Is Astrology a science?

Astrid · Jan 6, 2023

Tuur said:
It's called modeling. It's done all the time, whether it's a model of an aircraft placed in a wind tunnel or a computer simulation. Remember our point our contention? I wondered if an inundated ice cap would float, based on instances I've seen where ice covered with water didn't float, and you have stated that not floating was an impossibility. So the question is whether ice would remain adhered to a surface or float when covered with insufficient water.

I finished my "ice box glacier" experiment this morning. I've carefully poured chilled water over the top of the ice until the container was full, and have checked on it every several minutes until a second layer of ice formed at the top of the water (as confirmed by pouring it out and finding the original layer of ice securely adhered to the bottom). Just like what I remembered, the ice remained adhered to the bottom of the container, even though it's covered with over seven times the amount of water.

What's great about an experiment is that no one has to take someone's word for it. All they have to do is to conduct the experiment for themselves.

So, what have we learned from this? Simply that yes, it's possible for ice to adhere to a surface and for water to remain atop it instead of the ice popping to the surface. No more, no less.

Now, this leads us to something it would do well to think about. Science is inquiry, and that's what makes it fun. I thought I knew what the outcome of this experiment would be, but I didn't know. So I tried to find out with what's a simple, inexpensive, experiment, and in the process I had fun. Not because of the conversation here in this topic, but because I had a question and was looking for the answer. That's science in a nutshell.

Dismiss this little experiment if you wish, but I found an answer to my question, and had fun doing so.

So you demonstrated the well known, that water adheres to surface when frozen to it.
And experimented to see if adding weight to the top
would break the adhesion and lift the ice.

Surprise surprise that pushing down does not pull up.

I think that won't get honorable mention at a grade schoolscience fair.
You didn't test to see how much force would
break it free.
Did not calculate the buoyancy of your ice
( a few ounces at most)
Didn't test to see if a loose chunk of ice would float,
( glaciers are not "stuck down")
Did not design a relevant experiment, for lo,
Antactic ice is not "stuck down".

Did you model a mountain glacier to see if
you can make one that cuts a u shape valley
through rock and build a terminal moraine?
I kinda guess not. And you know it won't work.
You also know that scaling a balsa wood airplane
up to 747 size won't work.
"It's called modelling "

FYI since you did not bother to figure out the
buoyancy force per sq ft of five miles of ice,it's
i32 000 lbs.

In a nutshell, no, you didn't do any science at all.

Try this experiment. Freeze a cubic ft of Ice to
an overhead beam.
Get under it and pull down with 132 000 pounds force.

Now that you answered your question regarding the
obvious, try my equally obvious question-

Do you figure to survive the experiment?

Astrid · Jan 6, 2023

Diamond7 said:
How is it dishonest if he has a conflict he can not resolve?
Don't you also have a conflict you cannot resolve?

Some of the most adamant anti-evolutionists still accept Micro Evolution. Even if they reject macro.

No, he did resolve it, in favour of his
literal reading of Genesis: rejection of all
data in favour of a preconceived idea.

It's made even more explicit in this quote:

"...even if all the evidence in the universe
turns against yec, I will still be yec as that
is what the Bible seems to indicate".

An honest jury does not disregard all
evidence and convict because they made
up their minds before they even heard the
evidence.

I believe it is actually impossible to be a
well informed and intellectually honest yec.

sjastro · Jan 6, 2023

Here is a brief description of ice core analysis and how the data has been obtained such as the Na levels quoted in my previous posts.
It's comical how those who have no comprehension of the subject will summarily dismiss it like other areas of science as being fraudulent.

AV1611VET · Jan 6, 2023

sjastro said:
Here is a brief description of ice core analysis and how the data has been obtained such as the Na levels quoted in my previous posts.
It's comical how those who have no comprehension of the subject will summarily dismiss it like other areas of science as being fraudulent.

Akita Suggagaki · Jan 6, 2023

Estrid said:
So you demonstrated the well known, that water adheres to surface when frozen to it.
And experimented to see if adding weight to the top
would break the adhesion and lift the ice.

Surprise surprise that pushing down does not pull up.

I don't think that was the point. Rather, ice usually floats. So if I understand correctly, the experiment demonstrated that the cohesion forces prevailed over the buoyancy forces. It had nothing to do with weight of water pushing down.

Of course I may have skimmed it too fast and missed the real point.

Astrid · Jan 6, 2023

Akita Suggagaki said:
I don't think that was the point. Rather, ice usually floats. So if I understand correctly, the experiment demonstrated that the cohesion forces prevailed over the buoyancy forces. It had nothing to do with weight of water pushing down.

Of course I may have skimmed it too fast and missed the real point.

Yes. You skimmed.
The point is in a world wide flood of biblical
proportions would float the ice caps, they not be there now.
The "experiment" doeminstated nothing that isn't
obvious and very well known. Water freezing to a
surface will stick to it. Ta da!

The ice caps are not stuck down anyway, but if they WERE,
tens of thousands of kilos upward force would break the
weak adhesion.

Your q is thoroughly dealt with
in my earlier response.

AV1611VET · Jan 6, 2023

Estrid said:
The point is in a world wide flood of biblical proportions would float the ice caps, they not be there now.

Amazing how such a small thing as snow and ice can flummox the academic world when it comes to the Bible.

Tuur · Jan 6, 2023

Estrid said:
So you demonstrated the well known, that water adheres to surface when frozen to it.
And experimented to see if adding weight to the top
would break the adhesion and lift the ice.

Surprise surprise that pushing down does not pull up.

I think that won't get honorable mention at a grade schoolscience fair.
You didn't test to see how much force would
break it free.
Did not calculate the buoyancy of your ice
( a few ounces at most)
Didn't test to see if a loose chunk of ice would float,
( glaciers are not "stuck down")
Did not design a relevant experiment, for lo,
Antactic ice is not "stuck down".

Did you model a mountain glacier to see if
you can make one that cuts a u shape valley
through rock and build a terminal moraine?
I kinda guess not. And you know it won't work.
You also know that scaling a balsa wood airplane
up to 747 size won't work.
"It's called modelling "

FYI since you did not bother to figure out the
buoyancy force per sq ft of five miles of ice,it's
i32 000 lbs.

In a nutshell, no, you didn't do any science at all.

Try this experiment. Freeze a cubic ft of Ice to
an overhead beam.
Get under it and pull down with 132 000 pounds force.

Now that you answered your question regarding the
obvious, try my equally obvious question-

Do you figure to survive the experiment?

Testing assumptions is what science does.

sjastro · Jan 6, 2023

AV1611VET said:

All you have shown is a video of an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.
If he wants to label scientists as being stupid then this is the case of it takes one to know one.

Scientists date annual layers in ice core samples which is not the same as the layers deposited on the plane crash in Greenland.
Annual layers have a distinctive pattern where the heavy isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen, deuterium and ¹⁸O respectively in ice vary according to the temperature when precipitation occurred.
The colder the temperature the lower the concentration of deuterium and ¹⁸O found in the annual layers.

Here is an example of annual layers based on ¹⁸O variations.

Tuur · Jan 6, 2023

Estrid said:
So you demonstrated the well known, that water adheres to surface when frozen to it.
And experimented to see if adding weight to the top
would break the adhesion and lift the ice.

Surprise surprise that pushing down does not pull up.

I think that won't get honorable mention at a grade schoolscience fair.
You didn't test to see how much force would
break it free.
Did not calculate the buoyancy of your ice
( a few ounces at most)
Didn't test to see if a loose chunk of ice would float,
( glaciers are not "stuck down")
Did not design a relevant experiment, for lo,
Antactic ice is not "stuck down".

Did you model a mountain glacier to see if
you can make one that cuts a u shape valley
through rock and build a terminal moraine?
I kinda guess not. And you know it won't work.
You also know that scaling a balsa wood airplane
up to 747 size won't work.
"It's called modelling "

FYI since you did not bother to figure out the
buoyancy force per sq ft of five miles of ice,it's
i32 000 lbs.

In a nutshell, no, you didn't do any science at all.

Try this experiment. Freeze a cubic ft of Ice to
an overhead beam.
Get under it and pull down with 132 000 pounds force.

Now that you answered your question regarding the
obvious, try my equally obvious question-

Do you figure to survive the experiment?

Buoyancy per surface area is offset by adhesion per surface area. That's going to remain constant for a given surface. And if you wish to model the airflow of a 747, a model of balsa wood works just fine.

Now, you can dismiss the experiment if you please. You can mock it if that what you wish. Yet I tested an assumption with an experiment that is easily duplicated. If you find my posts distressing, all you have to do is to click on my avatar, then on More Options, then Ignore.

AV1611VET · Jan 6, 2023

sjastro said:
Scientists date annual layers in ice core samples which is not the same as the layers deposited on the plane crash in Greenland.

Then what happened exactly?

How did that plane get under all those layers (annual or otherwise)?

sjastro · Jan 6, 2023

AV1611VET said:
Then what happened exactly?

How did that plane get under all those layers (annual or otherwise)?

The plane was buried under successive snowstorms which formed layers.
These layers undergo compression to eventually metamorphose to form ice sheets.
The problem is dating via visual stratification is difficult as the layers become less obvious in the ice making it difficult to differentiate one layer from the next.
This is why scientists use annual layers for dating which is based on isotopic compositions of the layers rather than their appearance.
You can only count the layers to determine the age at a particular depth once isotopic compositions of the layers are known

Erik Nelson · Jan 7, 2023

Kylie said:
What about the other way around? Words from the stars to the earth?

yes, think that's correct, to my understanding, sorry if I was unclear, "astro-logos" = "star's words" to earth, whereupon those who claim to receive them report them as "prophecies" or write them into "horoscopes" etc.

(horo-scope = hour+see, "seeing the hour", allegedly per claims, the "words of the stars" to earth are fundamentally concerned with time, giving me the impression of a "Fated Prophetic Schedule" to which Astrological influences supposedly hold the earth fixed [?]. That would explain "pro-phecies" = "shown before" = Visions revealing prior knowledge of events slated to unfold on earth, before they actually do unfold -- if said events are always unfolding according to some Astrologically-influenced calendar.

For example, the Olmec-Mayan Long Count Calendar, which, like the Bible, dates a major cataclysm to about 5000 years ago, which on the other side of the planet was experienced as "Noah's Flood"; and the next around present day, in agreement with one reading of Revelation 20, if you accept the Millennium = Byzantine empire and Revelation 20:7-9 as the modern era since then.)

Kylie · Jan 7, 2023

Aaron112 said:
Well, you're out of ... your depth then, or something like that... I don't know how to put it....
The so-called 'experts'/ scientists/ doctors/ powerful ones in charge/
were offered the opportunity to see such things, completely in their jurisdiction or expertise or field, many many times, or once...
and what was their reaction ? Sometimes no reaction at all - simply ignore it and it will go away they thought.....
Other times , when taken to a place to see things proven that would bring harm to their esteem, cause them to lose face, cost money, be contrary to their chosen profession,
they just refused to look at the evidence, so they could go back and say they did not see any evidence supporting either a miracle, or a fraud, or anything contrary to what they had been indoctrinated into protecting.
Billions or Trillions of dollars are at risk, at stake, in all of this,
and they will not give it up easily, nor willingly.

Is the evidence available ? Certainly, but you /anyone/ has to find it for themselves most of the time --- others are not permitted to publish it publicly, etc...

You can understand this, can't you , where like if a car supplier was able and willing and starting to bring cars to sell in a town, for five or ten percent, or even thirty percent, of what the other car dealers were selling for,
the ones who are able to stop that from happening will do so, at great expense, although likely only a fraction of the unjust profits of those making the most money... and even at the cost of lives, and obviously at any cost controlling the newspapers, television and any media that would even dare or try to actually reveal the truth publicly....

You claim they were given the opportunity to see such things.

Such as...? You give no actual examples here. You can't just say these things exist and then not actually produce them.

Kylie · Jan 7, 2023

Aaron112 said:
Well, how about results over hundreds of years ? Tens of thousands of results once known, now forbidden ?
Take time to look over this site >> and copy for your own use as much as you can.... it might be gone by tomorrow ....

Herbs, Plants, and Healing Properties – Page 8 – Legends of America

People on all continents have used thousands of indigenous plants and herbs for treatment of ailments since prehistoric times. Learn more about many of them

www.legendsofamerica.com

It's well documented that the vast majority of medicines that we use today come from plants. We just test it scientifically to find out what the actual chemical that does the work is, and then produce that chemical artificially, or develop ways to make it more potent so it has a greater effect.

But no one is denying that chemicals in plants can have medicinal uses.

Kylie · Jan 7, 2023

Diamond7 said:
How is it dishonest if he has a conflict he can not resolve?
Don't you also have a conflict you cannot resolve?

It's intellectually dishonest because he is rejecting something based on whether it agrees with what he has already decided is true, rather than because he can point out some flaw in the science that backs up evolution.

Diamond7 said:
Some of the most adamant anti-evolutionists still accept Micro Evolution. Even if they reject macro.

It's literally the same exact process, just over a longer time.

Diamond72 · Jan 7, 2023

Kylie said:
It's intellectually dishonest because he is rejecting something based on whether it agrees with what he has already decided is true, rather than because he can point out some flaw in the science that backs up evolution.

You are only telling me about yourself. We all have our own subjective reality. We all see things from our own perspective. Most people are not objective at all. Are We as Objective as We Think?

Diamond72 · Jan 7, 2023

Kylie said:
It's literally the same exact process, just over a longer time.

Where I live we have 12 feet of muck left by the glaciers. Under that, we find layers of conglomerate rock that took time to produce. Clearly, there was something here before the glaciers. If you live in Guam you do not have any of that to study. There are only 6,000 years of history there. Many of the people in Guam are from the Philippines. If you go to the 10,000 pacific islands then you see a big change. 12,000 years ago the glaciers melted and the water level went up higher. Biodiversity there is based on an ice age configuration of the Islands at that water level. A big consideration is that there is no way the plants and animals on Pacific Islands were from the middle east and they were not on an Ark. That is what Darwin says he found in the Galapagos Islands.

We know there was a worldwide flood at the time of Pangea. We know that Noah's flood was an Archetype of the flood at the time of Pangea and of all floods. That is the way the Bible works. Everything in the Bible pertains to us at all times and in each and every generation. I constantly hear, the end is near and Bible prophecy is true. I have heard people say that for over 50 years. For them, it is all true. I had a friend who died recently and he was talking a lot about the rapture and how close it was. For him, it was very close. It was his time to go. We know life is short and the end will be here a lot sooner than people think or realize. We should not waste our time. We need to take advantage of the little bit of time we are given here on this earth.

Diamond72 · Jan 7, 2023

Kylie said:
It's literally the same exact process, just over a longer time.

We are still learning about DNA and there is a lot we do not know yet.

Kylie · Jan 7, 2023

Diamond7 said:
You are only telling me about yourself. We all have our own subjective reality. We all see things from our own perspective. Most people are not objective at all. Are We as Objective as We Think?

Are you suggesting there is NOTHING that exists externally to ourselves?

I mean, I agree that we are having a subjective experience, but this thing that we are subjectively experiencing actually exists in reality, doesn't it? It's not just purely imaginary, is it?

Is Astrology a science?

Is Astrology a science?

Astrology is a science.

Astrology is not a science.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Dispensationalist 72

Defeater of Illogic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency