Thanks for being brave enough to point out the emperor has no clothes. Maybe your approach caused offense but let's face it there is no tactic here that will convince those that want to believe baseless mysticism in spite of all the evidence that proves it is, well, baseless mysticism.
These people never consider that when they make a post like this it is actually equivalent to taking a massive dump in our yard. You know the yard of the people who brought them every modern convenience including the tools to make their calculations with ease, the tools to let them even see Pluto (strangely added to their mix after scientists discovered it) add the tools to let them spread their theories, never once proven, far and wide from the convenience of their desks. Thanks science!
There is a reason that no peer reviewed randomised controlled trial has ever proven astrology or any other "psychic art" actually works - it doesn't. There is never anything beyond selection bias, confirmation bias, and chance behind its assertions that it does. That has been demonstrated over and over again.
There's a saying "that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" and it so supplies here. The burden of proof is on those that claim the ridiculous without any. Otherwise I'd like you to disprove that Elvis isn't alive and well on the far side of the moon and the aren't fairies at the bottom of my garden only I can see.
With that in mind perhaps you could tell us more about "Planets, exerting distinct forces, vibrationally distinct" and "the culmination of the vibrational waves colliding at precise angles." What is the nature of these forces? How might be they be measured? What predictions that can be tested experimentally does your theory give us? What experiments and statistically valid, reproducible results have been done already? You claim a "part science" basis for your astrology so don't be surprised if science requires you to apply the scientific method to such claims. Otherwise, as @viciousrunt points out, they are just baseless claims.
Yeah,...what he said!
While I disagree with you - and decline the invitation to exert any energy or time to argue - at the least, I respect how you've conducted yourself respectfully here.
A problem inherent in the "science IS God" cultural mindset which the two of you seem to be running is the presumption that mankind is at the pinnacle of evolution and if science hasn't figured everything out yet, it must not be true. It's a funny self-righteous God-complex, dismissing everything that doesn't conform to its own model for interacting with the world - despite the admission there is plenty more to explore that we don't yet know or understand.
Much of what science has "proven" to be true today, there did not exist the tools or methods to validate a few decades ago. But just because humans didn't figure out ways to "prove" it then did not mean it wasn't always true. Likewise, just because science hasn't figured things out yet doesn't mean there aren't truth to them now.
I was never arguing for a belief system, only presenting perspectives. Maybe astrology as you think of it is bogus. I make no absolute biased statements trying to box any of it into "true or false." It could be entirely "false" - yet, that's completely irrelevant to the points attempting to be made through this article, which is really about broadening perspectives.
Consider it a systematic framework. True/false aside, there's incredible amounts of wisdom to be developed through engagement in a structured framework that facilitates the practice of thinking in different ways - value to be extracted through observing and thinking in patterns, digging in deeper to understand the nature of cycles as they express through universal laws of physics.
You can completely dismiss the whole thing as quackery. And in your dismissal, you cut yourself off entirely from any lessons within the realm - which maybe had nothing to do with your original preconceptions of what the domain was.
I never posed any of it as anything resembling a belief to be defended against or propagated for others to accept blindly as truth without exploring for themselves, if it were an area of interest to them, to discover what within the subject might be of value to them. It was never a matter of having my view on the subject challenged which pushed my buttons - I could care less whether you or anyone else believes any of this to be "true" or "quackery," fully-well knowing there are alot of people who disregard it and don't care to engage deeply in the subjects to understand from unconventional angles. My buttons got pushed because @viciousrunt has chosen passive-aggressive manipulative rhetoric that is rather disgraceful - a pattern clearly transparent as he goes around calling others morons and offering not constructive criticism, but outright rudeness.
You, on the other hand, have some honorable decency and self-respect in the manner in which you disagree.