quote:

---

Originally posted by Spica

I'm reading "Financial Astrology" by David Williams.

In the book interestingly has some interesting chapters on the Sunspot Theory. And I quote :

"Advanced by English economist William Jevons (1835-1882), sunspot theory is a trade cycle theory stating that trade is linked to the regular occurrence of solar flares, or spots, which affect the earth's climate and agricultural output. Critics, while acknowledging the cyclical nature of the sunspot activity and that of agricultural production"

"This astrophysical phenomenon of sunspots was even at one point in time theoretically extended to research on trade cycles in the field of economics. This led economists like Jevons and other writers to believe that business cycles were affected by sun spots with varying intensity in a cyclical way. These economists argued that when sunspots grew large, less heat emanated from the sun, agricultural production fell, the purchasing power of agriculturists was reduced and the Depression began. When the converse process took place and sunspots grew small recovery occurred and boom began again. Despite criticism against the sunspot theory that it is far-fetched and does not explain different phases of trade cycles, the sunspot theory is not rejected from the standpoint of microeconomics."


Even though the Sunspot theory is not focused on Astrology. It does imply the correlation of the stars with outer events. It never ceases to amaze me; Despite having fair indications of scientific evidence. I always hear from the ignorant and unknowledgable that they are awaiting scientific proof on Astrology's validity.

Combine this with the Gaughlin studies and scientific evidence of the moon and the effect on tides, that's still a fair amount of evidence despite our tremendous opposition.

I would think 90% of astrologers would be HAPPY to have scientific research conducted. And are confident enough if proper studies we're done we'd have strong results.

Unlike the crappy scientific studies done on the basis of the Sun Sign only. Which rigged to only disprove astrology from a bias opinion from the start.


[img]http://www.typhonvision.com/taobannersmall.jpg[/img]




You may be my lucky star. Starlight! Starbright!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spica

I'm reading "Financial Astrology" by David Williams.

In the book interestingly has some interesting chapters on the Sunspot Theory. And I quote :

"Advanced by English economist William Jevons (1835-1882), sunspot theory is a trade cycle theory stating that trade is linked to the regular occurrence of solar flares, or spots, which affect the earth's climate and agricultural output. Critics, while acknowledging the cyclical nature of the sunspot activity and that of agricultural production"

"This astrophysical phenomenon of sunspots was even at one point in time theoretically extended to research on trade cycles in the field of economics. This led economists like Jevons and other writers to believe that business cycles were affected by sun spots with varying intensity in a cyclical way. These economists argued that when sunspots grew large, less heat emanated from the sun, agricultural production fell, the purchasing power of agriculturists was reduced and the Depression began. When the converse process took place and sunspots grew small recovery occurred and boom began again. Despite criticism against the sunspot theory that it is far-fetched and does not explain different phases of trade cycles, the sunspot theory is not rejected from the standpoint of microeconomics."


Even though the Sunspot theory is not focused on Astrology. It does imply the correlation of the stars with outer events. It never ceases to amaze me; Despite having fair indications of scientific evidence. I always hear from the ignorant and unknowledgable that they are awaiting scientific proof on Astrology's validity.

Combine this with the Gaughlin studies and scientific evidence of the moon and the effect on tides, that's still a fair amount of evidence despite our tremendous opposition.

I would think 90% of astrologers would be HAPPY to have scientific research conducted. And are confident enough if proper studies we're done we'd have strong results.

Unlike the crappy scientific studies done on the basis of the Sun Sign only. Which rigged to only disprove astrology from a bias opinion from the start.


[img]http://www.typhonvision.com/taobannersmall.jpg[/img]




You may be my lucky star. Starlight! Starbright!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gillrat

If think Stock market Astrology is a load of bull. I've yet to see an Astrologer whos a millionaire using Astrology. And if they did, why would they share their secrets by writing books??

Its just a very undeveloped territory in comparison to other areas of Astrology like Horary, Natal and Mundane.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spica

I'm reading "Financial Astrology" by David Williams.

In the book interestingly has some interesting chapters on the Sunspot Theory. And I quote :

"Advanced by English economist William Jevons (1835-1882), sunspot theory is a trade cycle theory stating that trade is linked to the regular occurrence of solar flares, or spots, which affect the earth's climate and agricultural output. Critics, while acknowledging the cyclical nature of the sunspot activity and that of agricultural production"

"This astrophysical phenomenon of sunspots was even at one point in time theoretically extended to research on trade cycles in the field of economics. This led economists like Jevons and other writers to believe that business cycles were affected by sun spots with varying intensity in a cyclical way. These economists argued that when sunspots grew large, less heat emanated from the sun, agricultural production fell, the purchasing power of agriculturists was reduced and the Depression began. When the converse process took place and sunspots grew small recovery occurred and boom began again. Despite criticism against the sunspot theory that it is far-fetched and does not explain different phases of trade cycles, the sunspot theory is not rejected from the standpoint of microeconomics."


Even though the Sunspot theory is not focused on Astrology. It does imply the correlation of the stars with outer events. It never ceases to amaze me; Despite having fair indications of scientific evidence. I always hear from the ignorant and unknowledgable that they are awaiting scientific proof on Astrology's validity.

Combine this with the Gaughlin studies and scientific evidence of the moon and the effect on tides, that's still a fair amount of evidence despite our tremendous opposition.

I would think 90% of astrologers would be HAPPY to have scientific research conducted. And are confident enough if proper studies we're done we'd have strong results.

Unlike the crappy scientific studies done on the basis of the Sun Sign only. Which rigged to only disprove astrology from a bias opinion from the start.


[img]http://www.typhonvision.com/taobannersmall.jpg[/img]




You may be my lucky star. Starlight! Starbright!

---

---