Home Page

Science for liberals



Extrasolar stars are too far away to affect personality.

I believe that astrology is a pseudoscience; that extrasolar stars and extraterrestrial planets are too far away to affect personality; that maybe the season of one's birth (position on Earth north/south relative to the inclination of its axis, relative to the sun) could affect one's personality. I believe in the moon, and its power. But astrology is a religion. It separates people, as do all religions. Not always, maybe not often — but sometimes, by nature.

The movement of stars has less of an influence upon personality than does a game of billiards.

Stars are too far away to have any important effect at the surface of the Earth apart from that of their aggregate gravitational and radiational forces. Astrology, the system that purports to typify people by their "star signs," cannot be anything but pseudoscience.

True, the effect of season (relative to one's latitude) at the time of one's birth may affect lifelong disposition. There's probably no strong evidence of this, but it's feasible. Different times of the year have different effects on life processes. There has been no good evidence to support the idea, but it's feasible.

But, okay. Maybe seasonal effects of the Sun are important, for example, in ways that (male-dominated) science has not shown... and maybe, given that western culture developed its astrology in the northern hemisphere, there may occur some regularity within that set.... Let's be fair....

But ascribing any effects on the psyche of the changing of seasons to movements of other stars is irrational.

The effect of stars upon human existence is important in bulk. But stars are far away. The effect of the gravity of any star or group of stars is minuscule, and the light that they provide is constant.

The Sun rules Earth with a bend in timespace that makes our straightest movement an elipse that is nearly circular. Its gravitational domination is encroached only, really, by the Moon. That's only possible because the Moon is essentially a sister planet, extremely close to us.

Beyond the Moon, planetary bodies are infinitesimal — and any given star is no more than a speck of light.

Of the Sun and the Moon, only the Sun has an annual cycle — a system of movement that could account for characteristics that are typical year-over-year.

Whether the seasonal effect of the Sun could be generalized and systematized for all people is doubtful, considering that the seasons are opposite from North to South hemispheres, and that early hominids evolved at or near the equator anyway. So, it's feasible to suggest that solar seasonal variations can affect a human personality — although the evidence is not in the scientific record. Feasible. Not demonstrated; but feasible.

The Moon, so near to Earth, has it own profound effect — but no annual regularity.

Maybe an attempt to account for the interwoven effects of the gravitational effects of the Sun and the Moon could approach scientific-ish credibility.

But the stars? Forget it. No way.


Contact