries
solstice
equinox

30. HYPOTHESIS. In the 1990s,
while pondering wave
patterns, holograms, and
celestial equators I came up
with this and included it in the
book I was writing at the time.
I imagined these circles as
either gravitational or light
waves but most probably
gravitational as celestial
equatorial fields are
gravitational anomalies.
Electromagnet waves are no
good. As we saw earlier, they
are too easily distorted.
You can see that the waves
along the interference line
(drawn here in black)
harmonise at the equinoxes
but cross at the solstices.

31. … And this is interesting … If you
look at my original diagram on the
Notes Page of PowerPoint you
will observe a beautiful
interference pattern appears.
This is a photograph of the
previous diagram.
Perhaps this interference is
caused by the organisation of
the pixels in a computer
monitor?
I want you to remember this too.

32. I WONDERED…
Might shifting interference patterns, as Earth
orbits the Sun, account for phase translation
points between the signs of the Zodiac?
AND .. if these patterns are suggesting a
holographic reality – we need to discover a
medium upon which the hologram can be
projected?

33. Well, what about this?
Craig Hogan, director of Fermilab, has been pondering the
anomaly that has turned up in experiment GEO600 set up in
Germany to search for gravity waves. (New Scientist, Jan 17 09 p 24).
The equipment had to be unusually sensitive so the technicians
expected problems. They worked hard to remove unwanted noise
caused by passing clouds, distant traffic, anything that could cause
the slightest interference but they were stuck with a random
sideways jitter.
It seemed the experiment was a failure.
Not so says Hogan.

34. According to Hogan
…‟quantum effects will cause space-time to convulse wildly on the
tiniest scales. At this magnification, the fabric of space time
becomes grainy and is ultimately made of tiny units rather like
pixels …‟
(Marcus Chown, All the world’s a hologram, New Scientist, Jan 17 09 p 24).
Ah Ha!
Did he just mention pixels???
He goes on to suggest, the jitter is holographic noise, the result of
the graininess upon which the virtual reality that is life is
projected?
OK … we can think about this.

35. So … are astrologers interpreting holographic projections and
does the interference at cardinal points account for the importance
of these points on a horoscope which is in actuality an accurate
space-time representation of the heavens?
If so, what about the other 8 phase translation points
between signs?
I could find nothing specific to account for these and yet
astrologers are convinced that they exist.

36. Then, in March 2009, I Lagrange Points
learnt about Lagrange
points.
Earth’s Orbit
Lagrange points are stable
points on the Earth’s orbit
where the gravity of the
Sun and the gravity of the
Earth cancel each other
out. I went into the internet
to see what more I could
learn and I discovered
Lagrange points occur 60
degrees either side of the
Earth on her orbital path. …
Ah Ha! again …
60 degrees!

37. Lagrange Points
equinox
On April 5th 09 I drew up
this diagram. It shows the
position of Lagrange points
4 and 5 relative to the
cardinal positions on the
Earth/Sun orbit. Each
solstice
cardinal position has 2
points which adds up to
twelve at 30 degree solstice
intervals.
Check it out.
This diagram is not to scale.
equinox
The Sun‟s gravitational waves
The Earth‟s gravitational waves

38. So here we have a representation of an astrologer’s space-time map
…But …

39. .. while I am impressed with the equinoctial and solstice
interference patterns the Lagrangian points are problematical.
When our planet passes through the four fixed points on her orbit it
is reasonable to expect something significant occurs.
The Lagrangian points, while certainly gravitationally significant,
although fixed relative to Earth orbit with Earth, and, are therefore
not fixed relative to the cardinal points. 00 Gemini and 00 Aquarius
are only relevant when the Earth is at 00 Aries. 00 Taurus and 00
Virgo only relevant when the Earth is at 00 Cancer, etc.
Hmmm. We are going to have to think about this for some time.
If you are interested be my guest.

40. blogs.yogajournal.com
Night sky
Looking at the night sky what do we see?
Do we see the geometry of Einstein‟s space-time
field, or the electromagnetic field, or the significant
phase translation points that astrologers say divide
the signs of the Zodiac?
No, We see the complex splatter of a myriad suns.

41. What can we conclude from this?
The invisible electromagnetic/gravitational field is apprehended by
scientists through the careful observation (with the help of modern
technology) of influences on matter and described using mathematics.
The invisible signs of the Tropical Zodiac are apprehended by
astrologers through the observation of psychological and sociological
patterns and described using symbolism, metaphor, analogy and myth.
Both astrophysicists and astrologers are interpreting an invisible
space-time abstraction.
Our experience of life feels ‘real’, but what is really ‘real’?
It could be anything – it could be a virtual reality program.

42. Astrologers don’t know what is really ‘real’ but astrologers can take
comfort in the fact that scientist’s don’t know either.
Cast you mind back to Newton’s Principia.
„The reader is not to imagine by these words I anywhere take upon
me to define the kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or
physical reason thereof, of that I attribute forces, in a true and
physical sense‟.
Aristarchus of Samos had the brilliant idea that the planets went around
the Sun. This was in 300 BCE. But they didn’t know then about elliptical
orbits so the mathematics did not add up - this is one reason why Ptolemy
ditched the Sun centred solar system theory and put his money on
epicycles.
Mathematicians love to think their subject can explain everything
accurately - and they are surely right – but only if they have ALL the
information which at this moment in time is a very unlikely possibility.

43. Can you see that scientists like Richard Dawkins, who’s attack against
astrology began this presentation, scientists who think they know it all, are
talking through their hats and what is worse aggressively attempting to
annihilate an ancient information system that aligned with science might
take us into a new era of deeper understanding?
Chrissy Philp 2009
P.S. Actually, I really like some of Dawkin’s ideas –
I just know that over this he really has got it very wrong.
Probably a paradigm problem. Perhaps the one that says:
Astrology is (definitely) a pseudo science,
(so don’t bother to check it out for yourself.)
See Wiki and Collins English Dictionary.
Update 2010. Scientists are becoming insecure in their 20th Century conviction that
science will soon answer all questions. This gives me hope.