Is it the astrologer's job to try to find any physical mechanism that validates astrology?
Isn't that the realm of physicists? It would be great to have an astrology-friendly theoretical physicist (somewhat like Dr. Percy Seymour) to carry the torch, but do any astrologers currently have extensive (PhD level) training in physics?
It's not anyone's job unless some individual wants to try and prove that astrology is a physical science. Even if it is, and even if formal experiments are repeatedly successful, we would still be in a situation where we would need to demonstrate that one or more astro factors worked consistently at a particular rate over a long period of time, but we can do that already if we have confidence in any study.
For example in one of my studies of 7,400 births that occurred over a period of a few centuries (using a couple of large genealogy data files from the net) I noticed that the mothers consistently had transiting Moon opp Mars when the child was born at a higher rate than expected when the scores were examined at 20 progressive intervals. The trend was (as is usual) a bit volatile at first with small amounts of data, but it gradually levelled off, and the graph shows that it had "no intention" of creeping down to the average line - even after 7400 births.
The trend in this data is most prominent when a 3 degree orb is used, but all orbs work. It should be noted that the data doesn't include birth times and that local noon was used. The lack of birth times disturbs some astrologers, particularly when a 3 deg orb is being used, but if something like this is real, then the averaging-out of results should automatically centre in the right place.
This type of progressive graph is something I often use now, because they can show us if a high peak in a graph was caused at a particular stage in the data's timeline by such things as astronomical phenomena we had overlooked, or a direct cause, or in the case of outer planets, a batch of data in a small time-frame. For example, a graph in a survey may show that astro-factor-x was present 15% more often than the expected rate with 1000 samples over a 100 year period, but a progressive graph like this may show that there was a huge spike near the 20 year mark but it had still kept the average score up for many years, even though it was gradually decreasing - thus giving us the wrong impression.
I'm proposing that we make progressive graphs and possibly "movie graphs" (both polar and bar) standard testing tools for any astrological surveys that contain a lot of data, because if readers can see that a trend was consistent as more data was processed, then it should create more interest and more motivation for others to challenge the finding or try and demolish it.
This observation may amount to nothing at all if other large datasets don't show the same trend, or if astronomical phenomena explains it, but even if it is worthless it would show us how we can get impressive looking results that fizzle out - even after 7400 samples.
It's interesting to note that while the graph is fairly consistent and it looks impressive, it is not statistically significant because not enough data being used. This shows us why so many astrological research projects have appeared to have failed, when in reality not enough data was used to arrive at any useful answer in most cases. An example of that is Sun (or planet) sign surveys. It now seems that we need at least 95,000 samples before we can hope to get a good result, and yet some astrologers are prepared to write-off smaller surveys - when they had no hope of producing a good result.