Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site escher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!escher!doug
From: doug@escher.UUCP (Douglas J Freyburger)
Newsgroups: net.astro
Subject: Re: Astronomers vs. astrology (long)
Message-ID: <42@escher.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 22:12:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: escher.42
Posted: Fri Aug  2 22:12:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 08:07:34 EDT
References: <576@ihu1m.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA/JPL, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 53

> --
> I've always been amazed at the vehemence with which astronomers
> condemn astrology, like some bastard cousin they're too ashamed
> of.  Of course it's not science, but they're awfully quick to villify
> something they know *nothing* about.
> 

Er...  This high-and-mighty stuff from modern astonomers is
fun, but real data on places far outside the Solar system
is shakey at best.  With the Pioneer's and Voyager's and
all of those other robots we've sent to other planets,
the Copernican/Keplerian model of the Solar system is well
proven, but how well proven is our "Knowledge" of the rest
of the galaxy, and what lies beyond?

Parallax (sp?) works well locally, but it can only be used
on a few objects out of many orders of magnitude more.
Farther than that, it's all speculation.  Sure, it's well
founded speculation, but so was Ptolmey (and even the
Sumerians that started up astrology).  This sort of system
has been proven wrong before.

I "believe in" neutron stars and expanding universe, and I
don't "believe in" astrology, but I'll be a lot firmer in
my belief when Beowulf Sheiffer comes back with photos of
the local neutron star!

Maybe the reason modern astronomers are so dead-set against
astrology is related to just how un-proven THEIR work is.
They saw the astrologers fall; they saw the Ptolemics fall,
and now could it be that they're afraid the Hubbelians will
fall, too?

I am very pro-astronomy, and here I am lambasting it
without even the slightest intention of adding a ":-)"
smiley in the whole text.  As hard as we work on it, it
isn't testable until we get out there to test it with
something, so by the definition of many of us on the net,
astronomy isn't a science.  I prefer to call the Ptolomics
(and even the astrologers) "obsolete scientists" rather than
"not scientists".  Do you want all of your work dismissed as
worthless, or just recognised as out-dated, when it gets old?

In the interest of getting out there and testing some of
these theories, let's DO it.  Robert Forward's StarWisp is
a good start.  On the lighter side, does anyone have a better
idea for an FTL-drive?  I don't want to dive into a T-machine
face-first, I'm afraid of black holes when they're that
close...

Doug Freyburger		DOUG@JPL-VLSI, DOUG@JPL-ROBOTICS,
JPL 171-235		...escher!doug, doug@aerospace,
Pasadena, CA 91109	etc.