Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

hey! are there any LEO's in da house?

Hmmm..I know we have a couple of Cancers...a Pieces, a Taurus or two....a Virgo and a Sagittarius...can't think of a Leo though.

I think Chile is one

Any Aries?

My darling honey is an Aries. Though not your typical one I must say....

Me, Cancerian through and through.

Crab!

I'd rather be a crab than a bow and arrow wielding half animal freak anyday....

Don't knock it RC, it's a licence to poop in the street.

heh...ok then
I'm the only member with a name from the Zodiac,and not even recognised.Leo is my opposite sign...i love them Leo's
I can do Moon sign readings and i can work out your Rising sign.
just tell me what sign you are,and what time you were born.
Cancers are cool ratcat.
I know everything Astrological,so if you wanna ask me any questions about compatibility,Personality,horoscopes,and heaps of other stuff,just PM me
Its hard being an Aquarius you know,you have a tendancy to be weird and insane,My personality is of that character.Hehehe.
Human fellowship,thats what the world needs!
Peace out

Hmmm why are Cancers somehow attracted to STAR WARS as much as Aquarians? there is some kind of mystery behind both of our personalities.we are often a bit offbeat and our moods change frequently...thats the only thing that makes Aquarius and Cancer alike.
That could be why we are drawn to SW because of our child within,Saggitarius,Cancer pisces,leo Aquarius and gemini can sometimes be caught up in childhood,and thats what happened to us all,thats why we'er here,because,we really are children at heart.

Hey! I all ready know what my rising sign is, well I think so!
I'm a LEO so I think my rising sign would be......*thinks hard*....Oh I give up I cant spell it. Sagittarios maybe?

I'm a cancer too. Don't know what time I was born and I've just got back from dropping my mom & dad at Manchester Airport, I'll have to PM it to you next week on thier return.

Okay, I'm a Sagittarius/Taurus Rising (I think, it's been a long time) Born at 3:04PM (EST) December 5, 1973..

interesting!

star signs are bull

why do you say that finti?

because it is crap

your entitled to your oppinion.

of course i am

hey! saggitarius is the only one with a weapon, so nobody messes with me

but I can survive the attacks

nahh, not sure of that. * test-shoots some arrows at a target, misses BIG* well, maybe you can

*sharpens horns*

*brings up his red piece of cloth*

*starts to run in circles, head up front*

*tries the cartoon-trick, bringing up a big rock behind the red cloth*

*laughs about that stupid trick*
there is no escape, don't make me hit you!

*brings up bow, shoots wildly, hits everything but yerss., starts running* HELP! A MAD BELGIAN WITH HORNS

yep, still got it

Whoa! This one took a SHARP turn off-topic!

Any other Virgos around?

I'm really into the supernatural, my crazy friend took me to this Mexican witch doctor once who rubbed me with eggs, stuck herbs up my nose and put Vanilla in my belly button.

Sure it wasn't just a recipe for basil flavoured custard???

Hey Mah,your a Saggitarius with Pisces rising,awww,hey can u imagine an horse cross fish cross man?
hehe
Well my rising sign is actually saggitarius.Thats why i'm always posting pictures of cats,and talking about monkeys,cos Saggies love animals..
Yeah anyways,you wouldn't wanna be a Taurus anyway (they're super boring)
Pisces are Awesome,its a very talented sign.

No Virgos. I'll just sit quietly in the corner, being picky.

You do that dear..*pats head*

Aquarius..are you sure you're not talking about me??


Anyway..astrology doesn't have anything to do with the Supernatural..it's about planetary influence on our biorhythms..kind of like the moon's effect on tides or the Sun's influence on the Seasons.

And so on.

Dim,i have no idea who i was talking about,yeah it probably was you,i'm always getting mixed up with who i'm talking to.
Hehe look at him siiting there all like a nigel
Haha *sits next to Ush*

Oooh! Someone has entered the Virgo zone!

I miss my Witch...

is she a virgo?

Nah, her birthday is in April.

What's her sign?

Oh heck, Dim, you know more than I about all this! April 24th, what's that?

Here's an Aries/Taurus cusp..hehehe..yep that sounds like our witch.

Sorry, I messed upo by one day there, don;t know why. Got it right now, hope that doesn;t mess things up.

What personality is that meant to be then?

It's not going to mess it up totally..it's just less of an influence of the Aries aspect..

Aries is very independent and Taurus is very stubborn..who does that sound like?

Ariesymbolizes poineers who lead the way (in pure for) they are natural leaders and like to be on top of whatever they are doing.They are born leaders and achievers,their personality id direct and uncomplicated,they are action orientated sel willed headstrong,fiery,eager,ambitious and persistant.They seek activities which propell them into an immediate enviroment.
Taurus:Is under the sign that symblolizes wealth,they are settlers who quietly builds an empire,like other earth signs (eg Virgo) they are self reliant, stable,stubborn and cautious;and individual who is also practical and constructive,you differ from others in your fondness of Art,Music,Literature and Nature.Intellectual they are not quick,their opinion is deliberate,and once it has been made it is fixed.
Go the mighty TAURUS'!!!!!!

Natalie portman is a Gemini,Hayden Christensen is an Aries,Jake Lloyd is a Pisces,umm i think George Lucas is a Taurus.thats all i know....find out the main characters Star signs and i'll do some magic.
I can't see how Jake Lloyd and Natalie portman got along..Gemini and Pisces dont mix?

What are cancers?

24 of April is Taurus. Im a Taurus as well and Aquarius thing about the Taurus well I like Music, art sucks and I am actually considered Intellectuall quick, not to constructive, very stubborn and I am far from cautiois. So like I said Star Sign sucks, bullshit like all the people being born in that period of time are kind of simulare in attitude and almost everything else there is.
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.
Im a Tarus just because of that I was born n late April, nothing to do with how I act and stuff.

I'm a Virgo,

a born again Virgo (I guess)

Well finti,your opinion is your opinion,and i believe that you hold it very strong because you have a fixed personality,i see the world differently to you,and so do alot of other people,you probably have all kind of aspects that dont relate to your starsign,well thats life isn't so get over it!

All i'm trying to do is define peoples personalities for other peoples information.
Geez,why can't some people be more broad minded!

And why should you define peoples personalities based on other peoples info. Who said that info is correct , maybe it fits one person not an entire group. Talk about being broad minded Get a life!

I'm a Taurus too. 24th April.
Aquarius, you said Saggitarians love animals, that would explain my fiance, Natalie. We have 1 dog, 3 cats, 5 hamsters, 1 rabbit and we are looking after 2 other dogs, another cat and 2 canaries at the moment. She also spent 4 years doing volountary at a vets.

Oh yeah, when I played Rugby they called me "Animal". I think she loves me so theres something else

Personally I don't believe in horroscopes. However I am amazed sometimes how accurate a person can be described because of their star sign.

24th of April cool!

Ok! A87. My birthday is the 30th of July 1986 and I was born at 3:43 pm.
and I'm a leo.Leo's are very determined and organised. they are also natural leaders.

fint, you know nothing about astrology...you don't like it...so why are you posting in this thread?...quit ruining everyone elses fun.

Dim the mighty power mod. Do not upset her or feel the wrath

Dim do you hava Lambretta?

Lambretta?

What's that?

thats exactly what I wanna know!
actually my first guess would be maybe a wine?

HISSY FIT!!!!

Dim you know nothing about my knowledge of astrology
.
So we all have to agree on things or else there is no point posting. My oh My this board will be jolly fun

RC, I dont think that name calling is appropriate.

i am a capricorn but you wouldnt guess. they are nown for being wise and sensible.then u look at me and say yeah right???

Has anyone called Ms. Cleo and her psychic hoes?

I'm not having a hissy fit..and fint, you're right, I don't know how much you know about astrology but I'm going to make an educated guess based on what you've said and say that you don't know much about it.

And you can debate it all you want..but you (thus far) haven't said anything other than it's crap..and that's not really debate now is it?


And finally...astrology and psychic readings are not the same..not even closely related. Astology doesn't deal with the supernatural, dead people, spirit guides or anything like that.

As far as I think, the thread gets set up, it's on the firing range, I am sure it is strong enough to take a bit of criticism... within reason, of course.

Heck, *I* think it's all nonsense...

Dim. A Lambretta is a stupid looking scooter (Italian I think). A Lambretta is a Mod's preferred form of transport.

Mods are a stupid gang from the 60s/70s who wore suits, had shit haircuts and were always fighting with skinheads and punks.
UK history lesson over.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. They like The Beatles too.

I don't imply you have a naff haircut or anything mind!!!

WE ARE THE MODS, WE ARE THE MODS, WE ARE THE MODS.

...and suddenly it's Quadrophenia in here...

the Who rules.!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well Dim, to study the stars to tell the future or to read ones personality is for me ridiculous. The stars that we see are what they looked like thousands of years ago, not today not tomorrow. The stars, most of them, have been there since the dawn of time and they have no function for the life on earth besides that we can look at them and wonder.

And there are a lot of ,at least in their own minds, respectable astrologers, somehow they never seam to agree with each other on future events. Now the fact that the moon has an effect on earth, sure one just can take the tides to get an example of that, or some animals behavior during a ful moon. But the stars and star signs no way. Who decided which star sign belonged to which period cause there are a hole lot more than 12 signs up there and some of them cant even be seen on the Northern hemisphere so I wanna know who decided which one to use.
And that people born between the 21 of April and 21 of May behave and personalities are in an certain way cause they are Taurus, well I think that's a load of bull. Peoples behavior are a result of their upbringing , and the environment they grew up in.
Influenced by family, friends and of course by yourself personalities might however change some during your life.
I happen to be born on the 27 April which is Taurus , so?
I am the one who formed my adult personality not the fact that I am Taurus. I live my life according to me and the environment around me not according to some interpretation someone wrote of what a Taurus should be like.
So if people wanna belive in the star signs; fine go ahead, but should they belive in the bible as well?

I didn't even bother reading your post Finti,why dont you just go to some other thread and stampede it with all your negative opinions,cos thats what your doing here.
I'm not forcing you to believe in it.
I couldn't care less what you believed in,this is what i find interesting
As i do with Buddahism and Christianity.

*edited-that's going a bit too far Aquarius..*

Anyways,Barbie,your right,i read your profile..it said 18 Jan,i'm like what!
This girl can't be a Cappie!

Just out of curiousity what time were you born??
Maybe that will solve the mystery behind your flirtacious personality

... and suddenly it's getting rather negative in here...

OKay, kiddies..lets lighten up..we're all friends here so lets all get along and have some fun.

Fint..this wasn't supposed to be a big debate..it's a bit of fun..just go with it.

Oh,hehe,Sorry Dim ,i didn't mean to be so angry,i was just a bit moody at the time,and i was getting tired of him posting stuff on how much it sucks n stuff,it was really getting on my nerves
I'm sure Finti is a very nice young man.iv'e spoken to him before. He is nice

you're both very friendly people.

*starts to feel a swelling of emotions in this thread*
*sniff...sniff*

so you did read it

What on earth are you doing wrong, finti?

Not true, the generally recognised dawn of time was at the moment of the big bang, however all evidence as to the creation of stars suggests that they did not start to appear until about 1000, million years after the big bang...

Actually, the concept of a big bang is just a hypothesis, there's no evidence for that.

i was just wondering if any one could tell me some things. i am a capricorn and i was born on the 18th of january 1986. i was born at 2.10 pm and weighed 7lb 11. i am now 15 and hope to discover myself truely and find out wot my starsign has got to do with my life. i am wondering if it has anything to do with wot job i will be best at and stuff. i hope some one can help me.

Babe! it looks like you need a serious 1-2-1 w/ da big G if you know what I mean!?

no thanks ive asked him for help many a time but oh well

Also not completely true. There is a great deal of evidence to support the theory, such as;

The 'After Glow' residuel effect
The fact that astronomers have been able to look back to within 1/ 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000th of a second prior to event zero and no further. They have been able to measure the extreme energies of the big bang
The age of the Universe has been calculated to about 12 Billion years old.


The hypothesis of the Big Bang layys in understanding what was actually going on in there, as the actions and reactions defy many of the common physics we understand, p[urely because they were so extreme.

On thing that has been proven is the E=mc*c (m c squared) still held up and that is how matter was able to form form pure energy.

I'm no astronomer, but those that are have universally (no pun intended) accepted the Big Bang as fact. The evidence gathered is pretty irrefutable now.

The very echos of creation, in many forms, have been found and measured. From these the numbers above have been calculated along with many others.

The background to this is far to vast to reproduce here but I can certainly recommend a number of great books and documentaries on the subject.

Anyway, this has nothing to do wioth Astrology.

A very good point RC.

My mate loves this gear and this is all I get off him!!!

ok, this thread is getting out of hand!

Hey Barbie,your Rising sign is pisces,
Your a very well cut diamond,you symbolize compassion and self sacrifice. your character posseses all the quality aspects of each star sign,like the mysticism of Scorpio,the Genius of Aquarius,the friendliness of saggitarius,and the versatility of gemini,as being the last sign of the zodiac your personality reflects all of the intuitive vibes flowing from each sign.
So thank god you were born at 2:10 pm

Sorry Yers, I did try and point it back.

I have to say that I used to think astrology was a load pf old rubbish, however Dim introduced me to a site by Astrologer Jonathan Cainer and I started to check out my stars every day.

http://stars.metawire.com/

I was surprised at just how much of what he said made sense with what was going on in my life. Whether I read it at the beginning of the day or the end I can always see correlation.

Make of that what you will.

well, there is more than everyone knows about it, it's all very complicated and we are not talking about reading the daily horoscope in the newspaper...

Oh, of course not. Funnily enough We bought Mandy's brother in law John Cainers book for his birthday. I had a very quick flick through as I was wrapping it, there seemed a lot to it...

All that Big Bang 'evidence' is purely circumstantial, RC. Not conclusive. There are quite a lot of different theories on how the universe came into existence and even about how it develops. Strangely enough, they're all quite different.

But maybe Ush with his clever friends could shed some light on this.

Everything I stated is a solid and proven fact. Not some hypothetical situation created in the mind of some bored under-grad. Everything I listed has been measure, recorded and confirmed as factual evidence of the Big Bang.

Whilst the actual Event Zero is a theory, something I didn't dispute, the overwhelming evidence is there. This was my point initially when you made the statement;
The fact of the matter is that worldwide there is now so much evidence that Event Zero was a Big Bang that it is now the most widely accepted creation theory of a non-religious nature.

What is more worrying is the Big Crunch, but we're at least 12 billion years away from that so you don't need to pay it to much thought...

Oh, I'm not denying it's not a viable theory. Probably so, but it's not a proven fact. Or as scientists will have it: it's probable, likely even, but we can't prove it. There's no record, no picture of it, just conclusions based on clues.

Who brought religion into this?

I was just being scientific here. Besides, we were not talking about evidence. We were talking about the Big Bang being a proven fact. And as you just stated above, we don't know anything like that for sure. It's just a workable hypothesis that has not been denied. But it's also not a perfectly working fact, because if it was we could create lots of different universes. And since we can't recreate, we still don't know if and how. After al, we know only so little about the universe. And then the few clues or evidences that we have are supposed to answer the mysteries of the universe? Come on. In fields like this scientists CANNOT go beyond: it's possible, we can't prove it, but it is possible with what we know.

do you learn that stuff in belgian schools? ohh boy!

oh yeah! planets and stuff, veeeeeeeeeeeeery interesting (smell the sarcasm... wait, that's not the correct smell... god! Texas is here! )

No one, it was just an interesting aside, that linked to things I said in that thread last year, nothing more. Just thought I'd mention it.
Rubbish!!! YOU said there was no evidence, I have pointed out that there is plenty... Breaking down you comment that orginally started this line of the thread.

"Actually, the concept of a big bang is just a hypothesis,"
This was NEVER in dispute, at no point have I actually argued that you are incorrect with this statement.

"there's no evidence for that."
Clearly the topic WAS evidence of the big bang, for which I have provided a number of documented examples.

In Summary; What you said originally is in direct conflict with what you are saying now, your latest post is actually the complete reverse of what you said a couple of days ago. My stance has been constant.

There is a whole raft of evidence that leads to a conclusion, though it still does not allow the conclusion to be proven conclusively.... (Almost a contradiction, but not quite!)

Just accept that graciously and allow the topic of astrology to continue peacefully.

As any scientist knows, it's not for the the sceptics to prove that the stars DON'T have influence over us; it is for the believers to prove that they DO. And I think it is telling that almost the entire scientific world does not believe in astrology- precisely because there is no supporting evidence for it whatsoever.

It may seem churlish to dismiss astrology in that way, but it really is the only way to treat things. And it's not as if people haven't TRIED to prove it over time. But it only ever 'works' in isolated conditions- scientifically meaningless.

Science and stuff like astrology is not by definition incompatible, of course. But the universe works by rules, and you have to stick with them. 'To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable, only unexplained.' If astrology DOES have a good grounding, then one day science will work that grounding out and we will understand it. Until that day, you cannot blame people for disbelieving in it- indeed, this should be the basic response of any rational person. If you have a personal experience with it, that's different, but don't expect the rest of us to believe it.

But queeq, you are wrong about there being no evidence for the big bag (and you said you weren't talking about evidence, which is odd, because you clearly were), and I cannot find a physicist who gives credibility to any other explanation. The discovery of the big bang's echo is EXACTLY the record of it that you said did not exist.

While still not 100% conclusive proof, you seemed to make out that there was no solid evidence for it whatsoever. Well, there definitely is. And meanwhile every single thing we discover about the Universe is consistent with the Big Bang theory. Believing in something other right now seems pretty blind.

Meanwhile, I would remind you that it is utterly impossible to create extra universes- the universe, by definition, is EVERYTHING. EVERY THING. That is literal. There cannot be more than one; the universe encompasses the whole lot, through time and space. No matter how many 'things' there are (planets, dimensions, planes of existence, whatever), there is only ONE Universe which comprises of all of it.

Pedanticism aside, there is nothing solid so far that disproves the Big Bang, and several pieces of evidence that prove it. That wraps it up for me.

thank you professor Ush...

you know what I'm thinking? what's BEFORE the big bang (or for queeq: what was there in the beginning?)

that is an irrelevant question, for time did not exist then, or to put it defferently there was no 'then'. nothing could excist when time itself had not started.

but how can that be so? what's before time?

Nothing 'is' before time, yerss. Something can only 'be' if there is time in which it can 'be' in.

yerss:nothing! or, it's not nothing, it's not ANY thing. I don't know how, but time did not start before the big bang, and when there is no time nothing is.

so how can a big bang come when there is nothing to bang from or with?

Whilst I agree with much of what Ush has said, there are two paragraphs that trouble me somewhat. Here's why, let me break this down into the two distinct areas.

1. Astronomy

The problem with THAT is that the term 'Universe' has been coined by human beings in response to what they currently can understand. As any scientist, or logical thinking person for that matter, should know, saying something is so does not actually make it so.

Therefore you statement will forever be inherently flawed until the day we (the Human race) are able to comprehend and understand what makes the Universe work. The concept of multiple universes, multiple space-time paths and all that other great stuff can not be dispelled simply because we can not begin to understand how it might work, simply because we don't know if it does work.

Once the world was flat, once the earth was the centre of the universe, then the centre of the galaxy, then the centre of the solar system. As our understanding grew, our view of things changed, who are we to say that the view does not have some more changing to do. Until we can fathom the nature of the universe, it is not possible to make such grandiose statements.

1. Astrology

The unfortunate thing about this statement is that you talk about the rules of the universe, thus you totally invalidate everything you have written. We (the Human race) are unable to fully comprehend the rules of the universe. We have theories about space and time, but with can not grasp the fundamental elements that we need in order to reach many of the conclusions.

There is not a person alive today who can truly tell you what the structure of the universe is. Many who try to contemplate the infinite universe rapidly go mad with frustration, it is simply a concept we do not yet have the capacity to grasp. If you reach the end of the universe, what next? Spend 30 minutes thinking this through and see just how big a headache you have, not a metaphorical one, but a real, blinding headache.

And this is the problem; Many do believe in the power of the stars to rule there would, I was always very sceptical but now I truly believe there is something in it. Each must decide for themselves though. I like to think I have a pretty open mind when it comes to this kind of stuff, but also analytical. I have seen important elements of my life displayed on a page before me, both progressively and retrospectively. Not just minor things, but important stuff. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but I don't think so. The kind of events I'm talking about are not everyday ones, you might even call some of them life changing, and they were there, before my eyes.

Each must make his or her own decision, personally I have made mine.

Well, THERE'S a question...

Technically, of course, it comes from the big crunch before it.

Hmm so wev'e moved from astrology to astronomy hey?
I like science but i dont understand some of the complexities....well i'm only 15 its not as though i'm a supergenius mastermind like some people
I follow most of my own philosophy,you can't believe everything,finding out how we came to be is not for us to find out,we are just to live our lives and wonder.
But i'm not saying you have to,its human nature for us to know the truth.But the real truth can be found in one place only-in every man and womans communion with an eternal source of hidden knowlege within,which each and every individual must seek out and find for his or herself.
We may point out the path to others,but each of us must walk along that path alone,until every single "lost one" has made the whole journey,and all of us have finally reached the light of full born wisdom at the end of the way,where we began a long *forgotten* time ago.

That is ONE theory, however the contracting/expanding theory of unioversal continuity is in contension with that.

Time is a constant, a measure, nothing more. You may mean Space-time which is actually something different.

If you ask me, 'real truth' can only be found if we continue to explore the Universe around us. It is one of the reasons we live, I think.

Crumbs, I hope we aren't going to get into 'spacetime' because it gets real complicated from there on in, and the next thing I know my friend is telling me that if I walk through a doorway slowly enough I'll diffuse and that wardrobe over there is only PROBABLY there, and so on...

Meanwhile, RC, I should point out that is absolutely DOES NOT MATTER that we do not yet comprehend the nature of ther Universe. No matter what happens, EVER, there can onbly EVER be ONE Universe, by it's very definition. We simply have to re-define the nature of the universe every time we find there is more to it. But there will only ever, EVER be one. It is impossible for there to be more, It is the ONE thing that is EVERYTHING.

ok... getting to complecated!!!
*brains will shut down in 5 seconds*
*searching for brains*
*still searching*
*no brains found*
*no shut down available*

And meanwhile, RC< I do not undersatand your second problem with my post. Science is merely ther operation of understanding tyhe universe around us, no matter what that may contain. So what if we're not done yet? The basic principle that you should not beleive in something unless it is proven holds.

Space=Time isn't that complex, well, it IS complex, but it's not the brain melter you imply.

And I think your safe with you doorway Ush....

And to Aquarius87 I can only say this, when trying to discuss how our lives may or may not be influenced by the stars, it is important to be able to undertand that we DON'T understand enough about the stars and the universe to say whether they do or do not influence our lives.

As I said, personally I think there is something to it, but there are many who do not. Neither side can prove nor disprove the other.

Well you know,this is going to be a great age for human discovery,you wanna know why?
Its the Age of Aquarius,scientific breakthroughs,change,humanitariasm and the technology is going to boom.
My sign also represents Genius.
The age of Pisces will be much better though.

I'm still not sure if people 100% get what I meant when I say there is only one universe; it's a problem I've had before.

It's more a matter of grammar than science. 'Universe' is the word that you use to define the sum total of all things. So, it doesn't matter what we do or don't know yet; if we find out there are a billion billion realities beyond our vaguest comprehension; it doesn;t matter if time is linear, curved or non-existent... in there end there is one word you use to define the WHOLE lot, and that is Universe. SO there cannot be more than one.

OK, let me explain. The key to your arguement seemed to be that "But the universe works by rules, and you have to stick with them".

My point was that we simply don't know all the rules yet, therefore I would suggest that nullifies your statement. I suppose the later part of the paragraph did delve into that aspect, but the initial opening seemed somewhat finalised and therefore I felt it required further comment.

No, no, no, no,no! The word universe discribes a concept that may not be accurate. Multiverse theory, and the very term 'Multiverse', are just sitting on the sidelines, waiting to leap in.

well all I'm saying is it's not appropriate for us to discuss the 'before-the-bigbang' as 'then' because time as the forward moving 'thing' we know it as, didn't excist.

*steels brains from Ratcat in a last attempt to get what they are talking about*
*brains are put in yerssots head*
*yerss falls down because the brains are too heavy*
Here, you can have them back!

I don't think I made myself 100% clear, in that case. I was not, of course, assuming that we knew all the rules. I just meant that astrology has to be put on the same level as everything else; until we can prove it it has to remain a 'non-scientific' thing. Science can't afford to give things the benefit of the doubt, it works on solid grounding, which is the 'rules; I was referring to.

I think I should make clear, as I was saying to Dim the other, day, that I am not an active astrology knocker. Just at the end of the day, you have to treat it like everything else.

And spacetime gets pretty darn complex once relativity gets into the equation and you have lights that are on and also off according to where you are, and so on. Twists up MY head, anyway... but then, I'm no scientist.

That is actually very true Mah. Time, as we know it, may very well have not existed and is therefore irrelevant, however the linear measurement is still a valid expression for dating purposes.

Actually, RC that is a mis-use of the term universe. Multiverse (many things) is simplu used to define the concept of there being many places in the form of what we imagine reality to be.

But the Universe is EVERYTHING. That is what it means, there can be no other thing. How can there be more than one 'everything'? That's nonsense.

OH, I think I get you, I'm just saying that, as we clearly do not have the full rule book, it would be irresponcible, rationally, logically or scientifically to disallow the theory of astrology, or anything else for that matter.

The very best we could say at the point is;

"Not conclusively proven, not conclusively disproven..."

And if you have problems with space time and lamps, easy to solve, remove the bulb!!!

OK, I'm off to given myself a headache by staring at the ceieling while I contemplate thje nature of the universe!

Well, that's just weird. What's the point of having a word that means 'everything' and then decide to give limits to what it means?

I mean, they only have to invent another word that means 'everything' if they do that.

Oh well. I guess it's too much to expect physicsts to understand decent english...

Totally not true, the word meant everything in the concept of what we knew everything to be. If that concept were to change significantly then so might the terminology.

Besides, the word Universe surely comes from the term Uni, or one, as in simgular. It more than one exists, then surely Multi would then be a more apt desciption?

Actually, no, the word was desinged to include everything. Just because they didn;t know what everything was does NOT change what everything MEANS.

And Uni in that sense means 'all', not one.

Good point ratcat,your older than most of us i take it,you should be called ratcat the wise
hehe

Which point of RC's are you talking about?

Uni definitely means 'all' in universal. Hecne universal adaptor can fit anything, not just one thing, Star Trek's universal translator can translate all lanugages, not just one, a univeral solution would solve anything, and a universal theory is one designed to fit every situation.

OPf course, a unicycle only has one wheel. It depnds on the deriviation and whether it is coming from Freek or ROman.

But anyway, universe literally translated means 'all things' There cannot be any more or less than that, by definition.

Fortunately not all members of the Human race are THAT narrow minded though Ush. If the word no longer fits then it will be redefined or dropped.

But if the basis of this discussion is going to fall down to semantics then that's all rather pointless.

After all, I really have no problem because it makes absolutely no difference to my points, just drop the word universe and replace it with space time reality.

Then we can forget the smokescreening.

It is NOTHING to do with narrow-mindedness. It is simply what the word MEANS. I'd equally point out the error if someone said a wheelchair was a bird.

About the evidence thing.. ah shucks.... well I didn't make myself perfectly clear I'm afraid but it's too far gone anyway. BUT... there is light at the end of the tunnel: off topic and over 100.

Closing!