here I created a graph showing periods 1,2,3,7,27,51 of oscillation. God must love me, because I had no Idea it would illustrate my point on the first try!
I dont want to claim anything - this is just to demonstrate what 'can' happen with modes of oscillation are added.
The period I've labelled 'high' average - could be representative of the solar activity we have experienced for a few thousand years
even in this period - you still get some troughs that could be representative of a couple of hundred year of lows - that might wipe out your civilization if it appeared and depended on the average cycle being high.
The period i've labelled 'low' average - could be representative of solar activity we could expect in the next few thousand years
The crash i've labelled shows that you can have long periods of high averages followed by long periods of low averages - and there is one single defining event between them - a high peak followed by a spectacular crash - could this be where we are at the moment - looking at the graph I nicked from wiki. ?
This post was so interesting that I had to join in order to participate in the discussion.
It has finally taken an article from the NS to root out these theories/hypotheses that have been on my mind for a whole bunch of time now. I have previously looked for similar articles/research on the net and returned empty-handed.
background: Been exposed to much numerology, some chinese Bazi (four pillars of destiny) and astrology. Me, I'm a skeptic.
MarcUK, I'm glad you bring up all these points. I for one believe that the sun and its cycles somehow do effect people in some way. The chinese/indian/greek people have all observed this and it would be foolish to discount their findings just because it has yet to be proven by current science. What we really need is someone to sit down and record statistically to "prove" it.
Medicine is deemed "effective" when it works for a probably % of the people. So why shouldn't astrology/numerology be proved/disproved similarly.
I find too many "truths" and coincidences in Astrology/Numerology etc and choose to believe that it has good backing, however too much fortune telling or whatever crap that comes along with it. The concept and theory/hypotheses that stand to be proven are a great thing to look at though
welcome, i just found this article - you might find it interesting
Mark... The wiki graph is chaotic, your graphs are periodic...
These cycles don't stick to the mayan algebraic projections, they just don't.
The mayan civilization had periodic crashes over its entire history -- cities would rise and fall because they destroyed the local environment by planting shittons of the crop terrible corn. All local land will have been made non-arable causing a decline in population and loss of significance.. once you do this to everywhere you can possibly live, your city state civilization becomes a substinence village civilization, which is exactly what we see. The mayans didn't disappear, they still exist, their religion still exists, they just don't build city states. It is a matter of crop usage and not solar cycles... 2012 more than likely is the edge of the mayan calendar due to perceived but uncalculated deviations from their nice algebraic models.
I strongly suggest visiting the yucatan to get a sense of exactly what happened... you can practically see it...
What I find amusing about the first article is that it is not the sun that is the proposed cause of seasonal fluctuations of schizophrenia, but the failure of mother's to produce vitamin D -- I still think the seasonal viral infections makes the most sense. The significance of this should be clear, the sun does not predictively cause anything...
"three Israeli scientists have also found surprisingly high correlations between solar
activity and psychiatric illnesses. "
Your claim of no-scientific data to back up the assertions isn't quite right - certainly its not mainstream widely accepted Science - but it exists nonetheless and im not terribly suprised to be able to find it.
(Now if only the wacko's didn't have a total monopoly on doomsday articles related to the Maya and astrogenetics this might be a much easier task)
There is also a statistical correlation of cancer in women who while pregnant drank alcohol.
There is no (real) causative connection just a statistical one, and one which disappears when you consider the size of the database you are looking at...
I don't think these israeli scientist discovered anything... they did some database trolling and got connections that they WERE LOOKING FOR...
I think there are some interesting brain foodstuff there, thanks MarcUK. However, personally, I have been through a whole range of complex abstract thinking and magick and spirituality and medical issues in the past 5 years. I can't grasp the absolutism of a certain point of view, but I appreciate the arguments presented and take it into consideration in my global/universal abstract existential ponderings. I like the sense of mystery about things though, that's kinda cool.
There is also a statistical correlation of cancer in women who while pregnant drank alcohol.
There is no (real) causative connection just a statistical one, and one which disappears when you consider the size of the database you are looking at...
I don't think these israeli scientist discovered anything... they did some database trolling and got connections that they WERE LOOKING FOR...
Wait... so they formed a hypothesis, looked for evidence pro/con, formed a statistical model that showed strong casual correlation, and got it published in a peer reviewed journal.
You're absolutely right, that's *nothing* like science.
Wait... so they formed a hypothesis, looked for evidence pro/con, formed a statistical model that showed strong casual correlation, and got it published in a peer reviewed journal.
You're absolutely right, that's *nothing* like science.
No Kickaha.
Causal correlation?
hardly.
They showed a correlation. But what does that mean? Nothing. It is database trolling. Alcohol consumption while pregnant and cancer shows a strong correlation. Is it causal? hell no.
So enough with the bullshit already, ok? Database trolling does not give causitive data. It gives correlations that mean essentially nothing.
What I find amusing about the first article is that it is not the sun that is the proposed cause of seasonal fluctuations of schizophrenia, but the failure of mother's to produce vitamin D -- I still think the seasonal viral infections makes the most sense. The significance of this should be clear, the sun does not predictively cause anything...
There are other sources of vitamin D, marc which are MORE significant than sunlight.
essentially what the NS article is conveying is this.
People who are borderline 'infertile' or borderline 'genetically challenged' to put it 'politically correctly' are more likely to get pregnant during the summer months - because they are expending less energy because life is easier during this time and this tips them into being fertile or 'more fertile' - therefore these people are birthing in late winter - thus the 'problematic' genetic traits they possess are passed on to their offspring - so there will be a greater number of say schitzophrenics born in late winter than the rest of the year. It isn't saying that everyone born in late winter is schitzo - its saying that there is increased likelyhood.
The mechanism is there, its known to be fact (genetics) the reasoning IS sensible and data collected appears to correlate this hypothesis - therefore the SUN IS a major factor in determining the character of these people. Not everyone - but a significant enough number of them to make the connection.
You may disagree, but there is nothing voodoo about the hypothesis or the data. The sun can affect the personality of people through their genetics.
This being established - one can wonder considering how important the Sun is to life on Earth, that there are more solar/biological/genetic connections that we might discover. I believe I have seen evidence to say 'Yes' this is a possibility.
If for instance a mechanism is discovered that can subtly alter the genetics of a person/foetus conceiving/ed on a monthly basis - maybe the periodic rotation of the sun being 28days thus we are exposed to a huge periodic rotating magnet per month AND IT IS KNOWN THAT MAGNETS CAN AFFECT BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS - then you might have a scientific way of understanding some peoples personality - if you could show that people born in (say) march* are displaying a tendancy to be (say) more likely to be 'artistic' or 'agressive' than average - and you would have a scientific model for understanding why so many cultures have ERRONEOUSLY attributed these traits to astrology or the positioning of planets.
*of course, this would be a massive oversimplification - because the suns rotations do not divide equally into a year, so any trait discovered in March one year would slowly drift out of line in the next year and the error would accumulate so that in a decade or so, the March trait would appear in February or April. Thus if it could be shown scientifically to be making a statistical difference - you would PROVE that Astrology IS a load of bollocks.
I dont know if this is true, somewhat true, false or complete bullshit. Take it with an open mind and a large pinch of salt. Take it as you find it. Bear in mind that this is ultimately attempting to explain a 'tendancy' - not a trait or fact for every person alive.
Personally, I think it 'possible' that it is "somewhat true", I dont see anything voodoo here. - though I think there are errors - for instance I outlined one above - that this tendancy should in theory 'drift' because the suns rotation period of 28 days does not divide equally into a year of 365.24 days.
Also as we are talking about periods of 28 days - Modern astrology is completely wrong (as you would expect) because there are 13 periods of 28 days in a year with 1.24 days remaining . This is obviously an error or overlook on the part of this book - and one wonders if infact, the older calendars/astrological systems that had 13 months are indeed more correct.
I dont know if this is true, somewhat true, false or complete bullshit. Take it with an open mind and a large pinch of salt. Take it as you find it. Bear in mind that this is ultimately attempting to explain a 'tendancy' - not a trait or fact for every person alive.
Personally, I think it 'possible' that it is "somewhat true", I dont see anything voodoo here. - though I think there are errors - for instance I outlined one above - that this tendancy should in theory 'drift' because the suns rotation period of 28 days does not divide equally into a year of 365.24 days.
Also as we are talking about periods of 28 days - Modern astrology is completely wrong (as you would expect) because there are 13 periods of 28 days in a year with 1.24 days remaining . This is obviously an error or overlook on the part of this book - and one wonders if infact, the older calendars/astrological systems that had 13 months are indeed more correct.
Heh.
Is it even proven that magnetic fields cause mutations?
(It isn't. Static fields have actually been shown NOT to cause mutations).
It is even funnier because they are suggesting that this is a common way for personalities to differentiate -- that there are soooo many mutations that affect exactly the same genes during certain times of the year...
Minor early morning dislyexia... You can't seriously suggest you wouldn't make a similar mistake.
Actually, I'd make damned sure I knew what I was responding to before calling it bullshit, because doing so when you're wrong just makes you look like a fool.
Quote:
Regardless my point stands.
Doubly so when you can't own up to your error like an adult.
Comments
here I created a graph showing periods 1,2,3,7,27,51 of oscillation. God must love me, because I had no Idea it would illustrate my point on the first try!
I dont want to claim anything - this is just to demonstrate what 'can' happen with modes of oscillation are added.
The period I've labelled 'high' average - could be representative of the solar activity we have experienced for a few thousand years
even in this period - you still get some troughs that could be representative of a couple of hundred year of lows - that might wipe out your civilization if it appeared and depended on the average cycle being high.
The period i've labelled 'low' average - could be representative of solar activity we could expect in the next few thousand years
The crash i've labelled shows that you can have long periods of high averages followed by long periods of low averages - and there is one single defining event between them - a high peak followed by a spectacular crash - could this be where we are at the moment - looking at the graph I nicked from wiki. ?
Its a question not a statement.
This post was so interesting that I had to join in order to participate in the discussion.
It has finally taken an article from the NS to root out these theories/hypotheses that have been on my mind for a whole bunch of time now. I have previously looked for similar articles/research on the net and returned empty-handed.
background: Been exposed to much numerology, some chinese Bazi (four pillars of destiny) and astrology. Me, I'm a skeptic.
MarcUK, I'm glad you bring up all these points. I for one believe that the sun and its cycles somehow do effect people in some way. The chinese/indian/greek people have all observed this and it would be foolish to discount their findings just because it has yet to be proven by current science. What we really need is someone to sit down and record statistically to "prove" it.
Medicine is deemed "effective" when it works for a probably % of the people. So why shouldn't astrology/numerology be proved/disproved similarly.
I find too many "truths" and coincidences in Astrology/Numerology etc and choose to believe that it has good backing, however too much fortune telling or whatever crap that comes along with it. The concept and theory/hypotheses that stand to be proven are a great thing to look at though
welcome, i just found this article - you might find it interesting
http://www.cfos100.com/research/excitability.php
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/mayan/
These cycles don't stick to the mayan algebraic projections, they just don't.
The mayan civilization had periodic crashes over its entire history -- cities would rise and fall because they destroyed the local environment by planting shittons of the crop terrible corn. All local land will have been made non-arable causing a decline in population and loss of significance.. once you do this to everywhere you can possibly live, your city state civilization becomes a substinence village civilization, which is exactly what we see. The mayans didn't disappear, they still exist, their religion still exists, they just don't build city states. It is a matter of crop usage and not solar cycles... 2012 more than likely is the edge of the mayan calendar due to perceived but uncalculated deviations from their nice algebraic models.
I strongly suggest visiting the yucatan to get a sense of exactly what happened... you can practically see it...
http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-.../msg01353.html
"three Israeli scientists have also found surprisingly high correlations between solar
activity and psychiatric illnesses. "
Your claim of no-scientific data to back up the assertions isn't quite right - certainly its not mainstream widely accepted Science - but it exists nonetheless and im not terribly suprised to be able to find it.
(Now if only the wacko's didn't have a total monopoly on doomsday articles related to the Maya and astrogenetics this might be a much easier task)
There is no (real) causative connection just a statistical one, and one which disappears when you consider the size of the database you are looking at...
I don't think these israeli scientist discovered anything... they did some database trolling and got connections that they WERE LOOKING FOR...
There is also a statistical correlation of cancer in women who while pregnant drank alcohol.
There is no (real) causative connection just a statistical one, and one which disappears when you consider the size of the database you are looking at...
I don't think these israeli scientist discovered anything... they did some database trolling and got connections that they WERE LOOKING FOR...
Wait... so they formed a hypothesis, looked for evidence pro/con, formed a statistical model that showed strong casual correlation, and got it published in a peer reviewed journal.
You're absolutely right, that's *nothing* like science.
Wait... so they formed a hypothesis, looked for evidence pro/con, formed a statistical model that showed strong casual correlation, and got it published in a peer reviewed journal.
You're absolutely right, that's *nothing* like science.
No Kickaha.
Causal correlation?
hardly.
They showed a correlation. But what does that mean? Nothing. It is database trolling. Alcohol consumption while pregnant and cancer shows a strong correlation. Is it causal? hell no.
So enough with the bullshit already, ok? Database trolling does not give causitive data. It gives correlations that mean essentially nothing.
What I find amusing about the first article is that it is not the sun that is the proposed cause of seasonal fluctuations of schizophrenia, but the failure of mother's to produce vitamin D -- I still think the seasonal viral infections makes the most sense. The significance of this should be clear, the sun does not predictively cause anything...
and how is vitamin D produced??? :doh
No Kickaha.
Causal correlation?
Reread what I said.
CAREFULLY this time.
Casual. Not causal.
Now, would you like to reconsider your comments?
Reading comprehension is fundamental, kids!
There are other sources of vitamin D, marc which are MORE significant than sunlight.
essentially what the NS article is conveying is this.
People who are borderline 'infertile' or borderline 'genetically challenged' to put it 'politically correctly' are more likely to get pregnant during the summer months - because they are expending less energy because life is easier during this time and this tips them into being fertile or 'more fertile' - therefore these people are birthing in late winter - thus the 'problematic' genetic traits they possess are passed on to their offspring - so there will be a greater number of say schitzophrenics born in late winter than the rest of the year. It isn't saying that everyone born in late winter is schitzo - its saying that there is increased likelyhood.
The mechanism is there, its known to be fact (genetics) the reasoning IS sensible and data collected appears to correlate this hypothesis - therefore the SUN IS a major factor in determining the character of these people. Not everyone - but a significant enough number of them to make the connection.
You may disagree, but there is nothing voodoo about the hypothesis or the data. The sun can affect the personality of people through their genetics.
This being established - one can wonder considering how important the Sun is to life on Earth, that there are more solar/biological/genetic connections that we might discover. I believe I have seen evidence to say 'Yes' this is a possibility.
If for instance a mechanism is discovered that can subtly alter the genetics of a person/foetus conceiving/ed on a monthly basis - maybe the periodic rotation of the sun being 28days thus we are exposed to a huge periodic rotating magnet per month AND IT IS KNOWN THAT MAGNETS CAN AFFECT BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS - then you might have a scientific way of understanding some peoples personality - if you could show that people born in (say) march* are displaying a tendancy to be (say) more likely to be 'artistic' or 'agressive' than average - and you would have a scientific model for understanding why so many cultures have ERRONEOUSLY attributed these traits to astrology or the positioning of planets.
*of course, this would be a massive oversimplification - because the suns rotations do not divide equally into a year, so any trait discovered in March one year would slowly drift out of line in the next year and the error would accumulate so that in a decade or so, the March trait would appear in February or April. Thus if it could be shown scientifically to be making a statistical difference - you would PROVE that Astrology IS a load of bollocks.
click the next button at the top of the page to progress.
http://uk.msnusers.com/Astrostuff/sh...hoto&PhotoID=7
I dont know if this is true, somewhat true, false or complete bullshit. Take it with an open mind and a large pinch of salt. Take it as you find it. Bear in mind that this is ultimately attempting to explain a 'tendancy' - not a trait or fact for every person alive.
Personally, I think it 'possible' that it is "somewhat true", I dont see anything voodoo here. - though I think there are errors - for instance I outlined one above - that this tendancy should in theory 'drift' because the suns rotation period of 28 days does not divide equally into a year of 365.24 days.
Also as we are talking about periods of 28 days - Modern astrology is completely wrong (as you would expect) because there are 13 periods of 28 days in a year with 1.24 days remaining . This is obviously an error or overlook on the part of this book - and one wonders if infact, the older calendars/astrological systems that had 13 months are indeed more correct.
Reread what I said.
CAREFULLY this time.
Casual. Not causal.
Now, would you like to reconsider your comments?
Reading comprehension is fundamental, kids!
Minor early morning dislyexia... You can't seriously suggest you wouldn't make a similar mistake.
Regardless my point stands.
After some 'grief'
click the next button at the top of the page to progress.
http://uk.msnusers.com/Astrostuff/sh...hoto&PhotoID=7
I dont know if this is true, somewhat true, false or complete bullshit. Take it with an open mind and a large pinch of salt. Take it as you find it. Bear in mind that this is ultimately attempting to explain a 'tendancy' - not a trait or fact for every person alive.
Personally, I think it 'possible' that it is "somewhat true", I dont see anything voodoo here. - though I think there are errors - for instance I outlined one above - that this tendancy should in theory 'drift' because the suns rotation period of 28 days does not divide equally into a year of 365.24 days.
Also as we are talking about periods of 28 days - Modern astrology is completely wrong (as you would expect) because there are 13 periods of 28 days in a year with 1.24 days remaining . This is obviously an error or overlook on the part of this book - and one wonders if infact, the older calendars/astrological systems that had 13 months are indeed more correct.
Heh.
Is it even proven that magnetic fields cause mutations?
(It isn't. Static fields have actually been shown NOT to cause mutations).
It is even funnier because they are suggesting that this is a common way for personalities to differentiate -- that there are soooo many mutations that affect exactly the same genes during certain times of the year...
Hehehehhehehh.. Hahahah... oh dear...
Minor early morning dislyexia... You can't seriously suggest you wouldn't make a similar mistake.
Actually, I'd make damned sure I knew what I was responding to before calling it bullshit, because doing so when you're wrong just makes you look like a fool.
Regardless my point stands.
Doubly so when you can't own up to your error like an adult.