But some of those things actually are BS, not just sound like it. I have been reading things like this for over 50 years. I have a ton of books, so I know a lot.
Let's see now. First the "signs of the zodiac" don't match where the stars actually are now. Second, the stars are too far away to affect anything at all here on earth. Third, I've never seen an accurate horoscope for myself or even a small series of accurate horoscopes for anyone else.
BTW, proving a negative theoretically is very difficult, so how about you prove astrology?
the zodiac is like a clock face, with the stars as the hands. no need for them to be fixed. nor is there any need to 'affect' us.. that isn't how it works.
many people have come to the conclusion that existence is 'holographic'. check out 'indra's net of pearls'
Yet I'm supposedly born under a certain sign, when that sign wasn't there at the time. They're off by two, and will get further off as the centuries pass.
But some of those things actually are BS, not just sound like it. I have been reading things like this for over 50 years. I have a ton of books, so I know a lot.
okay... go ahead and disprove astrology or whatever
Let's see now. First the "signs of the zodiac" don't match where the stars actually are now. Second, the stars are too far away to affect anything at all here on earth. Third, I've never seen an accurate horoscope for myself or even a small series of accurate horoscopes for anyone else.
BTW, proving a negative theoretically is very difficult, so how about you prove astrology?
the zodiac is like a clock face, with the stars as the hands. no need for them to be fixed. nor is there any need to 'affect' us.. that isn't how it works.
many people have come to the conclusion that existence is 'holographic'. check out 'indra's net of pearls'
Yet I'm supposedly born under a certain sign, when that sign wasn't there at the time. They're off by two, and will get further off as the centuries pass.