How many times do … How many times do you have to be told, James? You have to give the author of the article, or the administrator of the site, or the URL (which can be difficult on YouTube, but not impossible). The first *page* shows 10 of 1,230,000 for “Newton and Astrology”. Which article do you mean? The first? The second? You have to be more specific if you want people to investigate your claims.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
squee27:
And it doesn’t … And it doesn’t matter anyway since p101James will never realize that even if Einstein adored astrology it would still be just as wrong.
It doesn’t matter how many nor what kind of supporters an idea has it matters if it can pass a test.
“…but Galileo liked astrology!”
It’s like talking to a wall.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
squee27:
I found a bit more … I found a bit more on Einstein and astrology. Einstein gave a short talk the extremely brief summary of which I found in the Einstein archives but no actual text.
“Dated 08/10/1938
Author Einstein, Albert
ASSESSES OSKAR ADLER AS ASTROLOGIST/ WARNS OF NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF ASTROLOGY ON EUROPEAN POLITICS/ SUGGESTS INVITING ADLER TO PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM IN USA”
The all caps are annoying but that is the way they posted it. Once again, doesn’t sound like he like astrology to me.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
zzytrewq:
LOLjames: your … LOLjames: your quote: “But I still believe scources [sic]can be removed or altered as well.”
So somebody goes to all the original books and news articles and changes them using typing correction fluid?
Never use the internet as a source because it is mostly bullshit when it comes to superstitious stuff. Anyone can post crap, and they do.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
zzytrewq:
There is only one … There is only one quote actually attributed to Einstein and it shows he had negative thoughts about it.
You can check this quote yourself if you bother to get the book
Einstein said on astrology: “The reader should note [Kepler's] remarks on astrology. They show that the inner enemy, conquered and rendered innocuous, was not yet completely dead.”
In his introduction to Carola Baumgardt’s Johannes Kepler: Life and Letters, New York, Philosophical Library, 1951.
End of debate
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
Googling “Newton … Googling “Newton and Astrology” is a different page than “Astrology and Newton”.
I just let the reader draw their own conclusion, despite whatever else the article may say about the scource or the validity of the scource.
Inconculsive is still inconclusive- but if no ‘published’ scource can be found for any quote made by Newton or Einstein, I too would stop quoting them as having said something that cannot be found in any scource. But I still believe scources can be removed or altered as well.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
typo: ‘achievements … typo: ‘achievements’, not acheivements.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
Question:
Because … Question:
Because of all of his acheivements, Albert Einstein called him “an incomparable man”.
Who was he referring to?
A: Johannes Kepler, B: Sir Isaac Newton, C: Franklin D. Roosevelt, or D: Alexander Graham Bell.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
sqwee27-
How many … sqwee27-
How many times have you used the same axiom for different reasons?
Einstein said it for more than one reason. One was “for” astrology.
There just isn’t any reason for anyone to speak for Einstein but Einstein.
I guess science wishes he never said it, and will do anything to convince you he did not. I’m not so stupid.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
squee27:
Einstein’s comment … Einstein’s comment about God and Dice has been shown by physicists, historians, philosophers, and biographers to be about the statistical nature of the universe. His own writings also bear this out.
At least make an attempt to read “Does God play dice?”. It would be good for you.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
zzQwerty-
Just … zzQwerty-
Just because some people don’t believe something Newton once said to Halley does not mean he did not say it.
Don’t forget the addendum on that Google page at the bottom. First- they let Whitesides slide for two thirds of a page before admitting he was wrong.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
BTW-
The name of … BTW-
The name of the video was “Ancient Sumerian History”, but I can no longer find it.
It may hasve been removed or retitled, but that “was” the title.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
zzQwerty-
I would … zzQwerty-
I would screw your head off right now if I could-
You remember-
Google: “Newton and Astrology”.
You read it- so STF-up!
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
zzytrewq:
You are recycling … You are recycling the same old lies about Newton. You just can’t get over the fact that Newton, a deeply religious christian with fundamentalist beliefs was only referring to religion.
If you knew your bible you’d know what is said about astrology, no doubt Newton held the same views.
He was merely being misquoted, most likely by a member of the loony astro brigade to falsely promote astrology as they do at every opportunity.
Find the source of the quote or shut up.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
zzQwerty-
You know … zzQwerty-
You know what I mean. If only astrology books quoted Einstein’s reference to astrology, then all astrology books would be considered as disqualified as proof.
Funny thing- there’s no proof of Einstein or Newton saying anything unfavorable about astrology either. Wonder why?
An ociate of Newton’s once said Newton did not look favorably on judicial astrology when he first started learning about astrologically based astronomy, but he may have later even changed his mind about that.
That is your job. You made up the story so you prove it. It was most likely an astrologer and seeing as you claim to be one I’m sure your loony network can find out.
As for: “When a book is found- providing the proof- then the book will be considered publishng a statement which science will deem can not be proven still. Book after book.”
I have no idea what that means…
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
I hate it when the … I hate it when the scientists want you to think that Halley was ‘only’ referring to religion when Newton said about both: “Because I have studied it, and you have not.”
Once about astrology, and once about religion came the same or similar reply, on two completely different occaisions.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
zzytrewq:
LOLjames: Fact is … LOLjames: Fact is none of the biographers report either Einstein or Newton having a fondness for astrology. So where are you getting your information from? Making it up of course.
Einstein and Newton were too smart to be ociated with astrology.
I’d like to know how you get this information, do you just make it up because you can’t understand why NO ONE has found either of them to have written anything supporting astrology or actually being reported as saying anything in support of it?
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
typo: I meant, ” … typo: I meant, “arguing with (anti-astrologer)science people like I do.”
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
Fact is- when it … Fact is- when it comes to all the known published material out there, it is the quotes from well-known physicists and astronomers about astrology that get so scrutinized.
I also think that both Einstein and Newton were careful not to reference astrology in their professional works. (If only to avoid hearing from s like zzytrewq).
But that they both harbored a fondness for astrology that they seldom let on to.
They were not going to waste their time argueing with the science like I do.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
It is not unusual … It is not unusual for the science community to leave out or take out anything of reference to astrology anyway.
Now, or then. Especially after 1989.
Does anyone know why 1989 figures so prominently in scientific here?
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
zzQwerty-
That’s … zzQwerty-
That’s the earlier one.
I quoted the later one.
He supposedly said both.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
squee27:
There are only 4 … There are only 4 elements? Einstein supported astrology? Such extraordinarily delusional opinions may be too far gone for reasonable debate especially when reasoned and supported explanations are met with dogmatic resistance.
Have you had a chemistry class? Probably not, that would require effort and demonstrate that your 4-element idea is useless. Did you read Stephan Hawking’s essay “Does God play dice?”? Probably not, you might come to realize what that quote really meant.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
p101James:
zzQwerty-
When a … zzQwerty-
When a book is found- providing the proof- then the book will be considered publishng a statement which science will deem can not be proven still. Book after book.
You forget when I do.
Google: “Astrology and Einstein”.
Google: “Astrology and Newton”.
So I forgot the name of the video on ancient Sumer.
You remember, but pretend to forget.
You know I’ll find it. I need to search for it.
I asked “WHO” misquoted Einstein?
You have no answer as usual.
October 3rd, 2008 | 3:27 pm
zzytrewq:
LOLjames: You got … LOLjames: You got the mythical quote wrong!!
The version quoted by astrologers and debunked is actually:
‘Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it’
From Cosmos, episode 3 “The Harmony of the Worlds”.
How many times do …
How many times do you have to be told, James? You have to give the author of the article, or the administrator of the site, or the URL (which can be difficult on YouTube, but not impossible). The first *page* shows 10 of 1,230,000 for “Newton and Astrology”. Which article do you mean? The first? The second? You have to be more specific if you want people to investigate your claims.
And it doesn’t …
And it doesn’t matter anyway since p101James will never realize that even if Einstein adored astrology it would still be just as wrong.
It doesn’t matter how many nor what kind of supporters an idea has it matters if it can pass a test.
“…but Galileo liked astrology!”
It’s like talking to a wall.
I found a bit more …
I found a bit more on Einstein and astrology. Einstein gave a short talk the extremely brief summary of which I found in the Einstein archives but no actual text.
“Dated 08/10/1938
Author Einstein, Albert
ASSESSES OSKAR ADLER AS ASTROLOGIST/ WARNS OF NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF ASTROLOGY ON EUROPEAN POLITICS/ SUGGESTS INVITING ADLER TO PHILOSOPHY SYMPOSIUM IN USA”
The all caps are annoying but that is the way they posted it. Once again, doesn’t sound like he like astrology to me.
LOLjames: your …
LOLjames: your quote: “But I still believe scources [sic]can be removed or altered as well.”
So somebody goes to all the original books and news articles and changes them using typing correction fluid?
Never use the internet as a source because it is mostly bullshit when it comes to superstitious stuff. Anyone can post crap, and they do.
There is only one …
There is only one quote actually attributed to Einstein and it shows he had negative thoughts about it.
You can check this quote yourself if you bother to get the book
Einstein said on astrology: “The reader should note [Kepler's] remarks on astrology. They show that the inner enemy, conquered and rendered innocuous, was not yet completely dead.”
In his introduction to Carola Baumgardt’s Johannes Kepler: Life and Letters, New York, Philosophical Library, 1951.
End of debate
Googling “Newton …
Googling “Newton and Astrology” is a different page than “Astrology and Newton”.
I just let the reader draw their own conclusion, despite whatever else the article may say about the scource or the validity of the scource.
Inconculsive is still inconclusive- but if no ‘published’ scource can be found for any quote made by Newton or Einstein, I too would stop quoting them as having said something that cannot be found in any scource. But I still believe scources can be removed or altered as well.
typo: ‘achievements …
typo: ‘achievements’, not acheivements.
Question:
Because …
Question:
Because of all of his acheivements, Albert Einstein called him “an incomparable man”.
Who was he referring to?
A: Johannes Kepler, B: Sir Isaac Newton, C: Franklin D. Roosevelt, or D: Alexander Graham Bell.
sqwee27-
How many …
sqwee27-
How many times have you used the same axiom for different reasons?
Einstein said it for more than one reason. One was “for” astrology.
There just isn’t any reason for anyone to speak for Einstein but Einstein.
I guess science wishes he never said it, and will do anything to convince you he did not. I’m not so stupid.
Einstein’s comment …
Einstein’s comment about God and Dice has been shown by physicists, historians, philosophers, and biographers to be about the statistical nature of the universe. His own writings also bear this out.
At least make an attempt to read “Does God play dice?”. It would be good for you.
zzQwerty-
Just …
zzQwerty-
Just because some people don’t believe something Newton once said to Halley does not mean he did not say it.
Don’t forget the addendum on that Google page at the bottom. First- they let Whitesides slide for two thirds of a page before admitting he was wrong.
BTW-
The name of …
BTW-
The name of the video was “Ancient Sumerian History”, but I can no longer find it.
It may hasve been removed or retitled, but that “was” the title.
zzQwerty-
I would …
zzQwerty-
I would screw your head off right now if I could-
You remember-
Google: “Newton and Astrology”.
You read it- so STF-up!
You are recycling …
You are recycling the same old lies about Newton. You just can’t get over the fact that Newton, a deeply religious christian with fundamentalist beliefs was only referring to religion.
If you knew your bible you’d know what is said about astrology, no doubt Newton held the same views.
He was merely being misquoted, most likely by a member of the loony astro brigade to falsely promote astrology as they do at every opportunity.
Find the source of the quote or shut up.
zzQwerty-
You know …
zzQwerty-
You know what I mean. If only astrology books quoted Einstein’s reference to astrology, then all astrology books would be considered as disqualified as proof.
Funny thing- there’s no proof of Einstein or Newton saying anything unfavorable about astrology either. Wonder why?
An ociate of Newton’s once said Newton did not look favorably on judicial astrology when he first started learning about astrologically based astronomy, but he may have later even changed his mind about that.
LOLjames: “I asked …
LOLjames: “I asked “WHO” misquoted Einstein?”
That is your job. You made up the story so you prove it. It was most likely an astrologer and seeing as you claim to be one I’m sure your loony network can find out.
As for: “When a book is found- providing the proof- then the book will be considered publishng a statement which science will deem can not be proven still. Book after book.”
I have no idea what that means…
I hate it when the …
I hate it when the scientists want you to think that Halley was ‘only’ referring to religion when Newton said about both: “Because I have studied it, and you have not.”
Once about astrology, and once about religion came the same or similar reply, on two completely different occaisions.
LOLjames: Fact is …
LOLjames: Fact is none of the biographers report either Einstein or Newton having a fondness for astrology. So where are you getting your information from? Making it up of course.
Einstein and Newton were too smart to be ociated with astrology.
I’d like to know how you get this information, do you just make it up because you can’t understand why NO ONE has found either of them to have written anything supporting astrology or actually being reported as saying anything in support of it?
typo: I meant, ” …
typo: I meant, “arguing with (anti-astrologer)science people like I do.”
Fact is- when it …
Fact is- when it comes to all the known published material out there, it is the quotes from well-known physicists and astronomers about astrology that get so scrutinized.
I also think that both Einstein and Newton were careful not to reference astrology in their professional works. (If only to avoid hearing from s like zzytrewq).
But that they both harbored a fondness for astrology that they seldom let on to.
They were not going to waste their time argueing with the science like I do.
It is not unusual …
It is not unusual for the science community to leave out or take out anything of reference to astrology anyway.
Now, or then. Especially after 1989.
Does anyone know why 1989 figures so prominently in scientific here?
zzQwerty-
That’s …
zzQwerty-
That’s the earlier one.
I quoted the later one.
He supposedly said both.
There are only 4 …
There are only 4 elements? Einstein supported astrology? Such extraordinarily delusional opinions may be too far gone for reasonable debate especially when reasoned and supported explanations are met with dogmatic resistance.
Have you had a chemistry class? Probably not, that would require effort and demonstrate that your 4-element idea is useless. Did you read Stephan Hawking’s essay “Does God play dice?”? Probably not, you might come to realize what that quote really meant.
zzQwerty-
When a …
zzQwerty-
When a book is found- providing the proof- then the book will be considered publishng a statement which science will deem can not be proven still. Book after book.
You forget when I do.
Google: “Astrology and Einstein”.
Google: “Astrology and Newton”.
So I forgot the name of the video on ancient Sumer.
You remember, but pretend to forget.
You know I’ll find it. I need to search for it.
I asked “WHO” misquoted Einstein?
You have no answer as usual.
LOLjames: You got …
LOLjames: You got the mythical quote wrong!!
The version quoted by astrologers and debunked is actually:
‘Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it’