Interbane wrote:In what way does 179 years relate to the great age? The numbers don't match.

The net effect of what you're suggesting is that the center of mass of the solar system affects life on Earth? Did you incorporate all massive bodies into your formulas? The asteroids in the kuiper belt and such? Does the barycenter occur at the precise same point with relation to Earth every 179 years?

Planetary influence on the centre of mass is shown by the barycentric formula r = a/(1+m1/m2), where r is the radius of the sun, a is the distance from the sun to a planet, m1 is the mass of the sun and m2 is the mass of the planet. The relative effects of the planets on the barycenter given by this formula are Jupiter 49%, Saturn 27%, Neptune 15% and Ouranos 8%. The four inner planets in total have 0.1% of Jupiter’s effect on the barycenter. These relative planetary effects are readily seen by examining a graph of the barycenter-sun distance over time, in which the three biggest planets produce a wave function with period 179 years, or 1/144th of the Great Year of the earth.

This still doesn't explain what the net effect would be as a discrete physical effect every 2148 years.

You are quite correct here. I am arguing this is a deep rhythm encoded into all life on earth. Quantifying its effects is rather like getting data for Dr Dawkins' hypothetical slow wind

Interbane wrote:

You are quite correct here. I am arguing this is a deep rhythm encoded into all life on earth. Quantifying its effects is rather like getting data for Dr Dawkins' hypothetical slow wind.

How would this rhythm encode itself into life on Earth? This is so much more far reaching than suggesting an adaptation, such as can be found in organisms responding to the rising and falling of tides. In any case, small gravitational shifts are not comparable to wind. Extremely weak wind has direction and is constant, if only on average. This was my problem originally, and the one I keep referring to. Why does life on Earth care about the barycenter of the solar system? Exceptionally weak wind I could hypothesize, it's practical. Astrological influences is nothing more than grasping at straws. In what ways do you hypothesize life would be affected? Humor me, I bet you can't even form a good hypothesis! That's reverse psychology, not an insult.

If we hypothesise a microbe living on a gyroscope with stable wobble for billions of years, we can well imagine that it could internalise the wobble in its DNA.

Gauquelin did not find any evidence for signs in his research, although he found compelling evidence for planetary effects.

DWill wrote:Robert, I'd be a fool not to respect your intellect, but it seems so clear to me that your hunger for transcendence is the powerful force behind your insistence on astrological science. You won't like this comparison, but it is the best way I can make my point. Creation scientists also have the accoutrements of science behnd them. They have their data and schematics to create the impression of empiricism. But they know going in what their data must prove; they already assume the theory to be true, so it is just a matter of their arranging the facts to line up with it.

Interbane wrote:

Gauquelin did not find any evidence for signs in his research, although he found compelling evidence for planetary effects.

Why do you vilify those who seek to keep the scientific process clean? You side with the person whose data you want to be correct. What makes you think his experiment wasn't truly flawed, as any person familiar with human bias will tell you that this is the most likely case? What other scientists in equally dubious positions have you dismissed out of hand, without realizing? It's a bad question, since you won't also remember them.

The Gauquelin Controversy
by Maria J. Mateus
as chronicled by John Anthony West in The Case for Astrology

Michel Gauquelin (1928-1991)
Michel Gauquelin was a graduate in statistics and psychology from the Sorbonne who, together with his wife Francoise, conducted the most significant body of statistical research in astrology to date. While his work does not substantiate some canons of traditional astrology, it conclusively vindicates astrology's fundamental premise: that there this a relationship between the planets' positions at the moment of birth and the direction of individual lives.

The body of Gauquelin's work extends over a period of 23 years (1949 -1973) and involved research into questions of professional studies; heredity studies; and character trait studies. By far the studies receiving the most notoriety involved correlations between the position of a planet in the natal chart and a person's chosen profession. Because of its extremely significant positive results, the most famous of these studies is commonly known as "the Mars effect".

Gauquelin's Findings (1955)
Gauquelin's preliminary profession findings involved two studies: the one comprised of a group of 576 birth charts revealed a correlation of Mars and Saturn with physicians at a chance level in the millions to one. The second study involving 508 births revealed the same results for other professions correlating them with their traditionally related planets: Mars with athletes, Saturn with scientists, the Moon with writers, and Jupiter with actors and politicians. These findings only applied to eminent professionals and were not present in the charts of average professionals. The significance level for some of these correlations was also in the millions to one chance level. The research was published in 1955 in L’influence des Astres, where Michel argued that what he was demonstrating was not evidence of astrology, but some other celestial influence. This work was ignored by his academic colleagues until Michel set about seeking professional peer review.

The Skeptics Respond
After much cajoling by Gaquelin for a peer review, the 1st critique came from Marcel Boll, a well-known French science-writer and member of the The Belgian Committee for the Investigation of Paranormal Phenomena (The Belgian Para Committee hereafter). His main objection was that the study used only birth data from France, which he claimed resulted in a national fluke. Had Gauquelin selected birth records from other countries, went Boll's logic, the results would be no better than chance! Any statistician would know that this objection was statistically ridiculous.

Professor Dauvillier, a Professor of Cosmic Physics at the College of France, replied that the correlation was a result of insufficient sample size.

Gauquelin Answers (1960)
Michel answered both challenges (even though the 1st was an illogical criticism) by collecting a database of 25,000 birth records in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. (England did not record birth times back then). The results of the replication study with European data were identical and just as significant showing the same planets in key sectors of the chart correlating with eminence in specific professions. There were some national variations but the results repeated significantly in the same direction as the original studies. A control group of non-specialized professions did not show any affect. The European studies were published in 1960 in Les Hommes et les Astres at the Gauquelin's own cost.

The Heredity Studies
During the 1960s, the Gauquelins conducted another massive study that examined astrological relationships between parents and their children. The 30,000 size sample of ordinary French citizens and their children revealed that when planets had certain planets in Sectors 1 and 4 of the charts, their children were also likely to have the same planets in the same sectors. The correlations between particular planets – such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – were stronger in that order. The significance level was 1 million to 1. Induced or Caesarean births did not show this pattern.

The Character Traits Studies
In the 1970s, Gauquelin then ran character trait analyses studies which grouped the 4 previously studied professions according to personality traits – collected from the biographical data -- which comprised a profile for each profession. The results correlated the profiles with the same planets in the same sectors. The atypical profiles also correlated negatively with the significant sectors. In 1980, this study was replicated in America, yielding identically positive results.

Gauquelin vs. The Belgian Para Committee (1965)
Five years after having addressed the Belgian Committee's ridiculous demographic objection to his original profession studies and subsequently being ignored by them, Gauquelin again proposed replications of his Mars effect on sports champions study by both he and the Committee. The procedural details were agreed upon and each side conducted their own tests. The results for both sides exactly matched the findings of Gauquelin's original experiments. The Committee refrained from publishing their findings until Gauquelin decided to publish his own. Although they could not identify any problems with the methodology they had agreed to, the Committee nonetheless explained away the results as a product of a demographic error which they did not identity or show evidence for.

CSICOP and the Zelen Test (1977)
The Gauquelin controversy reached the US in 1975 when a manifesto attacking astrology and signed by 186 eminent scientists appeared in The Humanist magazine. Gauquelin found his work ignorantly attacked and was forced to defend it through his own reply to the scientific publication. A professor of statistical science at Harvard and member of the Commitee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP hereafter), by the name of Marvin Zelen got involved in the debate and proposed his own study to test the "demographic error" argued by the Belgian Commitee. The Zelen test, as it became known, examined the charts of average individuals born on the same day and general location as the Mars sports champions in Gauquelin's study. The idea was that if the effect was due to demographics and not the planets, the same effect would show up with ordinary citizens. The results not only vindicated Gauquelin, but also served to demolish the demographics argument once and for all. Not wanting to publish findings supportive of astrological effects, CSICOP changed the rules and re-spun the study of non-champions, into a re-examination of the Mars effect on sports champions. Knowing that the group of 303 would show an effect, the test group was broken down into smaller sub-samples so as to water down the effect into meaninglessness. Even so, the KZA (Kurtz, Zelen, Abel) report could not hide the smell of nonscientific conduct.

The American Replication (1979-80)
Knowing how badly the Zelen test made them look, the KZA report concluded that an American replication with someone other than Gauquelin collecting the data was needed. Gauquelin happily accepted and provided CSICOP the exact procedures that he had followed in his Mars Effect studies. These stipulations required that the sample only include eminent sports champions since the effect was not present in non-eminent professionals. Paul Kurtz (chairman of CSICOP) collected the data and astronomer Dennis Rawlins conducted the statistical analyses. As Kurtz sent Rawlins the data (and unsolicited cash) he asked Rawlins to give him confidential periodic advanced looks at the results. As the batches of names came in, the sample the percentages for Mars in the key sectors kept mysteriously declining. What was initially an expected effect of 22% for the first batch of names, incrementally dropped not only to the 16% expected by chance, but it ended at 13% (below what chance would indicate p=.02) with the submission of 82 late inclusions that Kurtz had "accidentally forgotten" to send. Naturally, the doctored findings published in the Skeptical Enquirer did not confirm Gauquelin's work.

Dennis Rawlins and sTARBABY (1981)
We would have been none the wiser to the behind the scenes shenanigans exhibited by CSICOP and might have found the American findings of both the Zelen test and the Mars replication perfectly legitimate were it not for the excommunication of one of their involved members, Dennis Rawlins. The acrimony between Rawlins and CSICOP began with the Zelen test and continued through the replication study even while he himself was conducting the statistics. Rawlins' own account of the events that transpired during the Gauquelin investigations provides testimonial evidence that KZA knew they were in trouble and not only deliberately butchered the Zelen test, but doctored the data in the replication study as well.

The Aftermath
Gauquelin challenged the study in a series of voluminous correspondence that was selectively published and edited in the Skeptical Inquirer. Rawlins was not permitted by the magazine to voice his dissent (hence, the sTARBABY publication in the 1981 issue of Fate magazine). Subsequent objective investigations by historian Patrick Curry concluding that the US study was not a legitimate replication of the Gauquelin study, prompted Gauquelin to propose a new European replication with written down rules and an airtight verification treaty. When he did not get a reply, Gauquelin carried out the study himself with the usual expected results he and others had obtained countless times before. Suddenly CSICOP came alive only to attack the methodology after the fact. In "A Reappraisal" published in the Skeptical Inquirer, K.Z.A. admit to varying degrees of carelessness in handling of the US studies and in neglecting to mention that the Zelen test actually confirmed the chance level calculations in the non-professional samples, but evade Rawlins' published charges of academic dishonesty and fraud.

The Ertel Report
While CSICOP was still insisting that there was some as yet undetected bias in Gauquelin's selection criteria for the Mars samples, they did nothing to try to detect it. Instead, an unaffiliated psychology professor from Gottingen University by the name of Suitbert Ertel set about establishing a more rigorous and consistent way of defining eminence, hoping in the process that this might be the flaw that accounted for the extraordinary correlations. Thus, when the athletes were separated out into groups with varying degrees of eminence, Ertel found that the results precisely indicated what Gauquelin himself had found -- that the more eminent the athlete the stronger the effect. Furthermore, when Ertel corrected for Gauquelin's inconsistencies in methodology from one study to the next, the Mars effect was enhanced, not diminished. Ertel's study not only conclusively put to rest the notion that there was a selection bias -- either unconscious or deliberate -- in Gauquelin's methodology, it also vindicated his findings. The Skeptical Inquirer refused to publish Ertel's report claiming that the language was too technical, despite the fact that it boasts amongst its readership some of the most brilliant scientists and academics. The work was published instead in the Journal for Scientific Exploration (#3).

© Valentino Salvato 2007

If only you knew how wrong your comment about the scientific process is!! Please read below the obvious evidence of corruption in the 'scientific' review of Gauqelin's work.

Interbane wrote:

If we hypothesise a microbe living on a gyroscope with stable wobble for billions of years, we can well imagine that it could internalise the wobble in its DNA.

Why would we hypothesize that it would internalize the wobble, whatever that means? In any case, a wobble of a gyroscope is a detectable effect. You're desperately hoping that life may possibly be sensitive to forces that border on the nonexistant. If some form of life is able to form the sensitivity to this wobble, you're then desperately hoping that it will somehow, someway, adapt to it with a mutation or two. I'm not sure why an organism would do this, it would be more random chance than out of selective pressure. Even then, for the next hundred generations of it's species, the incredibly weak forces would be different. Different until this family of organisms just so happens to find a home of ten feet higher elevation, rendering the sensitivty obsolete.

Interbane wrote:The full explanation of the effects of his bias are here: http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html

This skepsis paper is garbage. I invite readers to compare the rival histories of the Gauquelin controversy. There is clear evidence of data-tampering by Gauquelin's so-called skeptical critics, while Gauquelin's work stands as providing abundant objective proof of planetary effects.

DNA is a double helix. Interestingly, the solar system has a stable helical structure that pre-dates DNA.

Your model of mutation is not right. Rather, the situation is that the helical structure of time forms the material context for the helical structure of DNA, which is entirely within the stable cosmic patterns of the cycles of the solar system.

Minor change in initial conditions cause major phenotypic differences.

This logical empirical analysis of the structure of time is not refutable because it is true. Any one who studies this material will readily form this conclusion. These numbers are based squarely on objective planetary data, the list of planetary positions used by science for space flight. It presents a basic challenge to scientific orthodoxy, opening a large new field in cyclic empirics. Apply all the tests you like.

We might be able to model a solar system structure that did not exhibit twelve-fold resonance to produce a clock with a base other than 60.