Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
That certainly depends on how far the moon is away from the child.
Postulating that if the earth is flat there must be another side is not evident. Space may well be one-sided. Also there could be three or more other sides, depending on the number of dimensions you allow for. The earth could well have a flat, a long and a short side.
Although numerology and astrology mostly - I do not want to exclude that there are some applications - belong to the same class, there is still a small difference. Both methods have pseudo-religious origins. The assumed superior order of the universe must show in regular numbers or orderly alignments of planets, which must have an impact on our behavior. Gods hidden machine is assumed as the driving force. This is the same attitude that makes us refuse evolution or anything, which relies on statistical fluctuations. God created the earth and every leave has its place as per design. Reassuring isn't it? There is a big machine that drives us, so we cannot commit any mistakes, we just need to follow the machine.
Seems that the Age of Enlightenment is still to come, to sweep away the ancient (mis)beliefs. Does the eager beaver believe in numbers or stars? No time for beliefs?
When using astrology for trading, it is all about which type of error one prefers:
(1) use a method which has not been empirically validated
(2) don't use a method which has not been empirically validated
In the first case it is likely that one will accumulate huge losses - at best the method can be ineffective, but harmless. In the second case one may forego some profits.
Economists are building wonderful models, which typically do not stand any empirical tests. These models are used by institutions and banks. It is an example for the first type of erro. The models tend to favor the invisible hand or the individual welfare, the tragedy of the commons is the logical consequence. May be astro-based models are cheaper to maintain and produce the same effect, so you get at least some economies on operating the models.
