Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Our mysterious moon

60 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Abramelin

Rossignol et al. (1998) emphasize the role of electromagnetic phenomena linked to lunar cycles (polarization of light, atmospheric pressure) and consider there may be a link with the induction of bio-electric potentials at the cell level.85

Nevertheless, all these discoveries and interpretations on a physical level do not explain why such differences are observed between certain living plant species, annual or woody.

LINK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
19 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I have googled for like 30 minutes to find something about the Moon's polarized light and its influence on germinating. All I could find was something from 1926:

https://www.chamorroroots.com/v7/index.php/pubs-projects/49-taotao-tano/history/358-planting-by-the-moon-and-tide

 

And this was the paper (by a Dutch scientist, S.W.Tromp) I was looking for:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4621281/

Alas, no abstract available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
11 hours ago, Abramelin said:

And this was the paper (by a Dutch scientist, S.W.Tromp) I was looking for:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4621281/

Alas, no abstract available.

Hmm.  From his Wiki...

Quote

Tromp took a deep interest in dowsing and radiesthesia. He conducted experiments and came to the conclusion that dowsing is a real phenomenon due to activity of electromagnetic fields. His views on dowsing were criticized by the scientific community and have been described by critics as an example of pseudoscience.

Radiesthesia is the belief that some people are sensitive to unspecified 'radiation' that tunes them into things like where to find underground water (dowsing), or illnesses or guilt...  In other words, it doesn't pass the test of peer review, nor has any convincing evidence ever been shown.

As an aside, my dear old grandpa was a dowser back in the 50's and 60's.  But he gleefully admitted to family and close friends that he had no 'powers' whatsoever.  He was nevertheless in high demand in his region.  That region is laced with lots of underground water, so his success was virtually guaranteed, helped along by a reasonable knowledge of geology, local terrain and existing groundwater...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

You haven't read Tromp's books, that much is obvious.

I have 2 of his books in my library. This guy was a true scientist, and willing to do research on topics no one else wanted to burn his/her fingers on. His conclusions may have been wrong, but he was no idiot.

You should not forget WHEN he did his research, his experiments.

 

 

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
48 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

You haven't read Tromp's books, that much is obvious.

NO, I go for the properly evidenced stuff.  There *have* been attempts to replicate this stuff, but no such supporting evidence has been found.  (Although many examples have been shown on how people in those golden olden days were suckered...)

Quote

I have 2 of his books in my library.

Whoopee.  You do know that some books are fiction, don't you?  And that, as above, in the good ole days people were quite easily fooled or simply mistaken, and generally we have no way to check the full nature and methodology of his work.  But do feel free to quote stuff, or point us to any peer-reviewed studies that show any of this to be true.  After all, there is MONEY to be made if any of it is true.

Quote

This guy was a true scientist

???? What does that mean, exactly, and how would you support that statement to someone like me who has actually worked in the sciences and knows just how much bull**** is out there..?  Back then, many folks believed there work was impeccable when it was not even close- would you like me to give some examples? (cough J.B. Rhine /cough)

Quote

and willing to do research on topics no one else wanted to burn his/her fingers on.

Ah, here we go, the brave scientist, shunned by his peers....  They also laughed at Bozo the Clown...

Quote

His conclusions may have been wrong, but he was no idiot.

So... what?  You are now admitting that his work was flawed, but .....  oh dear.  I give up.

I didn't call him an idiot.  You clearly need to inject emotion into the debate and then make up rubbish and argue with yourself..?  Have at it.  And to use your tactics - how dare you call my grandpa an idiot..

Quote

You should not forget WHEN he did his research, his experiments.

You mean - so long ago that they SHOULD have been replicated since, if real?

 

Yes, I agree.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Why do you behave like some prick? I thought you could do lots better than that?

And who injected emotion into this thread? You, right? You almost appear to be screaming here, being emotional and all that.

Jesus.

 

 

 

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Rossignol et al. (1998) emphasize the role of electromagnetic phenomena linked to lunar cycles (polarization of light, atmospheric pressure) and consider there may be a link with the induction of bio-electric potentials at the cell level.85

Nevertheless, all these discoveries and interpretations on a physical level do not explain why such differences are observed between certain living plant species, annual or woody.

LINK

 

Maybe you like to respond to that post of mine?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
45 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Maybe you like to respond to that post of mine?

Rossignol's study is not outlined in any meaningful way, and as you quoted "there MAY BE a link".... :) 

If you read the page you referred to, did you not notice that it not a peer reviewed paper, and is a dreaded meta-study that Gish gallops from study to study with no links or in depth data, other than some rather unconvincing graphs.

It is enormously long-winded and includes MANY quotes like these:

Quote

 

This would seem to indicate the possible existence of real phenomena

A portion of superstition probably added itself, as soon as precise and objective observation gave way to the blind acceptance of traditional maxims. The change from oral to written transmission probably added its share of distortions.

If certain phenomena were to be confirmed, even partially, we would find ourselves enriched by a great treasure born of the centuries-long contact of humans with nature

These periodicities were subsequently confirmed, but also differentiated several times  {????}

Despite these results, the author of these trials declared that it was extremely improbable that the moon had any influence, while admitting methodological flaws

The results, which were unfortunately not published according to present-day scientific standards

systematic short-period variations could explain the apparent divergence 

 all these discoveries and interpretations on a physical level do not explain why such differences are observed between certain living plant species, annual or woody.

 

These are just some of the 'provisos'....   Any questions?

Like I said earlier, there is NO scientific consensus (other than the factors already mentioned - eg moonlight levels do affect some organisms, and of course tidal effects will influence tidal plants).   And clearly, a lot of research has been attempted, according to your own link - it is NOT suppressed or hidden.  There simply is no convincingly reliable replication of these studies, and apparently no recommendations to agronomists or farmers...  Why do you think that is?  AGAIN, why don't farmers actually do this, if it's significant?  They aren't idiots. :D  Please answer my question.

 

Anyways, Merry Christmas.  No need for angst.

And please keep on topic..  That other thread you mentioned was about MARS and it was abandoned as you didn't address anything Waspie Dwarf said.  It seems to be your Modus Operandi.

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

First this:

 TL;DR; There are studies that do show at least some correlation between lunar cycles and germination and plant life cycles. However, the correlation is rather complex, and apparently species-dependent.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Second:

I had no intention to go off topic, I just wanted to show you that some 'crazy' ideas are sometimes not that crazy after all.

Actually, I found it quite crazy myself, only to discover a someone actually supported the ideas using math and physics.

And I did answer Waspie, to the best I could bring up.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Third:

The effect may not be lasting. Let's say that I sow acorns during full moon, and during new moon. The first ones may germinate faster than the second ones. But that doesn't mean the first ones grow 30 yards in 5 years times, or that the second ones grow to only bonsai height during that time.

So, the effect may not be lasting, and thus no forester nor farmer will adapt their work according to the phases of the moon. Why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
On 7/2/2020 at 3:03 AM, openozy said:

Being a gardener it is well known that's seeds germinate better during a full moon,sounds a bit out there and hippy drippy but is a fact.

Do you have any personal experience you'd like to share?

You know, what species, when, where, and so on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Fourth:

Merry Christmass to all of you!

:D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
3 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Do you have any personal experience you'd like to share?

You know, what species, when, where, and so on?

Not about that, LOL. Merry Christmas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin
4 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Do you have any personal experience you'd like to share?

You know, what species, when, where, and so on?

My question was about herbs, trees, you know: green stuff.

Not so much about what you dorked lately, hahaha!

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

My question was about herbs, trees, you know: green stuff.

Not so much about what you dorked lately, hahaha!

 

 

It's all about da herb mahn.

Edited by openozy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

Da herb... aaahh....

Thàt herb, heh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
On 12/23/2020 at 9:45 AM, ChrLzs said:

If it was a significant effect, don't you think that ALL farmers would use this

And you would think all farmers would care for their land, the environment and the negative effects farming has. The truth is most are dumb,inbred environmental vandals with dollar signs in their eyes, lol.

Edited by openozy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
18 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Da herb... aaahh....

Thàt herb, heh.

 

:innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 7/1/2020 at 4:37 AM, Coil said:

Even if you remove this word, nothing will change. Their calculations were so accurate that they even knew the shape of a disk-shaped galaxy that without exact devices it is impossible to establish. And  who knows why animals on earth are such? And astrology gives knowledge that animal species, birds and man were formed under the influence of the main constellations Aries, Leo, Eagle and Sagittarius. And these animals and the human face are depicted in the image of the sphinx (the keeper of holiness) and the image of cherubs that specify the types of formations of creatures.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

409086.jpg

image.jpg

 

Completely false. Astrologers do not calculate. They make up stuff. Astrology has failed and will never ever be anything other than a pre-science guess that turned out to be wrong

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 12/22/2020 at 2:46 PM, openozy said:

Good find, this is a prime example of how science ignores or puts aside anything that can't be explained. Anything  paranormal has no chance of being accepted at this stage, they really need to get their heads out of the sand to stop slowing our growth as a species.

This is the sort of foolish banter we expect to hear from those that champion failed ideas. They pretend science has rejected their ideas. That is never the case.

If there were anything of value then there would be evidence. So far nothing, zilch, nada

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

There are testable issues inn this article:

Quote

The Moon revolves at exactly one hundredth of the speed that the Earth turns on its axis. It is also precisely 400 times smaller than the Sun and exactly 400 times closer to the Earth. Patterns and number sequences are consistent when looking at all of the Moon's major aspects, contrary to the inconsistencies of all other planets and moons in our solar system. If you divide the circumference of the Sun by that of the Moon and multiply by 100 you get the polar circumference of the Earth.

Let's check these numbers out."The Moon revolves at exactly one hundredth of the speed that the Earth turns on its axis."

This of course is wacko. Te Earth turns on its axis in 24 hours - by definition. What is this "speed that the Earth turns on its axis"? Are they talking the speed of a point on the equator? That's about 1000mph. The Moon's orbital speed, the speed at which it revolves around the Earth is roughly 1kps. Let's be reasonable and do this in metric. The Earth has a circumference of close to 40,000 km. It turns in 24 hours.

40000km/24hr = 0.46 km/s

No match

Let's check this out: It is also precisely 400 times smaller than the Sun and exactly 400 times closer to the Earth.

By volume and mass the claim of 400 times smaller is a failure. Okay, they mean angular size.

If this were true then all eclipses would be the same but they are not. Some offer totality wile others are ring.

No match.

The circumference of the sun is 109 times the circumference of the Earth. Hmmm.

No match.

 

When there are claims of exactly it is a good policy to see if there is some BS afoot.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
3 hours ago, stereologist said:

This is the sort of foolish banter we expect to hear from those that champion failed ideas. They pretend science has rejected their ideas. That is never the case.

If there were anything of value then there would be evidence. So far nothing, zilch, nada

 

It's proven in actual real life situations, you should walk out of the house occasionally and smell the roses and take your academic moron mates with you, you may actually see it with your own eyes. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, openozy said:

It's proven in actual real life situations, you should walk out of the house occasionally and smell the roses and take your academic moron mates with you, you may actually see it with your own eyes. :yes:

Do you have any evidence or is this just another of your garbage blatherings of no value?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.