if you can state a hypothesis, we can discuss this. all you've said right now is "the rate of receipt of EM radiation (light) from the sun changes hurr durr".
yeah, it actually fluctuates wildly every day. that is what the phenomenon of day is.
what mechanism do you propose links this differential to anything that has to do with predicting future events, individuals' personalities, or anything of the like? what experiments can you run to demonstrate such a mechanism? btw, have you ever heard of Carlson's Experiment (astrologers could match individuals to signs at a rate no better than chance) or the Mars Effect (a single statistical analysis seemed to suggest that Mars' location affected athletes but such a correlation has never be independently verified).
I'm not inclined to get into this with you again. You proved your stubborn, closed-minded attitude very clearly last time. Now, can you leave us idiots alone to circle-jerk with our pointless calculations and comparisons?
i ask you a pointed question which you can't hand-wave your way out of so you resort to ad hom's and asking me to 'leave you alone'. nice. regardless of whether or not you think you can convince me of your position, you ought to at least think about the question for the sake of your own intellectual honesty, don't you think? seriously, all sarcasm aside.
Actually arepo, please don't -- your increasingly huffy posts are beginning to amuse me
there is nothing huffy about my posts; i merely find that if i do not ask extremely pointed questions, we never get further than ZOMG YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN HOROSCOPES YOU'RE SUCH A CLOSED-MINDED FOOL.
Also, doesn't your precious big bang theory say something like everything started from a singularity, that contained the entirety of the physical universe in one single item? If that is the case, why WOULDN'T everything affect everything else, despite distance between objects?
it's just plain sad that you're turning this into a tribal issue. seriously,
my theory? what are you, a creationist? regardless, i can pm you all sorts of information about cosmology and the ramifications of the theoretical singularity if you're actually interested. something tells me you're not. maybe it's because you could inform yourself much more easily as you clearly have an internet connection and yet you remain ignorant.
here's the deal: i promise never again to make huffy posts in your little astrology clubs if notme actually attempts an intellectually honest answer to my question (bolded above) and you actually attempt to educate yourself on the finer points of big bang cosmology. aren't you curious whether or not the empirical data does in fact support such a belief? you're right, naively, a singularity produces the suspicion that everything IS connected in some way or another. but of course it's more complicated than that. you'd have to be able to demonstrate a mechanism for the specific effects astrologers claim the orientation of planets and the like have on terrestrial events. can you do that?