🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <465@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes:
>I'm no fan of astrology, but I have a question or three...
>
>In article <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>> In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>> >And yet, despite the fact that this shows
>> >there to be nothing inherently absurd about Astrology, many scientists will 
>> >scoff just at hearing the very idea.  
>> 
>> The idea that planets influence you is subject to calculation, and hence can
>> be proved (and has been proved) absurd.
>
>Ok, first off, who's "proved" this, and how have they proved it?
>It seems to me that since:
>




How about you?  I provide some assumptions, you do the calculations
and that way we may both be satisfied?

Known influences: gravity & electromagnetic
Test case for gravity:
test object 1 - closest planet: venus
test object 2 - biggest planet: jupiter
(ineligable:	sun:	you said PLANET
		moon:	ibid
		earth:	nolo contendre on that, piedro!
test object 3 - empire state building

Look up masses & distances.  What is the order they influence us?

Test case for EM radiation:
test object 1 - noisest EM planet: jupiter
test object 2 - WTOP FM 105 on your dial, Washington DC
test object 3 - doctor (ir emitter, 98.6, range < 1 meter)

Look up transmitting power, look up distance. rank.


What is the "relative influence"?  (See, I trust you!)


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5