If you were to ask the average human who upholds Science, "does the Earth revolve around the Sun or does the Sun revolve around the Earth?", pat would come the reply – "The Earth around the Sun!", harkening back to the phenomenal work by the Renaissance era Italian astronomer, Galileo Galilei, who met a blasphemous death in a prison for challenging the then prominent world view of a geocentric universe.

Having grown up fairly agnostic with a culturally Hindu upbringing that had great emphasis on a scientific education, I was adamant for most of my life that Astrology was utter non-sense. Because how could a framework that relies on geocentrism work? We have already established scientifically that the Earth revolves around the Sun! Galileo's death would have to be in vain for us to even entertain heliocentrism.

I wonder how I managed to hold this notion in spite of the centrality of the notion of "frames of reference" in both classical as well as modern Physics.

Then in the wake of the collapse of my marriage and having gone through my first deep depressive phase that included sleep paralysis – a scary phenomena that did not fully register in me fully for what it was till I recovered repressed memories of childhood sodomy and experienced a full body somatic trauma freeze at the first moment of penetration – I happened to read the compatibility dynamics of a Gemini-Pisces relationship. I felt fully seen for the seemingly insurmountable challenges I had encountered in my marriage worded in a most eloquent manner. It was dissonant for a brain rooted in the conviction that Astrology is utter non-sense, to feel so seen in the diagnosis that a flavor of Astrology provided.

I slowly started listing out and critically evaluating what underlied my belief about the non-sensical nature of Astrology and found serious flaws – mostly rooted in my lack of understanding of the true scientific state of our understanding of gravity and consciousness.

As COVID struck, I embarked on a deep dive into Hellenistic Astrology. As I went deeper into the wonderful mythical cosmos that Astrology attempts to organize, I began encountering the myths within my own subconscious. The conscious mind feels safe in simple organized frameworks. The unconscious/subconscious is the scary realm of dark mythology. Myths that persist over eons because they resonate with the collective subconscious. Because they ARE the collective subconscious. That which we cannot clearly speak to, are spoken to in the world of mythology. And Astrology is our best attempt at *organizing* this seemingly chaotic world of mythology, in a manner that it can provide utility to the average human's self-introspective process.

As I reoriented in openness towards understanding Astrology, I realized that most published scientific dismissals of Astrology were rooted in minimal understanding of the framework itself (including ones by Jayant Narlikar).

That Astrology and Astronomy were one before the split occurred with Galileo. A split rooted in the horrific excesses of the Catholic Church which is really what most in the West are referring to when they express their disdain towards "religion", ignorant of other flavors of religion that exist in the rest of the world that are not as reliant on masturbating and fellating young choir boys.

I began to develop some disdain towards Galileo – how could he be so silly to conclude that the Earth revolves around the Sun? When we all accept now – we, as in the scientifically minded, –that motion depends upon the frame of reference and is not absolute – an absolutely key idea in both Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics.

Today, as I'm reading 'The Lazy Universe' by Jennifer Coopersmith – an introduction to classical mechanics via an exposition on the Principle of Least Action – I realized that my understanding of Galileo Galilei’s proposal has been flawed.

He formulated the Principle of Relativity in order to show that one *cannot* determine whether the earth revolves about the sun or the sun revolves about the earth. The principle of relativity states that there is no physical way to differentiate between a body moving at a constant speed and an immobile body. It is of course possible to determine that one body is moving relative to the other, but it is impossible to determine which of them is moving and which is immobile. Notice that there is a distinction between saying "absolute geocentrism is incorrect" and saying that "the world is heliocentric". Galileo attempted to present the inherent Relativity of Motion. If you look at the Earth from the Sun's frame of reference, the Earth moves around the Sun (heliocentrism). If you look at the Sun from the Earth's frame of reference, the Sun moves around the Earth (geocentrism).

In states of Fear, we lose access to nuance. It's scary to be presented with multiple possibilities, where we see only one. Even scarier is the experience of being hinted at the presence of multiple possibilities, when subconsciously we are rooted in the assumption of one. So we attack it. We accuse Galileo of heresy. But truth persists. Multiple possibilities persist. Multiple possibilities at every conscious moment of time is the truth. After we cannot deny it any longer, we seek refuge in swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth! The Earth revolves around the Sun, we declare! We sidestep the scary nuance of the possibility of both and seek safety in the split – the One or the Other – while Galileo rolls over in his grave.