People are always looking for proof for their favorite beliefs, and a very popular topic for this sort of thing is astrology. Because it involves the planets, I guess, there are people who think that scientific proof of astrology must exist somewhere, even though continual efforts to find it never come up with anything. Despite that, there is a new entry in the ledgers from a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, no less.
The GuardIan reports:
The argument Seymour puts forward is that the movement of the Sun, moon and sundry planets from Jupiter to Mars, interfere with the Earth's magnetic field. In doing so, the unborn offspring of expectant mothers around the world are exposed to different magnetic fields that toy with the development of their budding brains.
That actually sounds a bit plausible at first glance... but then again, so did the claims that gravity was the means by which the planets influenced people's behavior.
Seymour's suggestion that the stars and planets rule over us has largely been received with the shortest of shrifts. "All I can say is that I have yet to meet another scientist that agrees with his views," says Jacqueline Mitton of the Royal Astronomical Society. "It's right up there with stuff like crop circles being made by extra-terrestrials," says Robert Massey, astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, where Seymour worked as a planetarium lecturer in the early 70s.
Most scientists dismiss Seymour's arguments simply because the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that he believes are so significant for our behaviour are so minute. The magnetic field, which is generated by the Earth's spinning molten iron core, is pathetically weak compared with the magnetic fields our gadgets and infrastructure produce. Earlier this year, the government's radiation watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, recommended that Britain cut magnetic field exposure from power lines to 100 microteslas, which is still twice the Earth's natural field strength.
"If the Earth's magnetic field collapsed to zero, we'd get a higher dose of radiation from space and that would have an effect on our behaviour, but I don't think it would make it any easier to predict if you're going to come into money one week or the next," says Massey. "Your mobile phone, your television, your washing machine - any electrical equipment you have generates far stronger magnetic fields than the Earth's field."
This is, basically, the same rebuttal given to the aforementioned claim about gravity: sure, the planets have an effect on the gravity and the magnetic fields around us, but that effect is minute — especially in comparison to the effects on gravity and magnetic fields produced by everyday objects around us. The doctor has a greater gravitational pull on a newborn baby that does Mars. The doctor's cell phone has a greater impact on the magnetic field around a same baby than does Jupiter. This is, to put it simply, an example of obviously and desperately grasping at straws.
The GuardIan reports:
The argument Seymour puts forward is that the movement of the Sun, moon and sundry planets from Jupiter to Mars, interfere with the Earth's magnetic field. In doing so, the unborn offspring of expectant mothers around the world are exposed to different magnetic fields that toy with the development of their budding brains.
That actually sounds a bit plausible at first glance... but then again, so did the claims that gravity was the means by which the planets influenced people's behavior.
Seymour's suggestion that the stars and planets rule over us has largely been received with the shortest of shrifts. "All I can say is that I have yet to meet another scientist that agrees with his views," says Jacqueline Mitton of the Royal Astronomical Society. "It's right up there with stuff like crop circles being made by extra-terrestrials," says Robert Massey, astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, where Seymour worked as a planetarium lecturer in the early 70s.
Most scientists dismiss Seymour's arguments simply because the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that he believes are so significant for our behaviour are so minute. The magnetic field, which is generated by the Earth's spinning molten iron core, is pathetically weak compared with the magnetic fields our gadgets and infrastructure produce. Earlier this year, the government's radiation watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, recommended that Britain cut magnetic field exposure from power lines to 100 microteslas, which is still twice the Earth's natural field strength.
"If the Earth's magnetic field collapsed to zero, we'd get a higher dose of radiation from space and that would have an effect on our behaviour, but I don't think it would make it any easier to predict if you're going to come into money one week or the next," says Massey. "Your mobile phone, your television, your washing machine - any electrical equipment you have generates far stronger magnetic fields than the Earth's field."
This is, basically, the same rebuttal given to the aforementioned claim about gravity: sure, the planets have an effect on the gravity and the magnetic fields around us, but that effect is minute — especially in comparison to the effects on gravity and magnetic fields produced by everyday objects around us. The doctor has a greater gravitational pull on a newborn baby that does Mars. The doctor's cell phone has a greater impact on the magnetic field around a same baby than does Jupiter. This is, to put it simply, an example of obviously and desperately grasping at straws.