Astrology and Science – Astrology as a Legitimate Science

If Astrology can go beyond the simple geometry of the charts, giving a physical meaning to the so much vehiculated concept of energy, then it can be conceived as a part of Science. Indeed, the Astrology too, can place itself into the safe hands of Mathematics, with just as equal rights as any branch of Theoretical Physics or Astronomy. The problem is that not too many people see how Mathematics (besides the usual Geometry used in elaboration of charts!) can get involved here, and this is what we would like to explore briefly. Put it in scientific terms, we need to explore the possible basis of Physical Astrology!

First of all, the Science is in equal measure based on our senses and on assumptions (hypotheses, axioms, postulates). The senses come into play when one claims to verify a theory which, like any theory, is simply a logical chain of mathematical facts which starts with some assumptions. If, at the end of such a chain, one comes up with a symbol that can have correspondent in the reality given by of our senses, then this symbol can be evaluated by measurement and the theory accepted or denied. The problem is, however, that there are things measurable, which are beyond our senses. Such is the Ether, for some the substance of our soul. How could this change the status of Astrology?

Just as simple as this: if there are things measurable beyond our senses, the Astrology has the right to claim them as its realm just like the Theoretical Physics. And if we can produce equations that follow a logic with roots in Astrology, then we can think that Astrology has the right to call itself a Science. Much to the dismay of those who declare that Astrology cannot be a Science! What is then the logic of Astrology?

Again, very simple and optimistic, derived from the old principle that the Nature is a whole! It is only due to our senses that we divide the Nature in parts, thus giving it a structure. There should be, however, in Nature something that goes beyond our senses, something that is not Matter. The reality cannot be only limited to what is revealed to Man by senses. In this case it is mandatory to express such optimism in a mathematical form, just like Theoretical Physics or Astrophysics do, for it is only the Mathematics that gives credibility to a truth which is only sustained by faith.

Take, for instance, the force in a point in empty space. Such a force exists, because we can calculate it by solving a differential equation. Well, it's actually a partial differential equation, but this is besides the point. Fact is that the force can be calculated in general, and it is in accordance with the principles of the Classical Dynamics, laid down by Newton. What strikes one here is the fact that the Matter supposed to generate these forces is nonexistent, by the very definition of the empty space. The Newtonian Mechanics, however, links the existence of forces to the existence of Matter, and therefore, these forces, whatever their manifestation may be, do not belong to Physics.

However, the Physics circumvented the difficulty, and still claims the right to call these mathematical productions forces. Indeed, what is more natural than to assume the existence of a medium, different from Matter, which would be able to support and create such forces, even though they are not accessible to our senses? And so it was: the Ether appeared! The Ether was actually there from the old times, but now it got mechanical properties. Once it got these mechanical properties the trouble started.

This situation can be resumed in the following terms: inasmuch as the Ether fills the space, it can be thought of as the support of Light, because the Light propagates in the empty space. Its propagation velocity exceeds, however, anything we can imagine as speed for the material bodies. According to the mechanical ideas, this velocity is related to a huge stiffness of the medium through which the Light travels and also a very small density, but finite anyway, not zero. The stiffness is something we can conceptualize just by observing the reality around us. And we simply cannot see how a medium can be so stiff, of so low density, and still allow the bodies of Matter to move freely through it! Such a contradiction is unbearable!

Here we are under the impression that people confuse the measurement with controllability. The Light is, indeed, measurable but not controllable! It goes where it must go by its very nature, not where we want it to go. If we want it in a place, we have to create it anew! This is, again, a fact of experience, just like the notion of stiffness and its relation to the density of a medium. But people didn't take it into consideration in building a Science based on it!

There is a story with a man who tried to bring the light in his house with a bucket. His procedure was very simple: keep the bucket in the sun for a while, until enough light accumulates inside, then put the lid on the bucket, run in the house with the bucket and take the lid. The idea was that the light accumulated in the bucket will be set free to fill the house. Of course, this was not going to happen! We know very well today that the light can be stored in Matter as some other form of energy, and then released again as light. But the process takes skills way beyond the direct experience! The light is measurable but not controllable in the sense of constraining it by a force.

Once we realize this, the things become a little more clear from scientific point of view, because there is a way to express the energetic structure of a continuum which is measurable but not controllable. And, sure enough, this energetic structure is that of the classical electromagnetic field as expressed by Maxwell [1].

Therefore, the electromagnetic structure of the light is only an expression of the uncontrollability of the Ether, in general. And therefore we have this logic fact: the Ether exists once the electromagnetic waves exist! The fact that we can produce electromagnetic fields by the motion of Matter is not at all a proof that we have to reject the Ether, or that there are not some other forms of uncontrollability. As a matter of fact there are some notorious such forms strictly related to our limited way of describing the Nature mathematically. And here is a classical example.

The problem of motion of planets around the Sun is known in Mechanics as a Kepler Problem: describe the motion of a material point (the planet) under the gravitational force of another material point (the Sun). The result is the known ellipse which is the form of the trajectory of the planet Mars as discovered by Kepler. Something must have gone wrong with this image, or with the concept of force, because a contradiction appeared right away between the force, assumed to be responsible for the motion of planets, and the motion itself.

Newton inferred the existence of the force of gravity by assuming that, inasmuch as the planets have to obey the Copernicus' World System, there must be a centrifugal force acting upon them. According to the Principle of Action and Reaction, every planet has then a centripetal force holding it on the orbit, and therefore pointing towards the center of the orbit. Thus a force must exist, issuing from the center of the orbit, attracting the planets and this is the force of gravity. It is inversely proportional with the distance between Sun and planet, considered as material particles.

Now, let's put this finding to the test: assuming that a particle is attracted toward a fixed center with a force inversely proportional with the distance between it and the center, what would be its trajectory?! The answer is well known: the trajectory must be an ellipse, having the fixed center in one of its foci. This was proved by Kepler, and thus the gravity has made its entrance in Natural Philosophy as a mathematical fact! Only, after cooling a little down, people started to notice that something is not in order: the force was supposed to act toward the center of the trajectory; this is how it was inferred as existent. Suddenly we discover that the center of the trajectory is different from the center of force! What went wrong?

The first reaction was that of Newton himself: the center of force is not well chosen, it is actually the center of mass of the system Sun-planet. This description is just as approximate as the initial one, but it raises a problem of principle: can a mathematical point be endowed with a force? The Newtonian philosophy didn't allow it! The force should be related to Matter! Always! In a way, the problem was resolved by the beginning of the last century by Einstein, but far from completely.

The point is that the Newtonian theory is in this problem as good as it gets. Only, we have to have a little more confidence in our Mathematics! The Sun is not a material particle. The Earth, to be more specific about a planet, is not a particle either. Let's assume that the Earth's orbit is plane and elliptical in shape. Then the eccentricity of this orbit is a measure of the distance between the center of force and the center of the orbit. The relative position of these two points is a vector: it has magnitude and also orientation in space. Now, the fact that we can calculate this eccentricity geometrically, from the contemporary elements of the orbit (its semi-axes), hides the true physical nature of this vector: it is related to the initial conditions of the planetary motion, which are not at all under our control! They are a consumed past! However, they act in the present! How can this be put in a mathematical form?

Well, first of all, by building the geometry of the eccentricity vectors which is a Lobatchewsky geometry, just as legal as the Euclidean geometry used in a natal chart for instance [2]. This geometry is confined to a small region inside the Sun, which is almost certainly responsible for the solar energy. One might say that the solar energy today comes from the past, exactly like the oil. As a matter of fact these have more in common than can be told at the first sight. Not only today's oil is the result of the Sun light filtered through the life of the earthly species once lost, but it may be more. Indeed, the relative motion of the Sun around the Earth is an ellipse too. There is, inside Earth, a region delimited by the eccentricity vector of this ellipse, just as energetic as that created by the Earth inside Sun. This is the region of creation of energy necessary to the actual life on Earth. Inasmuch as it "comes from the past" so to speak, it is not hard to stretch our imagination in order to see that that some of the initial conditions buried inside Earth do correspond to the moment of birth of a human being! And so the Astrology may be right after all: the moment of birth is indeed inscribed in the natural elements. Only not quite as simply as a natal chart shows!

There are mathematical facts representing truths beyond the reach of Science, at least as we understand it today. They are, however, within the reach of Astrology, waiting there to be adopted and baptized. That surely gives us the right to say that the Astrology is a branch of Science!

References:

[1] Nicolae Mazilu, Electromagnetic Fields, One Side of the Problem, www.protoquant.com
[2] Nicolae Mazilu, Kepler Motion, the Space Connection, www.protoquant.com