User talk:Dave of Maryland

Wikipedia is not a blog

As you wish. Let's delete this page. Completely. Dave of Maryland (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction. About me.

This morning AlanM1 (I thought it was Alan Mi, M1 is a touching military reference, force rules!) resurrected deleted materials as an excuse to spank me. I've deleted that as I did not see the purpose. If other self-appointed Wiki editors want to resurrect what I've deleted, sure. Pile on. This is HAZING.

I accept I am a target, but I refuse to be a public one. I have an email address, the same one I've had for 16 years. Dave@AstroAmerica.com. Use it.

I am 60 years old. Two events over the past six months have reluctantly radicalized me, so as I seem to be of interest, I will tell you a bit about them.

First, I happened to stumble across George J. McCormack's 1947 work, A Text-Book of Long Range Weather Forecasting. I found it as fifty-six page, single-sided, single-spaced typescript document, on original typewriter bond paper, bound in a three-ring notebook. Badly worn. According to a statement I found with it, publication was limited to 100 such copies. It was based on the author's 30 years of observation and study, combined with careful study of experts going back to the 17th century. The result were techniques so powerful McCormack could predict weather months or years in advance. He then set about, for the remainder of his life, trying to get scientific acceptance of his techniques. In 1963 he presented his findings before the US Weather Bureau, and again, in 1964, at the request of two US Senators, before the American Meteorological Society. Both of them turned him down flat. Not because his presentation was flawed, but because they refused to accept the very premise. Which was astrology. The pseudoscience itself.

His book was subsequently discarded and, if not for me, would very likely have lost completely. I was deeply shocked when I learned of this. This is active suppression of human knowledge. If suppression of knowledge is not the ultimate crime, it has only genocide and warfare as company. I was honored to reprint the book, which in only six months has already inspired many students.

The second radicalizing impulse was pneumonia, in August, 2012. At the worst of it, I experienced six hours of near death experience (pneumonia kills old men), but I was not in any way prepared for the subsequent two weeks of intense grief. I lost 20 pounds of weight. In my entire life I had never experienced grief like that.

As a result of these experiences, I don't care anymore what imaginary things are in the back of your head. I don't care if you label this pseudoscience or call me a crank. I don't care what ideologies you believe nor why you believe them. On to the purpose of this post:

The subject is Pseudoscience. I start with Life after death, God, and Astrology.

All three of these have been accepted as true, in all cultures, in all lands, from the dawn of recorded history, to the present. They cannot be termed "pseudo". It might be that we disagree with one or another or all three. It might be that, at this time, and with our present understanding, that we do not know of physical explanations, but in this regard we accept that our understanding is incomplete and set these matters aside. We draw a line and say, If people believe in such things and have always done so, there must be something to them, and it must be we who lack understanding. This is not to say that one must believe in these things. There is free will. One may believe what he likes.

But when science labels things as "pseudo," and puts the full weight of its authority behind it, science becomes coercive. It becomes dogmatic. It becomes inhuman. When it compounds the error with compulsive belief in Evolution, Global_warming, and whatnot, it becomes the 16th century Church. It becomes a tyrant, and, as with tyrants everywhere, it inspires its own destruction. This is not to deny these topics, but to state the coercive nature of science. That science creates a reality from which there is no escape. If I don't like your God I am free to find one I do like, or even go without.

Not so with science. Science declares itself to be not an opinion, nor a belief. Denial of science is denial of reality as a whole, but unlike the Church, unlike all other religions, science does not have a fixed body of rules. Science makes up new rules, and abandons old ones, on whim, and then demands their unquestioned acceptance. As anyone may clearly see by reading old science journals. Science is in fact a slave to whim. It was not 40 years ago that science believed the Earth was cooling and that dire measures should be taken to prevent global winter. What happened? I'd like a real explanation. One that gives the names of those responsible for the cooling hoax.

I constantly hear of new "advances," new "cures," but in subsequent years when I try to revisit these advances and cures (interferon, super-cooled computers, controlled nuclear fusion, etc.), I invariably learn they did not work. Science in fact resembles a freak show barker, touting the latest wonder. Science is a fad, driven by powerful egos. By comparison, over the centuries Engineering has not changed. Mathematics has not changed. Astrology has not changed. Evolved, yes, but the fundamentals remain the same. Not so with science, where the list of abandoned discoveries lengthen, year after year, decade after decade, century after century. And yet science remains completely unaware, completely without shame. Science is a cult that denies its own history.

Will this wake you up? Will I change your mind? No. Of course not. You're already working on a reply, a refutation. All I need to do is give ammunition to those, like myself, who wish to be free of this tyranny.

The topic is astrology.

Astrology is how you may know yourself. This has always been its foundation. If you wish to be an authority on the subject, if you wish to determine if it is "pseudo" or not, you begin by casting your natal chart and then reading it. You can get your chart done on-line for free. You can then get a copy of Sakoian and Acker's Astrologer's Handbook and read it. Current list price is $16.00. Amazon has it for less. It can be had used for pennies. Cost is therefore not an excuse. At that point your opinions, whatever they are, for or against, have value. But not before. Astrology is no different from any other discipline.

You will do this for the same reason that a virgin is not qualified to speak of sexual love. A virgin may want to prattle on and those few Catholic priests who actually are virgins actually do, but you are unqualified and will merely be taken as a walking joke. Your opinions will resonate with your fellow cultists. Who are many, as you know.

That astrology appears to be physically impossible, I agree. But it is impossible to deny that it works. Astrology has always worked. Astrologers do not care if astrology is physically absurd, any more than a driver knows why his car burns oil. It's not his job to know.

But science ought to care. Since the physicality of astrology seems to matter to science, then it is up to science to find a way of making it work. There is no point carping about astrology. All attempts to disprove it have ended in failure. Most of those who tried turned into astrologers. And it is an absolute rule, that the harder and more sincere their efforts, the more forceful their subsequent conversion. (Michel Gauquelin is the classic example.) The continued existence of astrology, its continued use and acceptance, despite its detractors, should be a challenge to science. Science should be curious, should be inspired to solve the puzzle of astrology. To find a theory that works.

Instead, science has merely continued the previous hostility. Astrology has always been condemned and astrologers have always known why: Astrology knows all, it reveals all. Astrology is the ultimate language. Astrology is the ultimate threat to those in power. The Roman Emperors condemned astrology because it infringed on their rule. Astrological carping - the king is doing this, the king is doing that - was a nuisance that could be banned.

Emperors were succeeded by the Church. The Church banned astrology because knowledge of the future was God's right alone. Knowledge of the future infringed on man's free will. The truth of the first statement depends on whether you believe in God or not, but the second is true no matter what.

By contrast, the scientific argument, that astrology has no physical means of support, is weak. The Emperor is the Emperor and can do what he likes. Force rules. The religious condemnation, that astrology infringes fate and free will, will always remain true. But the scientific objection, the seeming lack of physical support, can be demolished merely by the production of an irrefutable theory.

With such a theory, the critical point to realize is that it does not have to be accepted by science. Since science is clearly biased (having refused to hear not only McCormack and Gauquelin, but also John Nelson), we know that no theory, regardless of merit, will be heard. There will only be immediate and outright rejection. So there is no further purpose in astrology messing with science. This was the hard-won lesson of the 20th century.

Astrological theory needs only to be accepted by astrologers, and the public in general. Precisely because science has never accepted astrology and has conditioned its very existence upon its ability to pronounce such edicts, such a theory will destroy science. Much as Luther's 95 Theses destroyed the Church, even though he intended no such thing and his charges were repetitive and mostly about petty corruption.

The astrological premise is simple. We have had it upside down for millennia. Astrological energies do not fall from an empty sky.

Astrological energies, specifically the signs of the zodiac, are inherent in the Earth itself. They comprise its fundamental vibration. We are soaked in them, we cannot escape. The scientific understanding of the subject is so crude we that are taunted with, Are there 11, or 12, or 13 signs? The proper answer is the signs of the zodiac are four elements (fire, earth, air, water) in one of three states of energy: Cardinal, fixed and mutable. Which forms a 4 x 3 grid. The signs of the zodiac are a grid. There were only ever twelve, there could only ever be twelve. At some point, and for specific reasons, they were projected into the sky. Much as movies are projected upon a screen. This is the key that was lost, and which establishes the Tropical zodiac as the prime astrological foundation.

If the Earth produces such energies, presumably all the other bodies in the solar system do as well. Astrology is therefore the ongoing interplay of the Sun and Moon, along with the ceaseless movements of the other planets, upon this planet, and the Earth's reaction to them. Which the Earth then radiates outwards. From the ground up.

In support of this is the fact that the various planets are more than big enough, more than close enough, to have precisely this effect upon the Earth as a whole. In answer to the question, What about the inverse square law? this theory accounts for it, in its entirety. Here it is:

The Sun and Moon have predominant influence, the Moon due to its proximity, the Sun from sheer power, as well as from their largely unvarying distance. The other planets come and go. Astrologers term the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars) personal, which is to say, they give a great many details. They term Jupiter and Saturn social, in that their effect is more general. Which is to say, less detail reaches us due to the great distances that must be travelled. Outer planets - Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and as many Kuiper Belt objects as you want to mess with - only have effect when in aspect to some closer planet that " boosts their vibrations and brings them in." Precisely as one would expect. Asteroids, which are tiny things, are useful for specific details. The constellations in the sky have no influence whatever.

I caution the reader that I am well-read in Western Tropical Astrology, from the first century BC to the present, that I am well-read in Indian Vedic astrology, that I am well-read in Chinese astrology, that I am well-read in Western Sidereal Astrology. This simple theory accounts for every detail of all of these disciplines. Nothing is omitted, nothing is overlooked, nothing is excused. Unlike a lot of scientific theories I've read.

But I don't have to convince science. I don't care to convince science. This is certainly of no interest to Wiki, which only compiles what has been peer reviewed. All I have to do is convince the astrologers of the world. Who, hurt and bruised from 350 years of scientific abuse, are eager for justification. For rationalization. For legitimacy. For solid ground. It's been such a horrible time.

To the Church, Martin Luther's complaints were trivial. To his followers, they were the hopes they had long sought. As a result, the Church was unprepared for the result, and has suffered greatly in the centuries since. I have no desire to be a leader, but it is a revolutionary moment.

You don't have to like this, you don't have to let it challenge you, you don't have to "rise to the bait," you can let things - and me - alone. No one dragged you here. I assure you that, for myself, if I am not disturbed, I will not disturb Wikipedia. My childish interest in pointing out such things as the absurdity of lunar impact craters is fading.

As a purveyor of knowledge, Wiki has failed to stand up for itself. It has instead accepted the ideological dictat of science. The result, a trap Wiki should have avoided, was "pseudo" this and "pseudo" that. Again: Astrology is prima facie not pseudo. Nothing of this great age and world-wide acceptance is ever pseudo. Wiki could have established itself as independent of scientific limitations (of scientific bigotry), could have established itself as inclusive of the full range of human thought, but has failed to do so. Wiki could have been great. It is instead crude.

But if, after all this, you wish to comment, you are advised to email Dave@AstroAmerica.com . Comments left here may be deleted, at my sole discretion. If you are inspired to delete, my reply is So what! Dave of Maryland (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free host for blogs. See Wikipedia:NOT#BLOG. 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)