Proof of astrological family-gravity (genetics)
Here's another theory. I'm not sure if other people have developed this or not, but it might not be that difficult to prove, or explore.
Theory: Children born into a particular family are a response to the sum of the ENERGY of that family. Additionally, the sum of the energy of a family will change significantly with the birth of each child.
Proof: This could be proved EMPIRICALLY by comparing the first-born child versus the last-born child astrologically in a large number (hundreds or thousands) of families. The main challenge here is to acquire access to a large database, like motor vehicle files.
Summary: The idea is that the FIRST-BORN child is an energy-response to the collective energy of the Mother and Father. The LAST-BORN child is an energy-response to Mother, Father, child 1, child 2, child 3, ... child n. This difference should be most pronounced in families with a large number of children.
Example: Mother and Father are both earth signs. The first-born child might be more likely to be a water sign, since earth craves water (a crazy example). But then say that there are 6 more children, and they are a whole variety of earth, water, fire and air signs. The 7th child would then be in some response to the new TOTALITY of the family's energy.
I have NO IDEA exactly how a child would come about as a response to the collectivity of a family's energy, but this is discoverable EMPIRICALLY (mathematically, with computer tools).
Again, the first-born is a case of:
Energy/gravity (Mom + Pop) attracts Child #1.
The last-born is a case of:
Energy/gravity (Mom + Pop + child1 + child2 + child n) attracts Child n+1.
This is similar to the creation of solar systems and universes.
Summary: This reflects that I have some belief in astrology as a system of ENERGIES. I have little belief in the mumbo-jumbo that most astrologers talk about. Astrology needs to be defined mathematically. I think that it CAN be done.
If astrology is TRUE, then it most be PROVABLE mathematically. If it is false, it is not provable. It's not rocket science. Unfortunately, 99.9% of serious scientists would not do a serious statistical study of astrology, since that will make them look like kooks. Especially if they don't find anything. But this is a field that should be explored.
Draft 1: 6/2/11.
Theory: Children born into a particular family are a response to the sum of the ENERGY of that family. Additionally, the sum of the energy of a family will change significantly with the birth of each child.
Proof: This could be proved EMPIRICALLY by comparing the first-born child versus the last-born child astrologically in a large number (hundreds or thousands) of families. The main challenge here is to acquire access to a large database, like motor vehicle files.
Summary: The idea is that the FIRST-BORN child is an energy-response to the collective energy of the Mother and Father. The LAST-BORN child is an energy-response to Mother, Father, child 1, child 2, child 3, ... child n. This difference should be most pronounced in families with a large number of children.
Example: Mother and Father are both earth signs. The first-born child might be more likely to be a water sign, since earth craves water (a crazy example). But then say that there are 6 more children, and they are a whole variety of earth, water, fire and air signs. The 7th child would then be in some response to the new TOTALITY of the family's energy.
I have NO IDEA exactly how a child would come about as a response to the collectivity of a family's energy, but this is discoverable EMPIRICALLY (mathematically, with computer tools).
Again, the first-born is a case of:
Energy/gravity (Mom + Pop) attracts Child #1.
The last-born is a case of:
Energy/gravity (Mom + Pop + child1 + child2 + child n) attracts Child n+1.
This is similar to the creation of solar systems and universes.
Summary: This reflects that I have some belief in astrology as a system of ENERGIES. I have little belief in the mumbo-jumbo that most astrologers talk about. Astrology needs to be defined mathematically. I think that it CAN be done.
If astrology is TRUE, then it most be PROVABLE mathematically. If it is false, it is not provable. It's not rocket science. Unfortunately, 99.9% of serious scientists would not do a serious statistical study of astrology, since that will make them look like kooks. Especially if they don't find anything. But this is a field that should be explored.
Draft 1: 6/2/11.
posted by Mad Scientist | 3:25 PM
|
0 Comments
