Some ChronoAstroBiology Evidence (as requested by DrKitten)

[BeholdTheTruth]

http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501X01_Halberg_w.pdf

Note: major research in "ChronoAstroBiology" was initiated by world-famous medical researcher Dr. Franz Halberg (who coined the term "circadian rhythm") and is highly endorsed by such engineering giants as Earl Elmer Bakken, inventor of the first transitorized cardiac pacemaker.

[athon]

Firstly, it matters little who makes the claim. The claim itself must stand. It isn't uncommon for figures who have offered valuable contributions to the scientific world to go on to make certain outlandish, unsupported claims. It is a shame, as it demonstrates that earlier, successful work found support with evidence in spite of an obvious disregard for the scientific method. Occasionally it seems to be an effort to magnify earlier discoveries beyond their worth.

As might be the case here.

From what I understand of this report, it is a speculation that biological rhythms can form under the influence of stimuli as diverse as planetary magnetic fields and sunspots. All well and good to speculate, however there is no evidence that such things do influence our biology.

All of what he says in this paper is either researched historical debate, conjecture, musings over apparent patterns in statistics... things that are more woo than science. It's little different to cherry picking interesting patterns. In some instances, there might be valid reasons. Such as the variations in cicada pupation over a number of years. However, to make a direct correlation between such a pattern and solar activity or magnetic fields is stretching it, especially where there is no evidence and there are more likely reasons.

Maybe somebody should one day write a book, 'When Good Scientists Go Bad'.

Athon

[BeholdTheTruth]

Your response below reminds me of an incident many years ago that has haunted me ever since... I was talking to a very intelligent and well-educated person, and I said to him something like "a implies b, yes"? And he said "yes." And then I said, "b implies c, yes?" And he again said, "yes." And then I said, "And thus a implies c, yes?" And he said, No!" And when I asked him,"How could that be?" he responded that there must be something wrong with my logic because, "a could never possibly imply c." Which to me indicated that he simply did not like where my logic led. Note that the above conclusion did not contradict either a implying b or b implying c, and note also that I was only asking him to consider the logical conclusion further -- instead of immediatelly dismissing it out of hand, ala, Aristotle's, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."







Firstly, it matters little who makes the claim. The claim itself must stand. It isn't uncommon for figures who have offered valuable contributions to the scientific world to go on to make certain outlandish, unsupported claims. It is a shame, as it demonstrates that earlier, successful work found support with evidence in spite of an obvious disregard for the scientific method. Occasionally it seems to be an effort to magnify earlier discoveries beyond their worth.

As might be the case here.

From what I understand of this report, it is a speculation that biological rhythms can form under the influence of stimuli as diverse as planetary magnetic fields and sunspots. All well and good to speculate, however there is no evidence that such things do influence our biology.

All of what he says in this paper is either researched historical debate, conjecture, musings over apparent patterns in statistics... things that are more woo than science. It's little different to cherry picking interesting patterns. In some instances, there might be valid reasons. Such as the variations in cicada pupation over a number of years. However, to make a direct correlation between such a pattern and solar activity or magnetic fields is stretching it, especially where there is no evidence and there are more likely reasons.

Maybe somebody should one day write a book, 'When Good Scientists Go Bad'.

Athon

[hgc]

Your response below reminds me of an incident many years ago that has haunted me ever since... I was talking to a very intelligent and well-educated person, and I said to him something like "a implies b, yes"? And he said "yes." And then I said, "b implies c, yes?" And he again said, "yes." And then I said, "And thus a implies c, yes?" And he said, No!" And when I asked him,"How could that be?" he responded that there must be something wrong with my logic because, "a could never possibly imply c." Which to me indicated that he simply did not like where my logic led. Note that the above conclusion did not contradict either a implying b or b implying c, and note also that I was only asking him to consider the logical conclusion further -- instead of immediatelly dismissing it out of hand, ala, Aristotle's, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."That's an interesting story. Could you please identify a, b and c in athon's post? I can't.

[BeholdTheTruth]

I said "reminds me". Can you please identify where I said a, b, and c are in athon's post?

Originally Posted by hgc View Original:

That's an interesting story. Could you please identify a, b and c in athon's post? I can't.

[hgc]

I said "reminds me". Can you please identify where I said a, b, and c are in athon's post?No. I just don't know then why it's relevant. What about athon's post "reminds" you of an experience with an allegedly illogical intellectual?

[R.Mackey]

Couple of quick observations:

1. This paper was never reviewed. Submission and acceptance dates are too close together.

2. If you're willing to consider all scales of nature from the subatomic to the extragalactic, you can find rhythmic patterns of virtually every frequency and phase you want. Without identifying a mechanism, the whole paper is one huge post hoc, ergo prompter hoc exercise.

3. Mechanism is important. Just for example take the proposal that "sunspots lead to cholera." Well, sunspots also are linked to solar output and climate on Earth -- things that might very plausibly influence disease vectors.

In summary, this might be worth some follow-up investigation, but unless you can find those missing links this doesn't (and can't) prove a thing.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Much thanks. This is exactly the kind of reasoned critique I was looking for!


Couple of quick observations:

1. This paper was never reviewed. Submission and acceptance dates are too close together.

2. If you're willing to consider all scales of nature from the subatomic to the extragalactic, you can find rhythmic patterns of virtually every frequency and phase you want. Without identifying a mechanism, the whole paper is one huge post hoc, ergo prompter hoc exercise.

3. Mechanism is important. Just for example take the proposal that "sunspots lead to cholera." Well, sunspots also are linked to solar output and climate on Earth -- things that might very plausibly influence disease vectors.

In summary, this might be worth some follow-up investigation, but unless you can find those missing links this doesn't (and can't) prove a thing.

[athon]

instead of immediatelly dismissing it out of hand, ala, Aristotle's, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Forgiving the irrelevant little trip down memory lane, I'll respond to the last line.

Hey, look, entertain me. Give me reasons to believe it. I'm all ears. However, as I said, the paper offers me nothing. Pattern 'A' matches Pattern 'C' is barely a starting place for investigation. But if it doesn't move past that, you have nothing. As what this paper does.

It's not 'dismissed out of hand'. There's nothing in hand, other than some musings of a gentleman who previously went further than speculation to provide us with a useful scientific theory.

Athon

[UndercoverElephant]

This maybe a stupid question but....evidence of what?

I'm not a big fan of Dr Kitten, but I found that article completely incomprehensible and not evidence of much I could decipher.

[BeholdTheTruth]

How about this one...

http://winstone.us/watanabe_nel03.pdf ?


This maybe a stupid question but....evidence of what?

I'm not a big fan of Dr Kitten, but I found that article completely incomprehensible and not evidence of much I could decipher.

[c4ts]

Maybe somebody should one day write a book, 'When Good Scientists Go Bad'.


It's 1903. René-Prosper Blondlot is conducting experiments with X-Rays. Or so we think. Dun dun dun! (lightning strikes) N-rays!

Meet Blaise Pascal, a mild-mannered mathematician and natural philosopher, making breakthrough progress in fluid dynamics and mathematics. But then, suddenly, dun dun dun! Pascal's Wager!

Alex Gurwitsch is a Russian scientist on the verge of an important discovery. No, it's not biophotonics, it's morphogenic field theory!

Nicola Tesla was an eccentric inventor. He is also a spiritualist and, uh, obsessed with the number three for no apparent reason. And today he is about to make conspiracy theory history. Dun dun dun! The dynamic theory of gravity!

[BeholdTheTruth]

Yes, sometimes even great scientists fall off scientific cliffs.

On the other hand, prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible. While, a relatively few scientists without empirical evidence believed otherwise.

And as I also recall Lord Kelvin had a view of physics in which the idea of quantum bundles of energy was more woo-woo than good science.

Therefore, are you saying that until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is not possible? Or are you saying that until something is accepted by the establishment, it is not acceptable, at least per further logical speculation and scientific exploration?


It's 1903. René-Prosper Blondlot is conducting experiments with X-Rays. Or so we think. Dun dun dun! (lightning strikes) N-rays!

Meet Blaise Pascal, a mild-mannered mathematician and natural philosopher, making breakthrough progress in fluid dynamics and mathematics. But then, suddenly, dun dun dun! Pascal's Wager!

Alex Gurwitsch is a Russian scientist on the verge of an important discovery. No, it's not biophotonics, it's morphogenic field theory!

Nicola Tesla was an eccentric inventor. He is also a spiritualist and, uh, obsessed with the number three for no apparent reason. And today he is about to make conspiracy theory history. Dun dun dun! The dynamic theory of gravity!

[c4ts]

Yes, sometimes even great scientists fall off scientific cliffs.

On the other hand, prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible. While, a relatively few scientists without empirical evidence believed otherwise.

And as I also recall Lord Kelvin had a view of physics in which the idea of quantum bundles of energy was more woo-woo than good science.

Therefore, are you saying that until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is not possible? Or are you saying that until something is accepted by the establishment, it is not acceptable, at least per further logical speculation and scientific exploration?

No. These are examples of pathological science, except in the case of Pascal because Pascal's wager isn't even remotely scientific. Establishment and outlandishness alone is not the only reason that these theories were disproven. For example, the problem with N-rays was that only Blondot could see them. This would be like if the Wright Brothers could only fly when nobody else was looking, and they were the only ones who could do it. So even if heavier than air flight were later found to be possible, they're not exactly helping. So if we do find something called N-rays, it's not thanks to Blondot, he's still mistaken, his experiments can't be duplicated, and it's a coincidence.

[BeholdTheTruth]

The only problem that I have with what you are saying is that you are looking at those fiascos only in retrospect. What I am saying is that at the time there were reasons to further explore what would end up being silly notions. And I am saying that there are always good reasons to explore what seem like silly notions because some of those silly notions end up being correct, and when they are correct, science advances greatly.

The problem is when and how much time to put into apparently silly notions? I am inclined to believe that the degree of sillinessness/odd duckness is not always a good yardstick. You are likely to disagree. My way keeps the door open to huge breakthroughs, your way keeps it tight shut. I believe it is also the difference between being too trusting and being too skeptical -- Type I vs. Type II errors or vice versa. :-)


No. These are examples of pathological science, except in the case of Pascal because Pascal's wager isn't even remotely scientific. Establishment and outlandishness alone is not the only reason that these theories were disproven. For example, the problem with N-rays was that only Blondot could see them. This would be like if the Wright Brothers could only fly when nobody else was looking, and they were the only ones who could do it. So even if heavier than air flight were later found to be possible, they're not exactly helping. So if we do find something called N-rays, it's not thanks to Blondot, he's still mistaken, his experiments can't be duplicated, and it's a coincidence.

[c4ts]

The only problem that I have with what you are saying is that you are looking at those fiascos only in retrospect. What I am saying is that at the time there were reasons to further explore what would end up being silly notions.

Well I can't use examples from the future that haven't happened yet! The point is even geniuses can be wrong, and a reputation does not validate scientific theory. Therefore you would want a heavy dose of skepticism to avoid future errors along those same lines. Or do you object to learning from past mistakes?

[R.Mackey]

Yes, sometimes even great scientists fall off scientific cliffs.

On the other hand, prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible. While, a relatively few scientists without empirical evidence believed otherwise.
For the record, this analogy is false. Virtually all scientists not only believed it was possible, but thought it would happen soon. The Wright Brothers had several competitors, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_Samuel_Langley.htm), who had already demonstrated heavier-than-air flight. What he hadn't done was built a scaled-up model that could carry a human being. And he might have beat the Wright Brothers to it, if he hadn't insisted upon launching from a houseboat.

The Wright Brothers were consummate engineers, who researched the best knowledge of the time, built models, simplified their problem, and ultimately succeeded. They were focused, meticulous, and dedicated. They were not mavericks challenging the scientific establishment.

Carry on.

[BeholdTheTruth]

For the record, it is you distort the situation! As can be determined from some fine recent biographies on the subject. Langley was as close to inventing aeronautics as you are to knowing all the facts.

It is true that here were maverick scientists who thought flight was possible -- without proof, mind you, but legions of scientists were proving nothing of the sort could happen.

And yes the Wright brothers were meticulous... but the facts are clear that two bicycle mechanics pretty much all on their own invented the discipline of aeronautics, not any of the science establishment or the science mavericks. Perchamnce, are you part of the science establishment? :-)

For the record, this analogy is false. Virtually all scientists not only believed it was possible, but thought it would happen soon. The Wright Brothers had several competitors, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_Samuel_Langley.htm), who had already demonstrated heavier-than-air flight. What he hadn't done was built a scaled-up model that could carry a human being. And he might have beat the Wright Brothers to it, if he hadn't insisted upon launching from a houseboat.

The Wright Brothers were consummate engineers, who researched the best knowledge of the time, built models, simplified their problem, and ultimately succeeded. They were focused, meticulous, and dedicated. They were not mavericks challenging the scientific establishment.

Carry on.

[R.Mackey]

For the record, it is you distort the situation! As can be determined from some fine recent biographies on the subject. Langley was as close to inventing aeronautics as you are to knowing all the facts.
I have advanced degrees in aeronautics, and I am a scientist working for NASA.

You are a liar. I distorted nothing. Prove me wrong.

[athon]

It's 1903. René-Prosper Blondlot is conducting experiments with X-Rays. Or so we think. Dun dun dun! (lightning strikes) N-rays!

Meet Blaise Pascal, a mild-mannered mathematician and natural philosopher, making breakthrough progress in fluid dynamics and mathematics. But then, suddenly, dun dun dun! Pascal's Wager!

Alex Gurwitsch is a Russian scientist on the verge of an important discovery. No, it's not biophotonics, it's morphogenic field theory!

Nicola Tesla was an eccentric inventor. He is also a spiritualist and, uh, obsessed with the number three for no apparent reason. And today he is about to make conspiracy theory history. Dun dun dun! The dynamic theory of gravity!


Serious question; is there a book out there on a topic such as this?

If not, I get dibs on writing it!

This would make a rather good reference text, I think.

Athon

[athon]

Therefore, are you saying that until something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is not possible? Or are you saying that until something is accepted by the establishment, it is not acceptable, at least per further logical speculation and scientific exploration?

Until something is proven with ample evidence, it is not useful. All of those claimed models c4ts mentioned fell down because they did not accumulate enough evidence in relation to the observed phemonena they served to describe.

Speculation is free. Turning it into a useful model costs a little more.

Athon

[athon]

For the record, it is you distort the situation! As can be determined from some fine recent biographies on the subject. Langley was as close to inventing aeronautics as you are to knowing all the facts.

It is true that here were maverick scientists who thought flight was possible -- without proof, mind you, but legions of scientists were proving nothing of the sort could happen.

And yes the Wright brothers were meticulous... but the facts are clear that two bicycle mechanics pretty much all on their own invented the discipline of aeronautics, not any of the science establishment or the science mavericks. Perchamnce, are you part of the science establishment? :-)

What sort of mumbling nonsense is this? 'Maverick scientists'? What the...?

Flight was obviously possible. Birds - heavier than air - did it just fine. The clues on 'how' were elusive, but it was clear that it was possible for a very long time.

Today, the Wright brothers would be called engineers. Just because they didn't wear lab coats and worked for a university means little. However, the evolution of flight was just that; a steady evolution. They didn't invent the whole thing from scratch, but read the studies available and melded it with their own knowledge.

Ultimately, the point is that claims stand alone, without the bias of who postulates them. If the claim has evidence to support it, it is worthy of exploring. If it has little, than there is less incentive to pursue as a potential model for exploring the universe.

That's it!

Now, this astrochronobiology does not seem to have anything more than conjecture to back it up. That's where the argument stands; not who, or when, or who agrees, but what the substance of the claim is.

Could evidence be found in the future to support this notion? Perhaps. Until then, it is at best a prenatal model without much more use than a baby is in a management meeting.

Athon

[BeholdTheTruth]

Glad to see we are back on thread. I think there is a basic two-part question here, using chronoastrobiology merely as an example...

Whether we are talking about an individual person, or a collective of some sort, scientific, religious, or otherwise, at what point do you pay attention to something that you previously did not pay attention to, and at what point do you stop paying attention to something that you have been paying attention to? As, enough "evidence to support it" is not sufficient enough alone to explain why people stop paying attention to x and start paying attention to y (we have enough evidence from the behavior of religious people individually and collectively to see that), I would expect that this question has been raised here before at a level worthy of attention. Can anyone here point me to proposed answers in threads and, perhaps, some good books on the subject?



What sort of mumbling nonsense is this? 'Maverick scientists'? What the...?

Flight was obviously possible. Birds - heavier than air - did it just fine. The clues on 'how' were elusive, but it was clear that it was possible for a very long time.

Today, the Wright brothers would be called engineers. Just because they didn't wear lab coats and worked for a university means little. However, the evolution of flight was just that; a steady evolution. They didn't invent the whole thing from scratch, but read the studies available and melded it with their own knowledge.

Ultimately, the point is that claims stand alone, without the bias of who postulates them. If the claim has evidence to support it, it is worthy of exploring. If it has little, than there is less incentive to pursue as a potential model for exploring the universe.

That's it!

Now, this astrochronobiology does not seem to have anything more than conjecture to back it up. That's where the argument stands; not who, or when, or who agrees, but what the substance of the claim is.

Could evidence be found in the future to support this notion? Perhaps. Until then, it is at best a prenatal model without much more use than a baby is in a management meeting.

Athon

[BeholdTheTruth]

Liar, indeed. Anyone can say they have advanced degrees and work at NASA. Prove it. What degrees and from where? Can we see your transcripts? And can we talk to your bosses to find out the results of your annual reviews?

Not that that necessarily matters because ...

As for having advanced degrees, etc., as Lord Kelvin considered physics to merely be in mop up mode just a few years prior to relativitiy and QM changing the physics game more than a little bit, and as the Wright brothers had no advanced degrees and worked in a bicycle shop and as I remember a printing shop, what exactly does having degrees and where you work have to do with any of this? I have advanced degrees in aeronautics, and I am a scientist working for NASA.

You are a liar. I distorted nothing. Prove me wrong.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Per "at best a prenatal model without much more use than a baby is in a management meeting", I am inclined to think that you mean "post-natal" unless you mean "fetus". Furthermore, at the risk of using a Danish fairy-tale as a means of further disabusing you of your metaphor (or is it simile, and, in either case, "Dr." Mackey's possibly fairy-tale claims), see the end of the story called "The Emperer Has No Clothes". It might have some relevance to this discussion.


Could evidence be found in the future to support this notion? Perhaps. Until then, it is at best a prenatal model without much more use than a baby is in a management meeting.

Athon

[Mojo]

It is true that here were maverick scientists who thought flight was possible -- without proof, mind you, but legions of scientists were proving nothing of the sort could happen. Can you provide evidence that these "legions of scientists" actually existed? Names, where they published this "proof", that sort of thing.

[Roboramma]

Jackel, I'd like you to consider something.

You say that the scientific establishment thought heavier than air flight was impossible. I think that's ridiculous, but so it goes.
What I'd like to ask is, how did it then develop?
Because it seems to me that it developed by being demonstrated. No one wanted to build airplanes until there was a demonstration that they actually worked. Anyone who could do so was gauranteed fame.
Furthermore, until such a demonstration was made, the only use the idea of heavier than air flight was, was to those who wished to do the demonstrating.

So, as regards chronoastrobiology - all your comments should be addressed to chronoastrobiologists, no us. Encourage them to demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of this "new science", if/when they do so, then we'll be interested. Until then, it's just one more claim that has no support. Necessarily false? No. But as I think Athon is trying to say to you, useless until demonstrated.

[Mojo]

Yes, sometimes even great scientists fall off scientific cliffs.

On the other hand, prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible. While, a relatively few scientists without empirical evidence believed otherwise.

And as I also recall Lord Kelvin had a view of physics in which the idea of quantum bundles of energy was more woo-woo than good science.By the way, what has the fact that scientists may have got things wrong in the past got to do with evidence for "ChronoAstroBiology"? Is it your contention that because scientists were wrong in the past, and it was accepted that they were wrong when evidence emerged, we should just accept any nonsense that comes along without asking for evidence?

[athon]

Whether we are talking about an individual person, or a collective of some sort, scientific, religious, or otherwise, at what point do you pay attention to something that you previously did not pay attention to, and at what point do you stop paying attention to something that you have been paying attention to? As, enough "evidence to support it" is not sufficient enough alone to explain why people stop paying attention to x and start paying attention to y (we have enough evidence from the behavior of religious people individually and collectively to see that), I would expect that this question has been raised here before at a level worthy of attention. Can anyone here point me to proposed answers in threads and, perhaps, some good books on the subject?

There is no objective limit of evidence between 'true' and 'false'. I'd imagine there might be some books on the topic, but none come to mind immediately.

On one level, evidence influences a personal scale of confidence towards a claim. The amount of evidence which makes an individual form an opinion relies on past experiences, cultural influences and the degree of significance you personally attribute to the claim.

In a situation as this, you are entitled to form an opinion at any point. However, for you to be increasingly certain that your opinion has objective merit, evidence needs to accumulate to the point that all relative observations are accounted for by the model. If a model is proposed on the influence of zodiac signs on the birth rate of crickets, for example, then there needs to be enough evidence that accounts only for zodiac signs and birth rates of crickets being correlated. Just observing that more crickets are born when Aquarius is rising is not good enough, as this same evidence could also be used to support other models, such as seasonal variation.

When do we stop paying attention? When evidence is collected that dismisses the validity of the model. For example, using the same zodiac model, if evidence is collected that demonstrates that the placing of particular star signs is irrelevant, then the model should be abandoned.

Athon

[athon]

Per "at best a prenatal model without much more use than a baby is in a management meeting", I am inclined to think that you mean "post-natal" unless you mean "fetus".

No. I do mean 'fetus'. A fetus has potential, if it grows. However until it does, it's a rather useless thing.

Same as a model. It starts as a speculation and grows in strength while evidence accumulates. Untilt that happens, it cannot be used to make predictions, to describe nature or serve a purpose in our understanding of the universe.

Furthermore, at the risk of using a Danish fairy-tale as a means of further disabusing you of your metaphor (or is it simile, and, in either case, "Dr." Mackey's possibly fairy-tale claims), see the end of the story called "The Emperer Has No Clothes". It might have some relevance to this discussion.

Really? I don't see how.

Explain.

Athon

[BeholdTheTruth]

Ok, let me reformulate my basic question...

When are the results of scientific possible clues to something new, and when are they absolute evidence of something new? And when does one decide clues are red herrings, and when "evidence" leads nowhere sound?
By the way, what has the fact that scientists may have got things wrong in the past got to do with evidence for "ChronoAstroBiology"? Is it your contention that because scientists were wrong in the past, and it was accepted that they were wrong when evidence emerged, we should just accept any nonsense that comes along without asking for evidence?

[Aepervius]

Ok, let me reformulate my basic question...

When are the results of scientific possible clues to something new, and when are they absolute evidence of something new? And when does one decide clues are red herrings, and when "evidence" leads nowhere sound?

When they are corroborated by different unrelated (independant) teams. Clue to cold fusion, clue to water memory. Those were dropped because nobody could reproduce the experiement.

[BeholdTheTruth]

You make an excellent point! However, you did not fully answer my questions. Would you care to answer the four variations?

When they are corroborated by different unrelated (independant) teams. Clue to cold fusion, clue to water memory. Those were dropped because nobody could reproduce the experiement.

[athon]

When are the results of scientific possible clues to something new,

Any observation can be the incentive to speculation.

and when are they absolute evidence of something new?

I don't understand the question. When is a model absolutely true? Never; there is always the possibility of contridictory evidence. However, that does not mean it isn't useful.

'Absolute evidence of something new' makes no sense.

And when does one decide clues are red herrings,

When evidence is found that the model cannot account for.

and when "evidence" leads nowhere sound?

If evidence cannot be fitted into current models, modification or an entirely new model is called for.

Athon

[Mojo]

Ok, let me reformulate my basic question...

When are the results of scientific possible clues to something new, and when are they absolute evidence of something new? And when does one decide clues are red herrings, and when "evidence" leads nowhere sound?So were your references to Kelvin and the Wright brothers just red herrings?

Whatever your answer to this is, I would still like to see your evidence that prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible, and that "legions of scientists" proved this.

Go on, name a few.

[Aepervius]

You make an excellent point! However, you did not fully answer my questions. Would you care to answer the four variations?

Firstly experiemental results are "stand alone". Whether they are positive or negative they are what they are, meaning they leave no interpretation (example : a band in an IR spectrum is found. Saying it comes from compound X is already interpretation).

The first question usually is whether the experimental protocol was correctly executed. If it ain't ok, then the results leads nowhere. Garbage in, garbage out. To take over your category this would be the "nowhere".

The second question is whether the experimental protocol is sound, and make sense. If the experimental protocol is flawed then the results will lead you on the wrong path. your "red herring".

Let us assume you did not fall in the previous pit trap.
Other team reproduce your experimental results. Now in science there is no "absolute" theory (well maybe the theory on the absolute zero ;)). New corroborated results force us to relook at our theory, and the theory which explain all results is then accepted at being the best explanation/interpretation we come with (but it could still leaves hole in it because we can't come up with something better explaining all experimental results). But it must try to explain all experiment, not only this one, but also all previous results, and be better than any existing theory. And the more outlandish your theory, the stronger/numerous independant the results you need for. Plus there are theory which may not even allow prediction of future results.

To summarize experimental pitfall :
* bad protocol
* sloppy methods
* reproducibility
To summarize on the theory side :
* fail to take into account previous results
* fail to allow any predictability

That is it for red herring and leading nowhere. As for clue, see above about reproducibility by independant teams.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Any observation can be the incentive to speculation.

Indeed. And yet what causes speculation in some folks yields resistence to speculation in other folks.

When one group is the "laity" of a discipline, and the other group is the "high-priests", one can say that the difference is do to knowledge lacked vs. knowledge had. But when "high-priests" differ, as for example, Dr. Halberg and Dr. Bakken vs. you folks, it seems to me that the topic of clues vs. evidence gets more useful.


I don't understand the question. When is a model absolutely true? Never; there is always the possibility of contridictory evidence. However, that does not mean it isn't useful.

I am not talking about models, I am talking about possible pieces of a proto-model (if such a term has any meaning), the way Planck's guess/h plank of a proto new model led eventually to a well-accepted QM model, although not as I recall totally well-accepted by "misguided old fogies" like Einstein.

'Absolute evidence of something new' makes no sense.

Then how would you describe evidence of something new that was taken by a large number of scientists to not be subject to controversy?

When evidence is found that the model cannot account for.

If evidence cannot be fitted into current models, modification or an entirely new model is called for.

Athon

But when do you seek to modify or replace vs. when do you seek to be more sure that you have sufficient evidence to warrant modification or replacement?

[Aepervius]

Whatever your answer to this is, I would still like to see your evidence that prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible, and that "legions of scientists" proved this.

Personally , the only clue i gathered about that was that the *media* (printing press) were mocking them and thinking this would be impossible for man to fly with any kind of machine. Any biologist worth its salt would have named a few animal to contradict that (e.g. bat, birds are heavier than the same volume of air that their body contain). Heck even physicist would probably have mocked that (I think kite were already known by then, and yes they are heavier than their own volume of air, you might also argue the same for montgolfier before inflating. heck even rocket were already known, and they fly and are heavier than air, if even for a short range).

[Zep]

So were your references to Kelvin and the Wright brothers just red herrings?

Whatever your answer to this is, I would still like to see your evidence that prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible, and that "legions of scientists" proved this.

Go on, name a few....as opposed to the myriad of scientists that did think it was possible, and proved it (what you meant was "powered manned controlled heavier-than-air flight" ;)).

[BeholdTheTruth]

Thank you for your well reasoned and well articuated response!

Firstly experiemental results are "stand alone". Whether they are positive or negative they are what they are, meaning they leave no interpretation (example : a band in an IR spectrum is found. Saying it comes from compound X is already interpretation).

The first question usually is whether the experimental protocol was correctly executed. If it ain't ok, then the results leads nowhere. Garbage in, garbage out. To take over your category this would be the "nowhere".

The second question is whether the experimental protocol is sound, and make sense. If the experimental protocol is flawed then the results will lead you on the wrong path. your "red herring".

Let us assume you did not fall in the previous pit trap.
Other team reproduce your experimental results. Now in science there is no "absolute" theory (well maybe the theory on the absolute zero ;)). New corroborated results force us to relook at our theory, and the theory which explain all results is then accepted at being the best explanation/interpretation we come with (but it could still leaves hole in it because we can't come up with something better explaining all experimental results). But it must try to explain all experiment, not only this one, but also all previous results, and be better than any existing theory. And the more outlandish your theory, the stronger/numerous independant the results you need for. Plus there are theory which may not even allow prediction of future results.

To summarize experimental pitfall :
* bad protocol
* sloppy methods
* reproducibility
To summarize on the theory side :
* fail to take into account previous results
* fail to allow any predictability

That is it for red herring and leading nowhere. As for clue, see above about reproducibility by independant teams.

[Mojo]

...as opposed to the myriad of scientists that did think it was possible, and proved it (what you meant was "powered manned controlled heavier-than-air flight" ;)).I was just cutting and pasting the wording of Jackel's claim. I assume he actually meant "powered manned controlled heavier than air flight", so evidence of the scientific establishment thinking this was not possible, along with the names of at least a few of the "legions of scientists", and references to their "proofs", would do fine.

[Roboramma]

Indeed. And yet what causes speculation in some folks yields resistence to speculation in other folks. I don't think anyone here has a problem with speculation in itself.

What some have a problem with is the suggestion that your speculation is meaningful before you have any evidence that it is. Again, it could be meaningful, but until you have more than just speculation, it's useless to me. Rather than continuing to build castles in the sky, the best course of action would be to try to find some support for the ones you've already built.

[BeholdTheTruth]

The problem here on this forum seems to be that when evidence of something is offered, it is rejected out of hand by people inclined to be hyper-skeptical. For example when I used Dr. Halberg's and Dr. Bakken's paper per advancing chronoastrobiology, it was rejected out of hand even though institutions such as NASA Ames Research Center seem to be doing serious chronoastrobiology research per...


http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/health.html I don't think anyone here has a problem with speculation in itself.

What some have a problem with is the suggestion that your speculation is meaningful before you have any evidence that it is. Again, it could be meaningful, but until you have more than just speculation, it's useless to me. Rather than continuing to build castles in the sky, the best course of action would be to try to find some support for the ones you've already built.

[davefoc]

I am having trouble determining what is being claimed and what is being disputed in this thread.

It seems that it is undisputed that blood pressure varies throughtout the day. So this seems like an example of a chronastrobiological rhythm. Does this prove there is at least something to chronoastrobiology.

Chronoastrobiology seems to make claims for rhythms other than daily including weekly, monthly and yearly. What is the best evidence of biologic rhythms beyond daily. I saw a table in one of the links that showed blood pressure variation with the seasons. Unfortunately I wasn't able to figure out how to read the table to figure out how much blood pressure varied with the seasons nor could I figure out exactly where the data came from for the table.

But assume that blood pressure does vary with the seasons. Is this the kind of the thing that is meant by chronoastrobiology? As an aside, since blood pressure varies with the time of day, it seems very plausible that there would be a variation with the season because of the change in number of daylight hours.

link to site with a graph showing variation of blood pressure with time of day.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=875
I was amazed at how much blood pressure varied with time of day if this graph is correct. I also noticed that there is a small dip around 2PM which corresponds roughly with the time period when sometimes we feel like taking a nap.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Hi Dave,

Yes, at least that is my belief about what chronoastrobiology means.

And if that is what chronoastrobilogy means, then perhaps all of the skepticism here about the NASA Ames Research Center-supported research of Dr. Halberg (as endorsed by heavy weights like Dr. Bakken) says more about the nature of skepticism here than the validity or not of chronoastrobiology? I am having trouble determining what is being claimed and what is being disputed in this thread.

It seems that it is undisputed that blood pressure varies throughtout the day. So this seems like an example of a chronastrobiological rhythm. Does this prove there is at least something to chronoastrobiology.

Chronoastrobiology seems to make claims for rhythms other than daily including weekly, monthly and yearly. What is the best evidence of biologic rhythms beyond daily. I saw a table in one of the links that showed blood pressure variation with the seasons. Unfortunately I wasn't able to figure out how to read the table to figure out how much blood pressure varied with the seasons nor could I figure out exactly where the data came from for the table.

But assume that blood pressure does vary with the seasons. Is this the kind of the thing that is meant by chronoastrobiology? As an aside, since blood pressure varies with the time of day, it seems very plausible that there would be a variation with the season because of the change in number of daylight hours.

link to site with a graph showing variation of blood pressure with time of day.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=875
I was amazed at how much blood pressure varied with time of day if this graph is correct. I also noticed that there is a small dip around 2PM which corresponds roughly with the time period when sometimes we feel like taking a nap.

[R.Mackey]

Liar, indeed. Anyone can say they have advanced degrees and work at NASA. Prove it. What degrees and from where? Can we see your transcripts? And can we talk to your bosses to find out the results of your annual reviews?
Is this meant to be a threat?

Several of my papers are available on the web. I can verify this at the flick of a wrist. But I won't bother if this is going to be your attitude.

[R.Mackey]

Oh, and I only brought it up because you asked for it, liar.

Perchamnce, are you part of the science establishment? :-)

[Chris Haynes]

Liar, indeed. Anyone can say they have advanced degrees and work at NASA. Prove it. What degrees and from where? Can we see your transcripts? And can we talk to your bosses to find out the results of your annual reviews?

Not that that necessarily matters because ...

As for having advanced degrees, etc., as Lord Kelvin considered physics to merely be in mop up mode just a few years prior to relativitiy and QM changing the physics game more than a little bit, and as the Wright brothers had no advanced degrees and worked in a bicycle shop and as I remember a printing shop, what exactly does having degrees and where you work have to do with any of this?

You are being silly.

I only have a Bachelor's in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and just worked for an airframe manufacturer... and I can tell you what you were told about the Wright brothers is pretty much commonly known.

They did not just "work in a bicycle shop", they made the bicycles at a time when they were new. If you doubt the technology that goes into bicycles I suggest you check out the costs and features of those used by intense bikers (not me... I just had to sit in awe as engineers compared their bicycles that they used to ride from there home several miles away, or the foldable one used by the guy who flew into work and biked from the airfield).

The Wright brothers were also among the few who used a wind tunnel. And not only was flight important, but controlled flight.

Anyway, you need to spend some time either going through their papers:
Wright Brother's Papers (http://www.paperlessarchives.com/wright_brothers_papers.html)(examples, plus they are selling CDs of them).... or wander into a air museum, like this one: Wright Flyer Hangar (http://www.wright-b-flyer.org/hangar.html)and the one nearby at the Air Force base (note: I have not been to either of those, but I have seen the extensive Wright display with replica of their wind tunnel at the Museum of Flight (http://www.museumofflight.org/Portal.asp?Flash=True)near Boeing Field).

[fishbob]

Indeed. And yet what causes speculation in some folks yields resistence to speculation in other folks.

When one group is the "laity" of a discipline, and the other group is the "high-priests", one can say that the difference is do to knowledge lacked vs. knowledge had. But when "high-priests" differ, as for example, Dr. Halberg and Dr. Bakken vs. you folks, it seems to me that the topic of clues vs. evidence gets more useful.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the reputation of the researcher somehow adds validity to an idea, a theory. What people are telling you, repeatedly, is that this is not the case. The the theory stands on how well it fits evidence. Period.

The reputation of the researcher may cause people to spend more time looking at the idea than they otherwise would, but the conclusion after looking remains based on what the evidence supports.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Flick.

Is this meant to be a threat?

Several of my papers are available on the web. I can verify this at the flick of a wrist. But I won't bother if this is going to be your attitude.

[R.Mackey]

Flick.
Guess that answers that. Sayonara, liar.

[BeholdTheTruth]

I don't get it. You said, "Several of my papers are available on the web. I can verify this at the flick of a wrist. But I won't bother if this is going to be your attitude." And I said flick. And you responded...

Guess that answers that. Sayonara, liar.

If it only takes is a flick of your wrist to show us your web works, again I ask you to "flick." Else stop insisting I am the liar.

[BeholdTheTruth]

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi32.htm


I have advanced degrees in aeronautics, and I am a scientist working for NASA.

You are a liar. I distorted nothing. Prove me wrong.

[R.Mackey]

This link is entirely consistent with what I said.

Show me where I distorted the historical record.

[BeholdTheTruth]

First show me your papers. If you actually have them. I find myself in the position of being skeptical as you keep not proving your claim.

This link is entirely consistent with what I said.

Show me where I distorted the historical record.

[R.Mackey]

Denied. In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1755823#post1755823) I quote where you issued a thinly-veiled threat about what you would do with that information. You are not only a liar, but an attempted bully.

However, if there is anyone else who is interested -- and doesn't have an attitude problem -- drop me a PM. The final report from my project last summer was recently put on the NASA Technical Report server, and I'd be glad to spread the word.

[BeholdTheTruth]

I find it absolutely amazing that someone who claims he is as smart and well-educated as you has not figured out that someone other than me can get the information you say you will deliver -- and pass it along to me. I could even register under another monicker and ask you for it myself. It's a good thing that you -- may-- work for NASA and not the NSA. :-)

Denied. In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1755823#post1755823) I quote where you issued a thinly-veiled threat about what you would do with that information. You are not only a liar, but an attempted bully.

However, if there is anyone else who is interested -- and doesn't have an attitude problem -- drop me a PM. The final report from my project last summer was recently put on the NASA Technical Report server, and I'd be glad to spread the word.

[Mojo]

I am having trouble determining what is being claimed and what is being disputed in this thread.A couple of the things that have certainly been claimed by Jackel in this thread are that "prior to the Wright brothers flying their aeroplane the scientific establishment in general thought that heavier than air flight was not possible" and that "legions of scientists were proving nothing of the sort could happen". Jackel seems to be completely unable to produce any evidence whatsoever to support either of these claims.

[davefoc]

I don't understand exactly what is going on in this thread but it seems to be unnecessarily hostile.

I don't know or understand exactly what Jackel is claiming or suggesting. Frankly some of the things he has linked to are a little longwinded for my tastes and I have not read them thoroughly enough to really understand.

And for what it is worth his statements about the views of scientists of the time about flight were not consistent with what I understand about the situation.

And at times he has said some things that struck me as confrontational.

Still, it seems like the issues are fairly tame to have developed these kind of disputes. It's not like we are discussing the middle east, or are we and I just haven't been following close enough to figure that out?

[athon]

Indeed. And yet what causes speculation in some folks yields resistence to speculation in other folks.

The 'resistance' is when speculation is taken as something more. When the somebody says 'I wonder if...', a skeptic will typically nod and say 'why do you wonder that?'. If you say 'I think that...' a skeptic will ask for the evidence.

You'd be surprised on the number of people who cannot tell the difference.

I am not talking about models, I am talking about possible pieces of a proto-model (if such a term has any meaning), the way Planck's guess/h plank of a proto new model led eventually to a well-accepted QM model, although not as I recall totally well-accepted by "misguided old fogies" like Einstein.

That's the thing; 'proto-model' has no meaning. You made it up. Either you are stating 'what if' or 'I think'.

We've already said the speculation is pure conjecture, and as such we can only ask that one day we see evidence before it gains any credibility. That's it! End of debate. I'd say the same for any speculation that currently has no supporting evidence.

Then how would you describe evidence of something new that was taken by a large number of scientists to not be subject to controversy?

I don't understand the question. Evidence can be controversial if it was gathered through a questionable means, either through an experiment that was faulty or if the evidence itself is dubious.

But when do you seek to modify or replace vs. when do you seek to be more sure that you have sufficient evidence to warrant modification or replacement?

Welcome to the world of critical thinking - the skill which allows you to evaluate evidence on its own merit, without the bias of need or desire.

You ask questions, look at the nature of the evidence, look for predictions the model can make... Noboday said it was easy. Which is why science takes time and effort.

Athon

[athon]

I don't understand exactly what is going on in this thread but it seems to be unnecessarily hostile.

I agree. I'm kind of scratching my head over what it is precisely that Jackel is saying. I'm going on the assumption that he is suggesting that chronoastrobiology offers something useful in terms of a model or something. Yet the only reference he has offered is essentially an article speculating on the possibilities, which looks at the history of biological rhythms and recent advances, and suggests other possible links, including the influence of sunspots and gravitational influences of other celestial bodies.

There were no studies to verify these ponderings, hence they are just that. Until they are substantiated, they are worthy of little more than science fiction fodder or wine-induced conversations after dinner. If other scientists are looking into it, great. I'll reserve further judgement until I have something to judge.

I don't know or understand exactly what Jackel is claiming or suggesting. Frankly some of the things he has linked to are a little longwinded for my tastes and I have not read them thoroughly enough to really understand.

And for what it is worth his statements about the views of scientists of the time about flight were not consistent with what I understand about the situation.

And at times he has said some things that struck me as confrontational.

Still, it seems like the issues are fairly tame to have developed these kind of disputes. It's not like we are discussing the middle east, or are we and I just haven't been following close enough to figure that out?

Not everybody is aggravated in this thread. It was the insinuation of lies and hyperbole, which has become tit-for-tat.

Nothing to see here folks.

Athon

[Mojo]

And for what it is worth his statements about the views of scientists of the time about flight were not consistent with what I understand about the situation. I suspect he just introduced it as a "the establishment persecuted Galileo, so anyone who isn't accepted by the establishment may be right" type of argument. On the other hand, this may be a strawman of his position, so I'm just asking him to provide evidence to support a couple of the claims he has explicitly made.

[R.Mackey]

I'm as baffled as you guys. I still don't even know what "ChronoAstroBiology" even is. This Jackel nutball merely went crazy when I tried to educate him on the Wright Brothers, which isn't even relevant to the discussion... and then he went into the usual Internet Tough Guy stance.

Needless to say, I'm about done here.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Dave, I greatly respect your observations and opinions. And yes some of what I have pointed to is long-winded.

In any case, I think the cause of hostility is the fear that chronoastrobiology is too close to astrology to warrant serious study. Which, of course, is neither the case, nor cause for fear. Unless one is afraid that solar and lunar cycle actually have effects on the behavior of bodies of water for example and our bodies, which, of course, they do. I don't understand exactly what is going on in this thread but it seems to be unnecessarily hostile.

I don't know or understand exactly what Jackel is claiming or suggesting. Frankly some of the things he has linked to are a little longwinded for my tastes and I have not read them thoroughly enough to really understand.

And for what it is worth his statements about the views of scientists of the time about flight were not consistent with what I understand about the situation.

And at times he has said some things that struck me as confrontational.

Still, it seems like the issues are fairly tame to have developed these kind of disputes. It's not like we are discussing the middle east, or are we and I just haven't been following close enough to figure that out?

[davefoc]

Perhaps Jackel could provide a one or two paragraph statement about what it is that he is claiming here.

A few claims made previously by him or in articles that he has linked to:
1. blood pressure follows a daily cycle.

Seems to be no dispute that I could find of this. It seems like it is just accepted medical knowledge.

2. blood pressure varies with the seasons.

Seems like less evidence for this but is certainly plausible

3. There may be human cycles in sync with lunar cycles.

An article he linked to previously presents some good evidence that some women's menstrual cycles are in sync with the lunar cycle. Note that this has been discounted by some research but the research he linked to looked in particular at women who had cycles very close to 29.5 days and I believe in this sample of women some days in the lunar cycle for the onset of a woman's period was much more likely to happen on some days than others.

4. There may be other astronomical cycles beyond daily, yearly and lunar that have some effect on humans.

I haven't seen much evidence of this. Perhaps Jackel would like to post some evidence for correlations with astronical cycles other than daily, yearly and lunar. I think in one of the articles he linked to there was a suggestion of a link between cholera and sun spot cycles. Does he have any other astronomical cycles in mind? I saw a suggestion of a weekly cycle in one of the articles that he linked to. This sounds really unlikely given the apparent arbitrariness of a seven day link. Still it isn't inconceivable, perhaps he could provide some evidence for it.

[BeholdTheTruth]

"Plausible" indeed. Why is it that some scientists (Dave, I am assuming you are a scientist, and I much hope that you are) can see unconventional data and "odd duck" notions as plausible, while other scientists with similar intellects and educational background cannot?

And why is that those who see possible plausibility tend to be even-tempered about their openness, while those who do not see any possible plausibility can so quickly get hostile? By the way, if you look through the thread, you will see that I reacted to hostility rather than being the first to be hostile.
Perhaps Jackel could provide a one or two paragraph statement about what it is that he is claiming here.

A few claims made previously by him or in articles that he has linked to:
1. blood pressure follows a daily cycle.

Seems to be no dispute that I could find of this. It seems like it is just accepted medical knowledge.

2. blood pressure varies with the seasons.

Seems like less evidence for this but is certainly plausible

3. There may be human cycles in sync with lunar cycles.

An article he linked to previously presents some good evidence that some women's menstrual cycles are in sync with the lunar cycle. Note that this has been discounted by some research but the research he linked to looked in particular at women who had cycles very close to 29.5 days and I believe in this sample of women some days in the lunar cycle for the onset of a woman's period was much more likely to happen on some days than others.

4. There may be other astronomical cycles beyond daily, yearly and lunar that have some effect on humans.

I haven't seen much evidence of this. Perhaps Jackel would like to post some evidence for correlations with astronical cycles other than daily, yearly and lunar. I think in one of the articles he linked to there was a suggestion of a link between cholera and sun spot cycles. Does he have any other astronomical cycles in mind? I saw a suggestion of a weekly cycle in one of the articles that he linked to. This sounds really unlikely given the apparent arbitrariness of a seven day link. Still it isn't inconceivable, perhaps he could provide some evidence for it.

[Chris Haynes]

Personally, I just find Jackel's habit of top-posting annoying. It is much easier to follow what someone is commenting on when it is done after the quote.

And as for the history of the Wright Brothers, there is plenty of literature on them... and I believe Jackel would be better off if he read The Wright Brothers for Kids (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556524773/) (it even has activities to show how aeronautics works!). I still have my 1970's edition of Understanding Flight (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071363777)which was used for a required course in for my college degree, it had lots of information on the history of flight including the Wright Brothers and their competitors.

[athon]

Dave, I greatly respect your observations and opinions. And yes some of what I have pointed to is long-winded.

In any case, I think the cause of hostility is the fear that chronoastrobiology is too close to astrology to warrant serious study. Which, of course, is neither the case, nor cause for fear. Unless one is afraid that solar and lunar cycle actually have effects on the behavior of bodies of water for example and our bodies, which, of course, they do.

*sigh*

Point out where anybody even suggested that.

Firstly, making the assumption that because the gravitational pull of celestial bodies on a large body of water (tides is something we understand quite well) it must do the same to small bodies of water (such as an organism) requires... yep, you guessed it.

Evidence!!

Present it, and lo, be amazed.

Hence if you feel the need for building straw man arguments, go ahead. But don't be surprised when people keep reminding you that your argument is flawed.

Athon

[athon]

"Plausible" indeed. Why is it that some scientists (Dave, I am assuming you are a scientist, and I much hope that you are) can see unconventional data and "odd duck" notions as plausible, while other scientists with similar intellects and educational background cannot?

And why is that those who see possible plausibility tend to be even-tempered about their openness, while those who do not see any possible plausibility can so quickly get hostile? By the way, if you look through the thread, you will see that I reacted to hostility rather than being the first to be hostile.

Jackel, you are not paying attention. At all. So, let's make this really simple.

Say very simply, in one sentence, what your claim is. Then state whether it is a speculation or a theory.

We will then suggest current evidence that conflicts with the speculation or theory. You will then argue how that same evidence fits with your speculation or theory.

You see? Now, put the straw man to bed and start to understand how science works. This has nothing to do with any apparent conflict; either a speculation accounts for evidence or it doesn't.

Athon

[BeholdTheTruth]

Jackel, you are not paying attention. At all. So, let's make this really simple.

Say very simply, in one sentence, what your claim is. Then state whether it is a speculation or a theory.

We will then suggest current evidence that conflicts with the speculation or theory. You will then argue how that same evidence fits with your speculation or theory.

You see? Now, put the straw man to bed and start to understand how science works. This has nothing to do with any apparent conflict; either a speculation accounts for evidence or it doesn't.

Athon

In my Chronoastrobiology thread I began with...

http://www.nutrition4health.org/nohanews/NNF86Chronobiology.htm

And lest you folks think that the above is a lone scholarly data point, there are also the data points found via...


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22%22Chronoastrobiology%22+&btnG=Search

There were 87 reads and no responses.

And using the above as context, I claim that there is likely to be significant value in more scientists doing research in the field of Chronoastrobiology as defined above, and in more doctors using the results of such research. Speculation.

[steenkh]

I have just recently read some articles about Denamrk in the 1840'es, and I was surprised that it was common knowledge that manned heavier-than air flight was possible, and the designs that were exhibited in amusement park were actually close to the designs that succeeded 50 years later. At the time they thought that only gliding would be possible, because the only engine in existence was a steam engine, and it was quite clear that it could not be bundled into an airplane!

At the end of the 19th century, groups were working on heavier-than-air flights everywhere, not just in the U.S.. The time had come for the airplane, and everybody knew that it could be invented at any time soon. It is complete rubbish to think that scientists had "proved" that it was not possible. It is probably an extrapolation of the equally untrue tale about the bumblebee that apparently was also proven to be unable to fly!

[R.Mackey]

Absolutely right. Heck, even Leonardo da Vinci (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?language=english&type=article&article_id=218392125) thought crewed, powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight was possible... though at that time he would have been in the minority, but that was 500 years ago!!

I note Jackel still has not provided a crisp definition of ChronoAstroBiology, so obviously we are not disputing him -- we can't. I like davefoc's definition, if that turns out to be reasonably close. I'm not threatened at all by the idea that biological processes may be linked to diurnal or seasonal cycles. That's just evolution at work. However, if you were to conclude that, say, neurotransmitter levels were synchronized to the orbit of Triton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_%28moon%29), now that I won't believe without some pretty clever experiments.

[BeholdTheTruth]

"Chronoastrobiology is derived from chronome (time structure) and astrobiology. It is a branch of biology concerned with life's origins and worlds before ours as they may be reflected in the current temporal organization of physiological functions. The goals of this research initiative are pursued by a coordinated comparative physiological and physical (and when pertinent, archival) monitoring and analysis." From www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/health.html


Absolutely right. Heck, even Leonardo da Vinci (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?language=english&type=article&article_id=218392125) thought crewed, powered, controlled, heavier-than-air flight was possible... though at that time he would have been in the minority, but that was 500 years ago!!

I note Jackel still has not provided a crisp definition of ChronoAstroBiology, so obviously we are not disputing him -- we can't. I like davefoc's definition, if that turns out to be reasonably close. I'm not threatened at all by the idea that biological processes may be linked to diurnal or seasonal cycles. That's just evolution at work. However, if you were to conclude that, say, neurotransmitter levels were synchronized to the orbit of Triton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_%28moon%29), now that I won't believe without some pretty clever experiments.

[hgc]

"Chronoastrobiology is derived from chronome (time structure) and astrobiology. It is a branch of biology concerned with life's origins and worlds before ours as they may be reflected in the current temporal organization of physiological functions. The goals of this research initiative are pursued by a coordinated comparative physiological and physical (and when pertinent, archival) monitoring and analysis." From www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/health.html (http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/health.html)I know that this isn't your direct quote, but perhaps you can tell me the meaning of:

worlds before ours

current temporal organization

[BeholdTheTruth]

I've taken the first phrase to mean era and and I've taken the second one as referring to temporal as opposed to spacial relationships.


I know that this isn't your direct quote, but perhaps you can tell me the meaning of:

worlds before ours

current temporal organization

[R.Mackey]

Maybe I'm just dense, but I still didn't have a clear picture of what "ChronoAstroBiology" was supposed to mean. Anyway, today (on my lunch hour) I decided to look up some of the principals.

Before I get to the good stuff, I looked up Paul Savage at Ames, and I can't find much of his work after about 1996. He contributed to several space biology experiments such as bone development in rats in orbit -- and anything "developmental" could be interpreted as "chronobiology." (See http://asgsb.indstate.edu/ for a description of space biology, and http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/D/archnas1914.html for a description of one such experiment.) I don't know what he works on these days, but he does still have an active NASA X500 Directory listing.

---

For the bigger topic, I toddled down to our electronic library and did a paper search for Dr. Halberg, apparently the father figure. He is fairly well published, with 89 publications, about a third of those peer-reviewed, coming up in a quick search. Out of those, I present a very quick overview of the three that I found most unusual. The majority appeared to be mainstream medical science.

Note that all of these constitute copyrighted material. Please visit your local library or contact the journal publishers for a copy. I will quote excerpts of abstracts only, cited, as permitted under Fair Use guidelines.

1. Halberg F, Otsuka K, Katinas G, et al., "A chronomic tree of life: ontogenetic and phylogenetic 'memories' of primordial cycles - keys to ethics," BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY 58: S1-S11 Suppl. 1 OCT 2004

A scientific optimization may become possible in ethics to the extent to which any reproducible since cyclic features of spirituality and of criminality become measurable. [...] Toward this goal, chronomics has already mapped time structures in religious behavior that can [editorial comment: "can," not "does"] lead to a study of underlying geographic/geomagnetic latitude-associated mechanisms. This paper, with further but clearly insufficient data, revealing the hurdle of relative brevity of the available time series constitutes a plea for much longer and denser worldwide time series, for further endeavors in various methods of analyses, some of which are promisingly available. (emphasis added)

Comments: Dr. Halberg is arguing that there appear to be behavioral patterns that correlate with geomagnetism. That's surprising, but I guess it's possible. He does seem to indicate that he doesn't have enough data to prove it. Collecting data in behavioral science is usually difficult. He also indicates that he hasn't proven a link to geomagnetism -- it's only a hunch for now. Fair enough.

Let's look at another:

2. Halberg F, Cornelissen G, Schack B, et al., "Blood pressure self-surveillance for health also reflects 1.3-year Richardson solar wind variation: spin-off from chronomics," BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY 57: 58S-76S Suppl. 1 OCT 2003

Alterations of a rhythm's amplitude or acrophase or of a deterministic or other chaotic endpoint, such as a correlation dimension and approximate entropy, or of a standard deviation, among a multitude of other endpoints, can signal (in the otherwise neglected normal range) reversible risk elevations. [...] As an equally important dividend, science gains in basic and applied terms, as illustrated herein by the demonstration of a trans-year, an similar to 1.3 to 1.6-year, heretofore unknown component of the human BP and HR spectrum, beating with the circannual component and characterizing the same data. (emphasis added)

Comments: Dr. Halberg claims a cycle appearing in pulmonary function coupled to solar wind variation. Solar wind is related to solar output and therefore, indirectly, climate, so there are many possible mechanisms, including but not limited to temperature, ambient light intensity, and ionizing radiation. These things should be testable to confirm or deny existence of any mechanism, so it could lead to good science.

Here's a third:

3. Halberg F, Cornelissen G, Katinas G, et al., "Feedsidewards: Intermodulation (strictly) among time structures, chronomes, in and around us, and cosmo-vasculo-neuroimmunity - About ten-yearly changes: What Galileo missed and Schwabe found," ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 917: 348-375 2000

The spectrum of biological rhythms is extended far beyond circadians, circannuals, and ultradians, such as 1.5-hourly melatonin and 8-hourly endothelin-1 (ET-1) rhythms by statistics of natality, growth, morbidity, and mortality, some covering decades or centuries on millions of individuals. These reveal infradian cycles to be aligned with half-weekly rhythms in ET-1, weekly and half-yearly ones in melatonin, and even longer-about 50-, about 20-, and about 10-year cycles found in birth statistics. About daily, weekly, yearly, and ten-yearly patterns are also found in mortality from myocardial infarctions; the 10-yearly ones are also in heart rate and its variability; in steroid excretion, an aspect of resistance, for example, to bacteria; and in the genetic changes of the bacteria themselves. (emphasis added)

Comments: This one seems the most confused. There are a large number of datasets spanning human sociological data to bacterial evolution. Some of them show expected circadian rhythms. Most interesting, there appear to be patterns of 10-year, 20-year, and 50-year duration, although no ready explanation satisfies this observation.

Overall Comments:

Dr. Halberg is claiming that solar cycles and geomagnetism have a larger impact on biological development and health than is commonly known. Seems plausible to me. Aside from the "religious behavior" in the first reference, nothing I read seemed particularly incredible, nor did any of his claims posit influence of other planets, other galaxies, weird psi effects, etc. The claims here are clearly distinguishable from astrology, for example.

Dr. Halberg admits in every case that it is hard to get enough data to show these things. He is exhibiting scientific caution in his observations. Thumbs up.

Dr. Halberg is, however, pursuing a data mining approach. This will only get you so far. Eventually, to prove an effect, you must also prove the mechanism (as I noted in my first post on the subject). It is not enough to find an interesting statistical anomaly of period 1.3 years in blood pressure data, note that the Sun also experiences a 1.3 year cycle, and conclude that they are linked. To prove it, you have to hypothesize a mechanism (say UV radiation intensity) and demonstrate effects under controlled conditions (expose lab rats to a 0.5 year cycle of UV instead, and show that the cardiopulmonary data behaves in a similar manner as predicted). If you can do that, then you are doing good science.

In conclusion, I don't see any claims of "ChronoAstroBiology" that are outlandish. I think Dr. Halberg has a lot of work left to do to prove his claims, but it should be possible to prove them right or wrong through conventional scientific methods. This work appears uncontroversial to me.

[hgc]

I've taken the first phrase [worlds before ours] to mean era and and I've taken the second one [current temporal organization] as referring to temporal as opposed to spacial relationships.Why would an "era" be referred to as a "world?" Wouldn't a phoneme that has some common meaning for time, such "era" or "time" make more sense? Is there any specific reason you have for thinking that "worlds" means "era," rather than something like, say, other planets, or some other spacially distinct term?

And as for the 2nd term, if it attempts to distinguish between the temporal and the spacial, then why does only the adjective "temporal" appear? And what of "organization?" It sounds to me that the author is alluding to something having to do with time, as it's currently "organiz[ed]," as opposed to the way it used to be.

Mind you, for all I know, the author of that blurb is speaking in some arcane language I can't fathom, just coincidentally using words that also occur in English. But barring an English to ChronoAstroBiology dictionary, I can't but assume that words mean what I always thought them to mean.

[athon]

Nice post, Mackey.

Interesting to note the differences between yours and Jackel's. Both explore the possibilities of chronoastrobiology, yet yours comes across as speculative with informed responses. Jackels is advocative without informed responses.

What's the bet he won't see the difference?

Athon

[BeholdTheTruth]

Bad bet, Athon.

I do see the difference and R.Mackey is the better man. By far.

I formally here (as I already did on my R.Mackey thread) stand corrected, appropriately chastised, and hereby apologize. To him, to you and several others also of obviously to me far superior intellect and education.

BTW, http://circadiana.blogspot.com/2006/05/clocks-in-bacteria-v-how-about-ecoli.html
provides a very interesting historical perspective on what I term "The Chronobiology Wars". It filled in some gaps for me about chronobiology vs. chronoastrobiology which might also be of interest to some of youse guys. :-)

Max pax!

Nice post, Mackey.

Interesting to note the differences between yours and Jackel's. Both explore the possibilities of chronoastrobiology, yet yours comes across as speculative with informed responses. Jackels is advocative without informed responses.

What's the bet he won't see the difference?

Athon

[athon]

Bad bet, Athon.

A bet I'm happy to lose. Learning how to assess information is a skill I'm always pleased to see people pick up.

I formally here (as I already did on my R.Mackey thread) stand corrected, appropriately chastised, and hereby apologize. To him, to you and several others also of obviously to me far superior intellect and education.

It's a shame you put it this way. It has nothing to do with education, or for that matter, intellect. It has to do with a way of thinking and understanding how science works. Learning that skill is invaluable; it doesn't make you intelligent, it simply puts information into perspective. Intelligence can be a result, however.

BTW, http://circadiana.blogspot.com/2006/05/clocks-in-bacteria-v-how-about-ecoli.html
provides a very interesting historical perspective on what I term "The Chronobiology Wars". It filled in some gaps for me about chronobiology vs. chronoastrobiology which might also be of interest to some of youse guys. :-)

Max pax!

Thanks. I'll check it out.

Athon

[Chris Haynes]

I'm glad someone figured this out. It came to me sometime today that perhaps Jackel was trying to find if there was some actual science behind astrology (which is totally bogus).

[BeholdTheTruth]

I'm glad you said "perhaps", just as I am glad that I did come across a science called chronobiology, aka, chronoastrobiology, which does appear to scientifically study the effects of daily and seasonal solar and lunar cycles on individual and collective human behavior.

[Mojo]

I'm curious about the alleged significance of the correspondence between the human menstrual cycle and the orbit of the moon. If this is significant, why do other mammalian species not also have a menstrual cycle with the same period? The fact that they generally don't suggests to me that the correspondence is a coincidence.

[BeholdTheTruth]

I make no claims for this, but it, amongst other topics, seeks to relate the moon to menstruation...
http://www.athenainstitute.com/sciencelinks/APAsymp.html

I'm curious about the alleged significance of the correspondence between the human menstrual cycle and the orbit of the moon. If this is significant, why do other mammalian species not also have a menstrual cycle with the same period? The fact that they generally don't suggests to me that the correspondence is a coincidence.

[Kaarjuus]

I make no claims for this, but it, amongst other topics, seeks to relate the moon to menstruation...
http://www.athenainstitute.com/sciencelinks/APAsymp.html

Also, don't miss the great chance to buy the Athena Pheromone 10:13 (http://www.athenainstitute.com/1013.html), which, although having no appreciable scent on its own, enhances your sex appeal (and possibly helps in your business relationships as well). Keep in mind that although it should work for most women, it is not guaranteed to work for every woman, and some women need to wait up to 4 weeks for full effect.

Or, if you're male, raise the octane of your aftershave with the Athena Pheromone 10X (http://www.athenainstitute.com/10x.html), which, also being an odorless additive, helps you experience increased romantic attraction and affectionate behaviour from women, and possibly improve your business relationships.

[BeholdTheTruth]

An odorless and tasteless ephemeral very expensive substance that drives women wild! Hey, even I'm skeptical.

OTOH, can someone lend me the money for an experiment? In the name of science, of course.

Also, don't miss the great chance to buy the Athena Pheromone 10:13 (http://www.athenainstitute.com/1013.html), which, although having no appreciable scent on its own, enhances your sex appeal (and possibly helps in your business relationships as well). Keep in mind that although it should work for most women, it is not guaranteed to work for every woman, and some women need to wait up to 4 weeks for full effect.

Or, if you're male, raise the octane of your aftershave with the Athena Pheromone 10X (http://www.athenainstitute.com/10x.html), which, also being an odorless additive, helps you experience increased romantic attraction and affectionate behaviour from women, and possibly improve your business relationships.

[Kaarjuus]

An odorless and tasteless ephemeral very expensive substance that drives women wild! Hey, even I'm skeptical.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. They claim they conducted double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to test the efficacy of these bargain-price pheromone products, which you can purchase for a measly hundred dollars. The discovered efficiency of which should shake the world and change the dating scene. The fact that these pheromones continue to be sold by an obscure web shop kept up by an obscure institute leans us towards the conclusion that these pheromones do not really work.

Therefore, the other studies they claim to have conducted are suspect as well.

[BeholdTheTruth]

You don't have any argument from me on that. Her site makes my http://synclecron.com look reasonable by comparison. At least I hope so.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. They claim they conducted double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to test the efficacy of these bargain-price pheromone products, which you can purchase for a measly hundred dollars. The discovered efficiency of which should shake the world and change the dating scene. The fact that these pheromones continue to be sold by an obscure web shop kept up by an obscure institute leans us towards the conclusion that these pheromones do not really work.

Therefore, the other studies they claim to have conducted are suspect as well.

[drkitten]

You don't have any argument from me on that. Her site makes my http://synclecron.com look reasonable by comparison. At least I hope so.

Then (ahem) why did you bring it up?

[pchams]

Then (ahem) why did you bring it up?

Well, gee, it did make an excellent segueway to his astrology page :D

[BeholdTheTruth]

Well, gee, it did make an excellent segueway to his astrology page :D

Indeed. Although, if one pays sufficient attention (which is of course a challenge for very busy scientists as well as us lesser mortals), it is seen to be a chronoastrobiology site, at least by those not prefering to see it otherwise.

[Chris Haynes]

.... chronoastrobiology ...

This is a $10 word for astrology !

[BeholdTheTruth]

This is a $10 word for astrology !

I suggest you visit http://Synclecron.com and pay more attention to what it shows and says. For example, listen to the Science Friday segment. Then google chronoastrobiology and chronobiology. Then make me a bet of a reasonably large size, and we'll see how expensive the word chronoastrobiology actually is.

[Kaarjuus]

You don't have any argument from me on that. Her site makes my http://synclecron.com look reasonable by comparison. At least I hope so.

Your hope, however, is ill-founded. The claims of the Athena Institute, while suspect and probably false, are at least clearly stated and comprehensible. Your site, other than claiming that chronobiology is really chronoastrobiology (which it is not), says nothing and links to a google search of the word.

And the audio segment you link to talks about the effect of circadian rhythms and available light on human physiology. Meaning that our organs operate differently at different times of the sleep-wake cycle and in different environmental conditions. Which is a no-brainer. And nothing to do with the moon.

[drkitten]

Indeed. Although, if one pays sufficient attention (which is of course a challenge for very busy scientists as well as us lesser mortals), it is seen to be a chronoastrobiology site, at least by those not prefering to see it otherwise.

You have still not given any indication of a way that "chronoastrobiology" can, even in theory, be distinguished from full-blows astrology.

Frankly, you sound like some huckster proclaiming "No, no, I'm not just selling overpriced water. I'm selling dihydrogen oxide!"

[BeholdTheTruth]

You have still not given any indication of a way that "chronoastrobiology" can, even in theory, be distinguished from full-blows astrology.

Frankly, you sound like some huckster proclaiming "No, no, I'm not just selling overpriced water. I'm selling dihydrogen oxide!"

You are obviously a lot smarter than me. And you are obviously a lot better educated than me. But, quite frankly, your obsessive-compulsive nastiness and need to not see things that others here can sometimes see about some of the things I am saying and/or asking is beginning to bore me.

In any case, http://circadiana.blogspot.com/2006/05/clocks-in-bacteria-v-how-about-ecoli.html provides a good way of seeing that what some people call chronobiology and what others call chronoastrobiology is not astrology. To insist that I am pushing astrology after you have actually researched chronobiology, aka, chronoastrobiogy is evidence that, scholar and academic aside, you have a serious problem, and not just with me and my ideas.

[SteveGrenard]

I also fail to see any interface between astrology and this term:




http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/health.html (http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/health.html)



Chronoastrobiology is derived from chronome (time structure) and astrobiology. It is a branch of biology concerned with life's origins and worlds before ours as they may be reflected in the current temporal organization of physiological functions. The goals of this research initiative are pursued by a coordinated comparative physiological and physical (and when pertinent, archival) monitoring and analysis. An initial attempt to elucidate factors with implications to chronoastrobiology is a project on the BIOsphere and the COSmos, called BIOCOS. This international endeavor has already yielded a major benefit in the form of the definition of elevated disease risks and of the sampling requirements for their reliable detection as steps toward risk reduction on earth, as a model for use during travel in extraterrestrial space.

Hardware and software will be improved for unobtrusive coordinated physiologic and physical monitoring. As a dividend from monitoring, a major benefit will be the detection of an elevated disease risk and its reduction by the timely institution of countermeasures. These tasks gain in importance for NASA as humans venture further and further into space. The unobtrusive equipment to be developed for this project will be available to screen candidate astronauts prior to missions to the moon, Mars, and beyond, and for data collection during these missions for basic science and health surveillance.

The University of Minnesota Chronobiology Laboratories in cooperation with the NASA Ames Research Center, San Jose State University, and a group of foreign investigators in different geographic locations will monitor the broad rhythmic and other time structure of selected vascular and other variables during human ontogeny. This will be done in a comparative physiologic context on earth, and as far as possible in space, thereby to focus on helio- geophysical time structures that may have existed at the sites of life's origins, wherever they may have been, on or away from earth.




HCN: This is a $10 word for astrology!

No.

edited to add:

Reference:

Chronomes render predictable the otherwise-neglected human "physiological range": position paper of the BIOCOS project. BIOsphere and the COSmos.

Halberg F (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Halberg+F%22%5BAuthor%5D), Siutkina EV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Siutkina+EV%22%5BAuthor%5D), Cornelissen G (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Cornelissen+G%22%5BAuthor%5D).

Chronobiology Laboratories, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.

Abstract at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9778893&dopt=Abstract


And a more recent report (2005):



Biomed Pharmacother. (http://javascript<b></b>:AL_get(this,%20'jour',%20'Biomed%20Pharmacother.' );) 2005 Oct;59 Suppl 1:S152-7.

Links (http://javascript<b></b>:PopUpMenu2_Set(Menu16275485);)



Opportunity of detecting pre-hypertension: worldwide data on blood pressure overswinging.

Cornelissen G (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Cornelissen+G%22%5BAuthor%5D), Delcourt A (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Delcourt+A%22%5BAuthor%5D), Toussaint G (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Toussaint+G%22%5BAuthor%5D), Otsuka K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Otsuka+K%22%5BAuthor%5D), Watanabe Y (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Watanabe+Y%22%5BAuthor%5D), Siegelova J (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Siegelova+J%22%5BAuthor%5D), Fiser B (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Fiser+B%22%5BAuthor%5D), Dusek J (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Dusek+J%22%5BAuthor%5D), Homolka P (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Homolka+P%22%5BAuthor%5D), Singh RB (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Singh+RB%22%5BAuthor%5D), Kumar A (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Kumar+A%22%5BAuthor%5D), Singh RK (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Singh+RK%22%5BAuthor%5D), Sanchez S (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Sanchez+S%22%5BAuthor%5D), Gonzalez C (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Gonzalez+C%22%5BAuthor%5D), Holley D (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Holley+D%22%5BAuthor%5D), Sundaram B (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Sundaram+B%22%5BAuthor%5D), Zhao Z (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Zhao+Z%22%5BAuthor%5D), Tomlinson B (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Tomlinson+B%22%5BAuthor%5D), Fok B (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Fok+B%22%5BAuthor%5D), Zeman M (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Zeman+M%22%5BAuthor%5D), Dulkova K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Dulkova+K%22%5BAuthor%5D), Halberg F (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Halberg+F%22%5BAuthor%5D).

Halberg Chronobiology Center, University of Minnesota MMC 8609, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. corne001@umn.edu

Overswinging or CHAT (brief for Circadian Hyper-Amplitude-Tension), that is an excessive circadian variation in blood pressure (BP), has been associated with a large increase in cardiovascular disease risk, present even in the absence of an elevated BP itself. This usually asymptomatic condition is usually overlooked by current practice based on spot-checks, because to be diagnosed, measurements need to be taken around-the-clock, preferably for 7 days at the outset. Once diagnosed, however, a usual circadian BP pattern can be restored by means of certain non-pharmacologic or pharmacologic interventions timed appropriately. Thereby, it is possible to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, cerebral ischemic events and nephropathy in particular.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16275485&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16275485&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum)

[BeholdTheTruth]

The fact that some folks here can insist upon seeing otherwise is both woo-woo to me (in the guise of science clothing) as well as a travesty of what I, as a layperson, always have thought good science was supposed to be.

I have tried very hard to make the content of http://synclecron.com as scientifically well-grounded as possible given my lack of intellect and education per for example Dr K. But I truly think that the fact that chronoastrobiology, aka chronobiology, studies seek to, in part, research the effects of solar and lunar cycles on individal as well as collective human behaviors (per statistical studies) causes otherwise extremely rational scientists to go nuts!

Which, btw, at least to me provides some interesting sources of data for cognitive research about who does and who does not see red when s/he thinks she or he might have come across something that, at first glance, does seem like bull. :-)

[SteveGrenard]

www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct102005/1136.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct102005/1136.pdf)

here is a comprehensive review of zeitgebers which may shed some additional light on this subject, pun intended.

[Kaarjuus]

I have tried very hard to make the content of http://synclecron.com as scientifically well-grounded as possible given my lack of intellect and education per for example Dr K.

Jackel, your site HAS no content. Other than a link to a google search, a link to a radio show about chronobiology (note the lack of 'astro' in that word), a link to a blog about chronobiology (same note), and a totally irrelevant quote from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Then you invite visitors to take part in an 'increasingly popular Grand Experiment known as "Horuscopus Solymonus"' and say nothing about what the experiment is.

You claim we are significantly influenced by solar and lunar cycles. What supports your claim?

And yeah, what is the experiment?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Jackel, your site HAS no content. Other than a link to a google search, a link to a radio show about chronobiology (note the lack of 'astro' in that word), a link to a blog about chronobiology (same note), and a totally irrelevant quote from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Then you invite visitors to take part in an 'increasingly popular Grand Experiment known as "Horuscopus Solymonus"' and say nothing about what the experiment is.

You claim we are significantly influenced by solar and lunar cycles. What supports your claim?

And yeah, what is the experiment?

Your response leads me to guess that you have not given the site a sufficient enough look and enough thought to comprehend what the Grand Experiment is.

Second, the reference to the Two Eyes of Horus is quite relevent, but one has to believe in that possibility to be able to see it. You don't, so you can't.

Third, another example of evidence that you are not seeing what is there to be seen is that in your list of what is in the http://synclecron.com site, you left out any mention of the Synclecron itself (actually Release 1.0 is being shown and there is soon to be a Rel. 2 with a lunar cycle as well as a solar cycle displayed side by side. And then a release 3.0 with the sun and moon cycles displayed in an out-of-the-box higher-level ying yang geometry way.) There will also soon be a companion "Calendarus Veritas" kind of calendar for use by folks who want to use "Natural time in real-time" within a weekly, monthly, seasonal setting.

[Kaarjuus]

Your response leads me to guess that you have not given the site a sufficient enough look and enough thought to comprehend what the Grand Experiment is.

In that case, could you state here what the experiment is? Because I'm really having trouble comprehending it from reading your site.


Second, the reference to the Two Eyes of Horus is quite relevent, but one has to believe in that possibility to be able to see it. You don't, so you can't.


Could you decipher the reference here for me, because I do not understand how having the East and the West and the North and the South at peace with me says anything about chronoastrobiology.


Third, another example of evidence that you are not seeing what is there to be seen is that in your list of what is in the http://synclecron.com site, you left out any mention of the Synclecron itself (actually Release 1.0 is being shown and there is soon to be a Rel. 2 with a lunar cycle as well as a solar cycle displayed side by side.

Could you state here plainly what it is that the Synclecron shows?

Also, could you explain how the studies you linked about chronobiology support your notion of us being influenced by solar and lunar cycles?

[BeholdTheTruth]

In that case, could you state here what the experiment is? Because I'm really having trouble comprehending it from reading your site.



Could you decipher the reference here for me, because I do not understand how having the East and the West and the North and the South at peace with me says anything about chronoastrobiology.



Could you state here plainly what it is that the Synclecron shows?

Also, could you explain how the studies you linked about chronobiology support your notion of us being influenced by solar and lunar cycles?


We'll add your questions to the FAQ we are put together. It should be up in a few weeks. Check back then and we can see if the answers satisfy you.

Regards

[Chris Haynes]

I also fail to see any interface between astrology and this term:
...
No.

...

Jackel is using the term to try bring credence to astrology. It does not matter what it means elsewhere.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Jackel is using the term to try bring credence to astrology. It does not matter what it means elsewhere.

At least you gamely show that some people here disagree with your speculation, or is it a theory? In any case, as there is a science called choronoastrology, aka chronobiology, and as I also refer to something called "pre-astrology" (note that the concept of "pre-" seems to be a subtlety beyond your powers of comprehension), and as I clearly say something along the lines of "where x meets y", and you appear to have no idea of what that can possibly refer to, at best lets agree to disagree.

BTW, perhaps, one aspect of the Grand Experiment ought to be to see what those who believe in astrology make of the Synclecron and the HS Grand Experiment? It would be interesting to see how many of them take as much exception to my use of the term "pre-astrology" as you do? Which might happen. After all, believers in religion tend to take as much exception to my "HiGHER-Templix" view of "Deity" as those here and elsewhere who believe in atheism.

It's almost as if when folks on either side of the x/y religious/irreligious fence are faced with a circum-stance of "still x until not x" and "almost y, but not yet y", both camps tend to need to close their eyes to a fuzzy logic way of resolving their amazingly similar modes of incomprehension. Maybe that's because, once you know for sure you have found the Truth, religious, scientific, political, economic... it is just very hard to find a higher, more comprehensive truth.

Hopefully, at least in the case of the Synclecron and the HS Grand Experiment, time will tell what I am not capable of explaining. At least for those open to a timely experience about what is timeless. Namely, natural time (as displayed using the java code found at http://Synclecron.com) and possible therapeutics aspects of it subject to more conscious experiences of it in various experiments.

[Chris Haynes]

... (as displayed using the java code ...

Now I will avoid that website like the plague. Not only for the reviews posted on this thread, but because I hate what java code can do to computers.

[Mojo]

Jackel is using the term to try bring credence to astrology. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58669

[Chris Haynes]

Thanks, Mojo...

I see no reason why my birth at 11:47 pm on Oct. 11, 1957 in William Gorgoas Hospital in Ancon, Panama (then the Canal Zone, between 9 and 10 degrees north of the Equator) has any bearing on my activities next week.

There is however the influence of my boys' summer school schedule, the younger two kids' orthodontists appointment (I got them both at the same time, WOO HOO!), my scheduled history walk (I'm tourist in the city I live in), and the demands of my garden with the weather... the weather has no bearing on whether I go to the swimming pool.

[Kaarjuus]

Now I will avoid that website like the plague. Not only for the reviews posted on this thread, but because I hate what java code can do to computers.

What evil can Java code in applets do to computers?

[Kaarjuus]

We'll add your questions to the FAQ we are put together. It should be up in a few weeks. Check back then and we can see if the answers satisfy you.

What is stopping you now from specifying here in a few hundred words or so what the Grand Experiment is? Or answering the other questions I asked. You seem to have time enough to make posts of equivalent length.

[Chris Haynes]

It was how spyware was loaded on one my daughter used,see http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/index.php?p=729. Make sure to update to the latest version and REMOVE all previous versions. I only have it on this computer because I was forced to by some idiot programmer so that I could update the other software.... but for several months I worked very well without it.

[Chris Haynes]

What evil can Java code in applets do to computers?

See the discussion I had with it last fall:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1277147#post1277147
and
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1276276#post1276276

[BeholdTheTruth]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58669

Sure looks to me like a question, not a claim. Any real scientists here agree with you?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Thanks, Mojo...

I see no reason why my birth at 11:47 pm on Oct. 11, 1957 in William Gorgoas Hospital in Ancon, Panama (then the Canal Zone, between 9 and 10 degrees north of the Equator) has any bearing on my activities next week.

There is however the influence of my boys' summer school schedule, the younger two kids' orthodontists appointment (I got them both at the same time, WOO HOO!), my scheduled history walk (I'm tourist in the city I live in), and the demands of my garden with the weather... the weather has no bearing on whether I go to the swimming pool.

I never said it did.

[Chris Haynes]

Okay... but that is probably because you never really say much at all anyway.