Someone on Reddit asked why astrology was ridiculous. Why's it ridiculous that the gravity from a star could have an impact on development?Gravity is super weak compared to other forces but stars and space objects can be just so massive.
The gravity being tiny is the obvious answer.
The force of gravity between Earth and the closest star was bigger than I expected, but even still. It comes out to a tiny acceleration. Like less than a quadrillionth of the acceleration the Earth gives objects on the surface.
Basically even if astrology wasn't bunk, it'd still be stupidly useless that it'd basically be bunk again.
If the gravity from even the closest stars had an effect on development, so would the gravity of some large ships and buildings.
Haven't done any calculations, but I'd guess that the effect of most stars in astrology would be even less than the effect of small buildings.
I never knew that astrology had a belief that gravity from stars caused it, but another flaw with that view is that the gravity on Earth would not change in a yearly cycle. Earth's orbit is so small that the relative velocities of those stars and our sun would make the year over year pull more varied than the month over month pull.
