A member of the Royal Astronomical Society, Dr. Percy Seymour, has reopened the debate with a provocative book, The Scientific Proof of Astrology, claims that the movements of the sun, stars and planets can influence the brains of unborn children in measurable ways. He believes human brain development may be affected by the Earth’s magnetic field, especially during growth in the womb. He also suggests that the Earth’s magnetic field is affected by interactions with those of the sun, moon and other planets because their magnetic fields affect solar magnetism.

Granted, this is not a popular theory amongst scientist. Some of it’s biggest critics are Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, and Professor Stephen Hawking. Rees has described astrology as “absurd“, adding: “There is no place for astrology in our scientific view of the world; moreover its predictive claims cannot stand any critical scrutiny.“

However, some scientist have not dismissed his idea completely and believe there are valid questions to be asked. One scientist in particular is Dr. Mike Hapgood, an expert in what astronomers at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire stated, “We have no real data on how, if at all, magnetic fields might affect human behavior.” “There’s an interesting question there and it’s not something that is well understood.”

A pioneer in this study that is often overlooked, although his math can’t be disproven, is French psychologist and statistician, Michel Gauquelin. His tests focused on the correlation between the positions of the planets at an individual’s birth, his or her psychological nature and how this manifested in measurable ways such as choice of profession or independent biographical descriptions. One of the attempts to account for Gauquelin’s apparently statistical results, sceptics claimed that a century ago parents falsified the birth registration times to optimize their offspring’s charts. Therefore, since there was a conventional explanation (artifact) that could never be ruled and therefore his work was no more than an astrological theory.  

Professor Suitbert Ertel and Kenneth Irving (Urania Trust) wrote the Tenacious Mars Effect’ (1996). The book discusses in detail Gauquelin’s research and details the dubious methods by sceptic committees in Belgium, the USA and France to disprove the results. The CSICOP for instance, willfully concealed positive evidence supporting Gauquelin’s work.

The good news is Gauquelin work has been revisited. Finnish mathematician Kyosti Tarvainen, PhD, credits Dutch statistician Jan Ruis with developing the computer methods that have helped him validate astrology with the Gauquelin data in 10 successful peer-reviewed studies. At the time that Gauquelin published his study, he did not have access to powerful new computer technologies. The computer technology has be producing extraordinary results for ordinary astrology using the original birth data the Gauquelin and his spouse used in their many research projects. 

I found researching this subject fascinating and I hope research into Astrology continues. I find all of the information that has come out to be very interesting. I feel as technology continues to improve, more aspects of Astrology can be tested. I am going to look more into my own Astrological chart and try to understand how it all works. I will update you as soon as I start to figure it out.