Astrology and Science -- Magnetism 

Extracts from Suzel Fuzeau Braesch: Comment démontrer l'astrologie, expérimentations et approches théoriques (How to prove astrology -- experiments and theoretical approaches), Éditions Albin Michel, 1999.

translated from French by L Blake Finley, M.A. ABD-2 



Magnetism is a phenomenon of major importance in the relationship between our Sun and our Moon. Of all the phenomena that come to mind, it is undoubtedly one of the most familiar, and yet the most complex.

There is an interesting link between the magnets used by artisans in their daily work, and factors that affect the bulk of humanity on a large scale -- there is a link to what we describe in carrying out an astrological investigation: what is common to all these situations is the phenomenon of electromagnetism.

Electromagnetic fields are at the core of a complex science. No one has ever "seen" magnetic fields, and while they have not been fully defined, experimental scientists take them for granted. For quite some time (for example, in the famous Maxwell equations of 1865), one can calculate and predict, utilize and control magnetic fields. Within the context of formalism, quantitative physics established that each field contains a particle or a group of particles which mediate its effects, such as the photons of electromagnetic fields.

Many scientists agree on the existence of four major forces in the universe: gravitation, electromagnetism, strong interactions (such as in atomic nuclei), and weak interactions (such as in radioactivity). Today, in fact, physicists propose the probability that strong interactions explain the origin of forces such as magnetism. At the time of the "Big Bang", more precisely in the fractions of seconds which followed it, these 4 basic forces were intermixed and their effects appeared to be similar in nature. Yet, once the universe cooled down, the energies necessary to maintain their coherence were dissipated and further differentiated.

Electromagnetism is distinguished by the observability of its effects at macroscopic distances, while weak force appears to be active only at the core of its own internal structure.

In high-energy physics, mass and energy are measured as a single unit called the electron-volt (eV). Practically everyone has memorized Einstein's E=mc² formula, describing the lightning-like disintegration of matter into energy triggered in atomic bombs or controlled in nuclear power plants. Among the latest developments in atomic research was a hypothesis describing the Higgs Field, a force field extending throughout the universe, composed of bosons which have not yet been seen, just as the photons of magnetic fields are seemingly invisible. Research on bosons is currently under way in major research centers such as the CERN in Geneva.

In relation to this, and according to the following the reasoning, it was quite some time, some 10,000,000,000 years after the Big Bang, that the formation of stars, galaxies, atoms, and molecules ensued.

The Sun itself emits a powerful magnetic solar wind which originates from the corona and is constituted of gases which are millions of degrees hot at their source, totally ionized -- a sort of plasma. This wind is emitted radially, rotating around the Sun. However, the field is about 100,000 times weaker in intensity than that of Earth. We could be said to live on a sort of immense magnet, our terrestrial magnetic field serving as shield against the magnetic solar wind, which is deflected afar, well above our stratosphere at 20 km. One would have to go out more than 10 times the Earth's radius to contact it directly. However, the terrestrial shield is not totally fixed, and this is a fundamental point. In effect, the degree of interaction between the magnetic solar wind and terrestrial magnetism fluctuates. The ionosphere, the outermost section of our atmosphere, fluctuates in structure and strength because of this. The next question is whether humans on Earth are sensitive to this magnetism and its fluctuations.

Professor Yves Rocard, recently deceased Laboratory Director of Physics at the École normale supérieure in Paris, and member of the Comité de l'énergie atomique, a contributor in stabilizing the Tancarville bridge, devoted much of thirty years of his life to the study of the sensitivity of humans to magnetism. He detected receptor sites in certain areas of the human body: at the arches of the eyebrows, at the back of the skull, at the hollows of the knees, near the shoulderblades, and under the heels; noting that each individual reacts in a unique manner according to what he calls a "magnetic identity card".

The Earth's magnetic field is determined to be at 0.47 gauss at middle latitudes, 0.75 at the poles, and 0.30 at the Equator. Based on his experiments, Rocard concluded that humans are capable of detecting, with the help of a ring or a pendulum, asymmetrical anomalies in terrestrial magnetism at levels as subtle as 0.001 gauss at a distance of 1 meter. Due to environmental factors, in the countryside, i.e. in a natural environment, the detection level may be 10 times more sensitive than in an urban setting. Sensitivity to magnetism is therefore beyond doubt, despite controversy provoked by these highly credible studies.

The primary remaining question is how humans respond to the complex and subtle fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field. Numerous research analysts around the world have described electrical responses of human and animal nerves under the influence of magnetic fields. In the brain, the function of the pineal gland in relation to the synthesis of the melatonin hormone seems to be influenced by natural or artificial magnetism. Rigorous experiments demonstrated evidence of the transmission of magnetic information in the central nervous system of various animals; and the impact was such that the new science of magnetobiology has come into being.

Finally, the same principle of magnetic sensitivity described by Professor Rocard was confirmed by the discovery of magnetite in the human eyebrow arch. This study was published in the international science journal Nature.

If we think about it, the hypothesis of magnetic sensitivity of humans to terrestrial fluctuations merely confirms assumptions about daily reality that we have taken for granted for quite some time. And if one links these together with the phenomena described, further demonstrating the numerous repercussions of the planets of our solar system on solar emissions, it is possible to conceive scientifically of the human receptivity to planetary influences accounted for in astrology.

Note that none of this is linked with the phenomena of gravitation. One continually looks to the "graviton" without results... a factor to perhaps consider, yet having little to no connection with magnetism. The critics of scientific research into astrology would say: the concrete "defense towers" are of more gravitational significance than the "pebble" called Mars. This in itself is true (per Professor J C Pecker); however one can see from the previously mentioned discoveries that such simplistic arguments are no longer convincing today.

The planets originated as diffuse matter which later accumulated into larger physical masses, as did the Sun. Matter, diffuse in initial stages, later rotating and colliding at an appropriate rate, eventually aggregates and forms objects such as our star. There is a contrasting relationship between what is dispelled, proportional to square of the radius, and that which will aggregate, proportional to the cube of the radius. Therefore the larger the object, the greater the role of the cube. Planetary systems take form according to this principle. Earth is related by origin to the entire solar system from which it was formed. 

In 1956, during the French and British military operations in the Suez canal, radio links at the time of debarkation were so perturbed that they were practically non-functional for two days. Another more recent similar phenomenon was the reversal of both the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 lunar missions before their advance, where astronauts dealt with almost mortal accidents. What happened? Quite simply, our Sun sent out in all directions, and in particular toward our Earth, clouds of ionizing particles that are quite dangerous if encountered directly, which cause perturbations in radio waves even at the surface of the Sun, and which follow an 11-year rhythm.

This 11-year cycle has been described repeatedly over time by numerous astronomers, some of whom discovered its correspondence with the orbits of the planets around our Sun (even though the subject is still today getting hackneyed bad press). In the recent past, the French research analyst M.Treillis along with American analysts K. D. Wood and R. M. Wood, have verified these correspondences, but the subject has been abandoned in many countries due to its enormous impact on nuclear physics and advances in the field of study of the internal functions of our Sun. Curiously, analysts from east European countries, such as those in Bucharest and Prague, for years cut off from the west European methods of scientific development, without economic factors dictating the course of their research to such a degree, have remained focused on the object of their studies. It is they who today perceive the need to improve on predicting periods of solar activity for the dispatching of space missions and the venturing of astronauts out into space, especially in the case of long voyages outside the protective magnetic field of the Earth. (And one should mention that this shield is partially protective, being reduced at the magnetic poles, where the Aurora Borealis gathers.)

Our continually active Sun verifies its inner state by the apparition of dark spots as well as light spots called "facules", situated at visible locations on its surface. At these locations are immense jets of highly energized particles. In the winter of 1997-1998, our Sun varied from the 11-year minimum (May 1996). When 2 cosmonauts walked out into space on 6 November 1997 to implement protective measures on the MIR space station, they encountered proton bursts and subsequently terminated their activity and returned inside their module. Moreover, when our Sun returns to a period of minimal cyclical activity and the Earth receives fewer particles from it, the situation is complicated by the fact that Jupiter takes over. The Earth is then affected in a similar manner by Jupiter.

Once again in reference to the 11-year solar activity cycle, it is not the only one of its kind. Romanian astronomer I. Predeanu has identified other cycles, also in agreement with planetary positions, in particular with the orbit of Mars around the Sun, and of Jupiter in relation to the Earth. She believes to have found the basis for a hypothesis of relation and causality of which the consequences are numerous and demonstrate a cycle of about 2 years, called "quasi-biennial oscillation" or "QBO". Dr Predeanu uses this climatological term to describe the currents present in the upper atmosphere, detected by balloons and satellites, and of which the circulation reverses every 2 years for some still undetermined reason. For Dr Predeanu, beyond the stratospheric currents, a number of important geocosmic parameters follow the QBO of which it makes the following list in summarizing the extensive international research on this subject:

- relative number of sun spots;
- flux of solar neutrinos;
- solar ray activity;
- intensity of emissions of the green corona of the Sun and its rotational speed;
- flux of radio emissions from the Sun;
- flux of ultraviolet rays emanating from the Sun;
- speed of solar winds;
- intensity of cosmic rays;
- ozone content of Earth's atmosphere;
- atmospheric density in tropical and subtropical regions;
- rainfall rates in Africa;
- anomalies in elevation of atmospheric temperature;
- composition of the magnetic fields;
- parameters of the ionosphere;
- terrestrial seismic activity;
- angular speed of the Earth's rotation;

A statistical analysis leads to the proposal of a causal hypothesis about the influence of the Sun-Mars opposition, with a maximum near Mars's perihelion and Jupiter's apparent conjunction to the Sun as seen from the Earth. Of course, synchronous phenomena do not absolutely signify a deterministic relationship, but one should admit that the list of phenomena described is impressive and the hypothesis attractive: It merits study and consideration.

In summary, one can say that the short cycles as well as the long cycles of solar activity in the final analysis correlate with the positions of the planets in their respective orbits, including those of our planet Earth. All these cycles are now known for their correspondences with terrestrial events. Thanks to nuclear physics, the internal activity of our great solar star is increasingly illuminated: there is no contradiction in thinking that these nuclear mechanisms are modulated by external parameters, the planetary positions, and therefore the procession of terrestrial events. This is the fundamental issue in the problem of astrology. In effect, there is no more room for doubt in modern astronomical science as to the sequential chain: influence of planetary position -> solar activity -> terrestrial geocosmic events. To redevelop these problems and astronomical research at a high level comes back to re-examining the consequences of the positions of the planets in our solar system and going back to stage one, whether one wants to or not, of astrology. It is interesting to recall as well that among the astrological tools, one should pay particular attention to the predominant influence of planets on the "angles", i.e. those which rise, culminate, and set. What might be the nature of these added values? The example of our Sun may once again give a hint. Short-wave radio emissions specialists know that at sunrise, noon, and sunset, if clear signal transmission is desired, one must change frequencies. Why is this? The ionosphere, an ionized portion of Earth's atmosphere, is ionized, i.e. molecules lose or gain electrons and are no longer electrically neutralized (above 50 km of altitude). Radio wave propagation encounters this strata (in reality, there are several layers) and solar rays play a primary role. Thus the importance of modification at sunrise and sunset, and optimal conditions at noon. For other planets, the problem is absolute; it would be advisable to study this further.

Finally, considering our solar system at the heart of our galaxy, that which is termed the heliosphere is a region wherein the density of solar wind energy is greater than that of general interstellar space -- it is comprised of all our planets and its outer limit is termed the heliopause. The stars of our galaxy are in effect separated by many light years, a unit which is of considerable distance: one light year is about 10 trillion kilometers. Our Sun's planetary system appears as a relatively separate system, organized, with a certain equilibrium, evolving very slowly in comparison to human life. It is completely distinct from other solar systems of our galaxy. It is therefore not surprising that human astrology concerns itself with the system near our Sun, relatively isolated within our immense galaxy.

The implications of these scientific insights are quite substantial, and important points can be summarized like this:


(Translator's note: An explanation of DNA and its functions, followed by an explanation of how magnetic fields interact with it.)

It is now posited that the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) at the nucleus of cells -- condensed from a sugar and phosphate base -- constitutes the key to heredity and corresponds to a sort of instructional code, an inherited genetic code for the synthesis of proteins and, in particular, enzymes.  An essential principle is the joint formation of a double helix: two sugar-phosphate strains revolving up and down the length of an axis almost like spiral stairs; branching within the sugar-phosphate strain are 4 bases (adenine=A, guanine=G, cytosine=C, thymine=T) linking themselves into purines (A+G) and pyrmidines (T+C) revolving along the central axis.  This is the famous model of the Nobel prize winners Watson and Crick.  It accounts for how a chromosome, formed from DNA, is able to replicate itself when cellular division occurs -- the helix divides in two, the two subsequent strains unfold separately and distinctly, and each strain allows for the synthesis of its complementary counterpart while forming an overall matrix that maintains their unity.  Thus the multiplication of cells.

How is DNA able to synthesize a specific protein molecule?  First it sets the order of amino acids, which are elementary components of all proteins, within a new molecule containing hundreds, sometimes thousands, of units.  Next, within the nucleus of the new molecule, synthesis of a new molecule, ribonucleic acid (RNA) occurs.  RNA is distinguished from DNA by its ribose component.  Ribose contains one more atom of oxygen than does DNA.

RNA plays the role of "messenger" in that it transports the DNA code out of the nucleus of the cell into the larger processes of the cellular cytoplasm, fixing/attaching itself to ribosomes, cellular components where protein synthesis occurs.  All the amino acids line up in an order appropriate to a given enzyme.  During this rapid process, the chromosome gene composed of DNA determines the synthesis of various other components. 

The actual process is in reality much more complicated, due to the existence of other factors such as regulating and repressing interactions among the genes.  Moreover, these processes do not all occur everywhere at the same time.  Nucleosomes further complicate the processes: the double helix of DNA twists to form a second sort of helix, a superhelix, around an axis composed of a chain of particular proteins referred to as histones, in a manner in which it is possible that the genes might be active, free, or periodically repressed.  This complex overall process may unfold via a sort of looping process called feedback, and once sufficient substance is formed, the synthesis is slowed down and vice versa.  In addition, the portion of the DNA molecules which synthesizes the RNA and ultimately proteins called exons, includes unusable intron sectors which can only code unintelligible, and therefore, unusable, messages.

This is why the introns are eliminated during the processing between DNA and RNA; they are at the center of a curious phenomenon referred to as intron splicing, which suppresses the non-functional fragments during the process of RNA maturation.  To the surprise, and even perplexity, of many research analysts, it has been uncovered that non-coding and non-expressing DNA may account for up to 90% of the total DNA in a cell.  And it follows naturally that one wonders why these cells maintain such dead weight.  Are these the result of past selections?  Do they play a yet undiscovered role?  Are they a sort of parasite?  Such possible explanation are still left to question.

In the larger scheme, enormous recent progress in molecular biology has brought sufficient understanding of the genetics of organic development according to complex but analyzable hierarchic processes, of the activities of genes which explain the overall system of the progressive evolution of an animal body during the course of ontogenesis.  One can therefore posit that acquisition of brain functions and mental processes correlates to a high level of complexity, since we know that the human brain accounts for no less than 1014 functional links between its nerve cell components.  This number is considerable, and subject to quantitative modifications throughout its course from pre- to post-natal development.  

What do the aforementioned processes have to do with magnetism?  Mice in gestation, subjected to a magnetic field of 20 kHz between the first and 19th day give birth to offspring which carry anomalies similar to those caused by ionizing rays (radioactivity), yet different in that the anomalies are weaker and appear more slowly during their course of development.  Moreover, the males placed for 4 hours in a low-frequency magnetic field demonstrate a significantly altered spermatogenesis starting after about 28 days.  Those who conducted these experiments think that the issue of the activation of genes by direct exposure to magnetic fields via DNA is significant; that the electrical and magnetic fields directly stimulate in vivo the transcription of DNA, and open the "steps" of the "stairs" of the double helix which leads to a multiplication of DNA, yet also break the "banisters", i.e. the lateral strands of the helix.... and thus destruction occurs.  One research analyst explains that in vivo, the endogenous electricity of the muscles striated during work can induce the synthesis of new proteins via direct action on corresponding DNA, reacting to electrical impulses. 

However, in these examples, in dealing with global impact on living organisms, is there a difference in interpretation?  Would similar phenomena manifest in vitro in controlled conditions?  It seems that yes, according to research analysts who have demonstrated that in a cell culture exposed to an electrical field of 60 Hz, the (complimentary) transcription of DNA increases significantly.  Other effects are also observed in connection with the preceding: the entry processes of calcium are activated by electrical fields where the differences in the synthesis of DNA which is not foreign.  Moreover, the magnetic fields do not always have a facilitating effect, and the results vary from one experiment to the other.  Thus, under certain conditions, the magnetic fields provoke breakage of DNA strains (one or both of the "stair banisters"); yet these accidents can be prevented by the addition of free radical harnesses; this proves that these play a role in the appearance of the effects of the fields.

The same conclusion was drawn in an experiment with the drosophila (a small fly used for genetics research): exposing its 3rd stage larvae to a magnetic field for 24 hours, the rate of assimilable somatic recombinations increased in the cases of  DNA replication errors or mutations.  If at the same time vitamin E -- a non-specific antioxidant -- was given to the larvae, the effect was annulled.  This is proof that the toxic action of magnetic fields on genes has a proportional relationship to the presence of free radicals.  In sum, magnetic fields may augment either the synthesis of DNA (impact at the helix opening), or, in seeming contradiction, DNA rupture (impact at the helix ruptures).

Why is DNA sensitive to magnetic fields?  The answer is remarkably simple: DNA is an acid, and it is electrically charged, positive at one point and negative at the other, forming what is called a dipole.  In other words, DNA is an organic, electrically charged macromolecule, like many other macromolecules, yet provided with a fundamental role in organic life: it alone plays a key role in synthesizing proteins in conformity with an inherited genetic program.

We recall that only a small percentage of the DNA in cell nuclei is functional (the exons), and that the remaining (up to 90%) "non-coding" DNA (the introns) do not transcribe, and that the explanation for this is still not clear.  Could it be that in the living organism, this percentage of introns is not fixed, but subjected to geocosmic conditions which escape the in vitro laboratory conditions?  

For several dozen years, the technique of electrophoresis has been used in molecular biology laboratories around the world.  This process serves to separate, via electrical current, the different DNAs from one another.  Therefore, these DNAs do not always undergo structural perturbation or rupture; instead they part from each other at different rates of speed in a suitable aqueous environment.  While the power at the poles of the apparatus can be increased up to 2000 or 3000 volts, the level where the DNA solution forms droplets is at about 1000 volts.

The resulting tension differentiates the DNAs and separates them smoothly.  A magnetic field does not so much attract as it agitates... it stirs up the dipoles.  Thus we have two totally different processes that are difficult to compare.

What do we know today about the changes provoked by magnetic fields?  Specialists posit that the dipoles "resonate" at the given frequency of the magnetic field, or at harmonic multiples thereof.  Each dipole therefore responds at such and such a frequency, thus leading to our hypothesis.  It could be that there are, particularly in the brain but also at other significant levels of neurophysiological and glandular equilibria, combinations of neuronal dipoles that yield an infinite variety of results.  Similarly, in computer science, various combinations of 128 bits (bipolar units) can produce 1039 variations.

One might perceive of this as a sort of analogical system which provides us with the basis for global hypotheses that would trigger the rediscovery of much of that has been previously posited about the nature of geocosmic systems.  The dipoles of cerebral DNA, or even endocrine cells, may be sensitive to certain very subtle geomagnetic influences at the frequencies where they resonate.  The result would be certain functional orientations, modifications or retardation in certain neuronal clusters in which one foresees the complexity and echoing of the metabolic and endocrine equilibria.  Might one not also see there the basis of a path leading to the psychological level?   These may be major factors derived from subtle or seemingly minor causes.  The phenomenon may now be broadly substantiated after having been perpetuated for quite some time in the realm of common sense.   It had been qualified by the hackneyed and tendentious term "chaos"... tendentious because it perpetuated the belief in a fictitious state of presumably ultimate disorder.   When small errors recur during the course of thousands of calculations (which is quite easy to do with computers), calculated assumptions may diverge widely from objective realities.  This implies complexity, but not total indeterminacy.  Thus a very small difference in the reception of a very subtle aspect of geocosmic effects: these may be forces from the terrestrial magnetic field interacting with that of the Sun or of the planets, and these differences might effect different neuroendocrine functions manifesting as unique personal behavior patterns... more or less aggressive, more or less adventurous, more or less sociable, etc.

Finally, one might describe the deterministic element of this paradigm as a "Bar Code".  This code would be similar to the DNA genetic code, interlinked with the personality of the individual and the evolution of his or her life.

Dr Suzel Fuzeau Braesch


Return to preceding page