" Of course they weren't observing the "forces" any more than you can observe the "force" of gravity."
But we can test the force of gravity. We can indirectly observe it. No such luck with astrology.
". As they observed the planets they also observed and recorded human behavior. Over time they noted predictable, repeatable behaviors during certain times of year."
No they didn't. There aren't predictable behaviors based on birth date. It was much more than physical cycles they were attempting to predict; they predicted, as they do today, all sorts of things about love and romance, fortune or misfortune in wealth, the rise and fall of kings. That was the nature of the predictions made. These are all nonsense.
"Their observations are largely responsible for the analog clocks we've been using, divided into twelve hours."
That has nothing to do with astrological aspects of their work.
"I specifically referred to our ability to predict it these days. I suspect they also came to know and predict certain behaviors each lunar month, IYKWIM."
But menstrual cycles occur at all different times of the month. And this has nothing to do with astrology. Women didn't have to go to an astrologer to know when they were going to menstruate. You are now making up the nature of the astrologer's predictions.
Astrology was not interested in the "forces", or if it was, it was a peripheral matter. It was interested in direct observation of both heavenly bodies and human behavior and then correlating the two.
I find it noteworthy that you allow the indirect observation of gravity to suffice as evidence of a force, but do not allow the direct observation of organized matter to suffice as indirect evidence of a designer.
. . . they predicted, as they do today, all sorts of things about love and romance, fortune or misfortune in wealth, the rise and fall of kings. That was the nature of the predictions made. These are all nonsense.
It would not be "nonsense" if they observed recurring patterns on a consistent basis over a large population for hundreds of years. It was the best they had at the time.
That has nothing to do with astrological aspects of their work.
Not if you want to distill astrology into sheer mysticism and superstition. Otherwise the analog clock is one of many tangible benefits of the direct observations of ancient astrologers.
But menstrual cycles occur at all different times of the month.
I always thought they were somehow connected to lunar cycles. I can assure you the menstrual cycle is one of many physical and direct observations discussed by astrologers from ancient times to this day. Did people need to see an astrologer to "know the schedule?" No.