Life ruled by cosmic forces!

[mfgoode]

So there is some truth that cosmic forces affect life on our planet. This makes it more interesting now that we have found an earth like planet just 20 light years away.

Out-of-This-World Hypothesis: Cosmic Forces Control Life on Earth
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...osmic_evo.html

[Eivind]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Cosmic Forces Control Life on Earth

Some how it seems like the sun is controling my sleep patton.

Do you think umetrics multi variant data analysis is an overkill to dertermin the true nature of this force?

-Eivind

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by Eivind

Some how it seems like the sun is controling my sleep patton.

Do you think umetrics multi variant data analysis is an overkill to dertermin the true nature of this force?

-Eivind

Well Eivind I think even without the sun you will get a sleep pattern. Its known that the moon affects the behaviour of many people markedly at full moon and new moon days.

We know that the moon is responsible for the periodic ebb and flow of tides so its not strange it affects the human mind but in a weaker action.

I would not know what you mean by your next sentence so I let it pass.

Mally

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Its known that the moon affects the behaviour of many people markedly at full moon and new moon days.

We know that the moon is responsible for the periodic ebb and flow of tides so its not strange it affects the human mind but in a weaker action.

I point you to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect

It is generally noted that the visiblity (and thus the notablity) of the moon is highest at the full moon. This and the fact that the day before and after also appear 'full', helps people attribute things happening to the full moon.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

So there is some truth that cosmic forces affect life on our planet.

Well, of course there is, if by cosmic one means natural, rather than supernatural, forces.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

I point you to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect

It is generally noted that the visiblity (and thus the notablity) of the moon is highest at the full moon. This and the fact that the day before and after also appear 'full', helps people attribute things happening to the full moon.

That's a good link Uncwilly. Thank you!

I find that K,R, and C. have not made in depth studies and their case studies are too small to come to a scientific conclusion.

As a pseudoscience the menstrual cycle closely follows the lunar period of 29 odd days to 28 days. This is close enough to make a conclusion.

What about the tides ? No mention of it?

In my neighbourhood there are many stray dogs and at full moon they look up to the moon and incessantly howl

Regards visibility that observation I think is not correct. In the equatorial and tropical regions (the tropical belt) and through out the Middle East and Near east the skies are clear all year round so it is easier to observe the different phases.

Of course connecting events to the different phases is purely a personal matter. It is difficult to note personal events linked with the phases for every one of us.

If K,R,C want to make a detailed study of this phenomenon I suggest they visit psychiatrist's clinics which usually are full at full moon times. The patients are visibly disturbed for three days before or after the full moon. This is my personal observation at various clinics in Mumbai.

Cheesehead of course its natural and no way supernatural. Its purely a physical effect which has not been properly documented in the West.

Here in India the astrologers have elaborate tables which can pinpoint the position and in which constellation with regard to the planets for hundreds of years before and after the present era. And that too before the computer era.

Well every individual is unique and the population has to be studied in detail for any coincidences to the lunar effect.

How do they account for babies born with cut lips normally associated with the wrong activity at full moon ?

These and many such instances are not easy to explain away judging from 20 to 30 case studies.

Besides many statments they make have the note 'citation needed'

Mally

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

I find that K,R, and C. have not made in depth studies and their case studies are too small to come to a scientific conclusion.

Oh? How did you make that finding?

I haven't read their article recently (I may have read it in the late 1980s):

Kelly, Ivan; James Rotton & Roger Culver (1986), "The Moon Was Full and Nothing Happened: A Review of Studies on the Moon and Human Behavior", Skeptical Inquirer 10(2): 129-43. Reprinted in The Hundredth Monkey - and other paradigms of the paranormal, edited by Kendrick Frazier, Prometheus Books. Revised and updated in The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal, edited by Joe Nickell, Barry Karr, and Tom Genoni, 1996, CSICOP.

but I notice that the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect states that they "did a meta-analysis of thirty-seven studies that examined relationships between the Moon's four phases and human behavior. The meta-analysis revealed no correlation. They also checked twenty-three studies, and nearly half of them contained at least one statistical error".

Your claim that they "have not made in depth studies and their case studies are too small to come to a scientific conclusion" appears to have no foundation. A meta-analysis of 37 studies is itself necessarily an in-depth study and not what I'd consider "too small" in this context. Why did you claim otherwise?

What about the tides ? No mention of it?

Perhaps that's because tides in the human body are far, far too miniscule to have any noticeable effect on human behavior!

See the James Rotton ("R" of "K,R, and C") book review at http://www.csicop.org/si/9705/moonshine.html, in which he points out that:

"the moon's gravitational pull was less than the weight of a mosquito"

and

"the moon's 'pull' was less than that of a wall of a building six inches away".

(So if you're leaning against a wall, the wall has more gravitational or tidal influence on your behavior than the Moon does.)

Let me further call your attention to the article "Why we are unmoved as oceans ebb and flow" at http://www.csicop.org/si/9405/ebbandflow.html. It contains a correct explanation of tidal forces. (Many explanations on the Web, and even some science texts, contain a common error, which this article corrects.)

As that article's section "Tidal Forces on People" explains, "in the most extreme case, an object's weight will be 0.000035 percent less when the moon is overhead than when the moon is on the horizon ... When you consider the weight change we experience during a meal (about 1 percent), as we move from place to place on the earth's surface (about 0.5 percent), or as the weather changes (about 0.03 percent), it is no wonder that we don't notice the [change in weight due to the Moon's gravity]".

Will you concede that the Moon's gravitational and tidal forces are too small to have any effect on human or animal behavior?

In my neighbourhood there are many stray dogs and at full moon they look up to the moon and incessantly howl

... because they can see it.

Dogs (or people) who are not able to see the Moon or moonlight (whose intensity would betray the phase), (and in people's cases, who are not informed via calendar or almanac of Moon phase dates) do not exhibit any correlation between behavior and lunar phase.

Cheesehead of course its natural and no way supernatural.

Perhaps I should have written "those for which there is no scientific evidence" instead of "supernatural".

Its purely a physical effect which has not been properly documented in the West.

Then why don't you Easterners document the effect's existence in scientific ways that rule out self-deception, misinterpretation, or non-natural explanation? I assure you that it would be a scientific hit if it were able to be done.

[ewmayer]

While it seems quite far-fetched to believe that the Moon's *gravitation* has a direct influence on human behavior (our bodies are a little small for there to be discernible fluid "tides" and lunar-induced sloshing of stuff), the more likely method of action of things lunar would be via lunar light (or absence thereof) at night. The light is of course much weaker than that of the sun (for which there are obvious and widespread biological correlates), but it is quite strong in a relative sense, i.e. a night at new vs. full moon. Wolves howling at the moon is one obvious kind of lunar-influenced animal behavior, but it seems probable there are others, some quite possibly at the basic biological-rhythm level. An example of the latter is women's menstrual cycles, for which there is massive anecdotal evidence of lunar synchronization, and this seems to occur across many ancient cultures. But, as cheesehead notes, anecdotal evidence ain't science - it is at best a guide as to where intersting science may be done. So...

According to this Wikipedia article on the menstrual cycle there is at least some (admittedly weak) scientific evidence. Interestingly, one of the confounding factors in modern scientific study of this is that relatively few humans live entirely by natural light anymore, so it's virtually impossible to find a convenient-to-study large cohort of women who live under conditions approximating those of our distant ancestors.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

the more likely method of action of things lunar would be via lunar light (or absence thereof) at night.

Then proponents of a lunar effect should honestly label it as a lunar light effect or moonlight effect, and stop referring to tides or tidal force, which has nothing to do with it.

The light is of course much weaker than that of the sun (for which there are obvious and widespread biological correlates), but it is quite strong in a relative sense, i.e. a night at new vs. full moon. Wolves howling at the moon is one obvious kind of lunar-influenced animal behavior,

... lunar light-influenced animal behavior, that is.

If that, or any, behavior were influenced by lunar tides, then it would occur about twice a day, and at new moon just as at full moon. But it doesn't.

Since Mally claims "purely a physical effect which has not been properly documented in the West", but the effects of moonlight are well-known and obvious everywhere, West as well as East, then either he is mistaken about the nature of the effect or he is mistaken about the lack of documentation in the West.

- -

Even if they admit that the correlation is to moonlight rather than "tide" or some mysterious other cause, proponents of lunar effects keep claiming that such effects are more evident than they really are. Time after time, studies analyzed by "K, R, and C" claim more of a correlation to lunar phases than is mathematically justified.

As pointed out somewhere, there are genuine effects correlated to our calendar months (e.g., monthly appointments/activities or rituals), and it requires too-often-absent care by researchers to statistically separate those (Gregorian calendar) monthly 31/30/28/29-day cycles from the 29.5-day cycle of lunar phases. Many studies that supposedly find lunar correlations are mistaken because they don't cover a long-enough timespan to be able to make that statistical distinction between calendrical 31/30/28/29-day cycles and lunar-phase 29.5-day cycles (synodic month) or 27.3-day lunar orbital period (sidereal month)!

In places using a lunar calendar (where calendar months are deliberately synchronized with lunar phases), it would be even harder to separate calendar-monthly effects from lunar-phase effects.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Even if they admit that the correlation is to moonlight rather than "tide" or some mysterious other cause, proponents of lunar effects keep claiming that such effects are more evident than they really are. Time after time, studies analyzed by "K, R, and C" claim more of a correlation to lunar phases than is mathematically justified.

Agreed there. Even the wikipedia page on menstrual cycles I cite above closes the section on possible lunar influences with a strong counterargument:

"Some have suggested that the fact that other animals' menstrual cycles appear to be greatly different from lunar cycles is evidence that the average length of humans' cycle is most likely a coincidence."

That would seem to negate the "we don't see it in modern humans because of artificial lighting" argument. Weighing the evidence, this one seems to be quite similar to the lunar-tidal earthquake hypothesis - some tantalizing hints that something *might* be there, some plausible heuristic arguments to support it, but nothing that has stood up to real scrutiny yet. Much more likely (again, based on objective evaluation of the data so far) to be mere coincidence. As we know, we have been hard-wired by evolution to seek put patterns, which stringly predisposes us to "identify" such even in sets of objectively random data. (Like Mersenne prime exponents, by way of another example).

[Jwb52z]

I don't know exactly what to look up because I don't know a name for it, but I know someone here will almost certainly have the answer. What is the real truth about the idea that the lunar cycles affect the human body because of the high water content in humans? I have heard this theory for years now that there's some kind of actual effect because we know the moon affects water by gravity.