Does the Moon have any Effect on Humans?
WEDNESDAY MAY 11, 2016
Does the Moon have any Effect on Humans? This article says yes, but this link says no:
So let us hope that in the name of responsible science that there is room for another opinion. It would not be wise for mainstream science to deny the experience of those who have found personal evidence for the contrary, even though laboratory results have not been universally applied and duplicated. For example, we all know and accept that humour exists, but thus far no instrument has been devised to prove it to be so. It is the same for matters of astrology whereby western science tries to make an inexact study conform to the laws of proof best reserved for laboratory animal behaviour, chemistry or applied physics, making something measurable with a graph the only proof of validity, and not e.g, the chemistry of love or laughter. Science does itself no favours setting out to demolish ideas so that scientists can collectively scorn, whilst offering no university validation for alternative viewpoints that may have had equal study time.
It is ironic that universities were started in Muslim countries to promote Islam, and to teach and spread astrology. But nowadays anything remotely connected with the metaphysical is fiercely opposed by Western academia. Very often science cites public safety as the reason for attacking alternative beliefs, as if counter belief systems are somehow evil or anti-human. Apparently practitioners of other and 'unproven' viewpoints are trading on the gullibility of the ignorant masses, and a moral police force is needed to direct the populace what to properly think, believe, teach their children and what not to buy with their own money. Western science cannot understand that this might be intolerant, divisive, and above all, dogma replacing proper science, which says that all things may be true and simply await further study and confirmation. The market place will sort out what is useful and what is not. Ramming scornful skepticism down the throats of folk that in whole cultures believe differently is not academic maturity. And in most old world countries, for thousands of years the moon was held to be very influential in human affairs.
The Indo-Eur root word 'me', means
measurement, and is related to moon.
The moon was always used for calendars because of its reliability in measuring time. It only loses 10 seconds per year before being back in the same position after a year with respect to the background stars, that's less than 30 minutes in about 150 years. If one had a watch that only lost 10 seconds per year, one would not complain. The moon's clockwork is why the old original astrology for measuring cycles was moon-based. To that end, every village and town in old cultures put up stone circles, like Stonehenge, to keep a track on the weather, seasons, eclipses and earthquakes, and all stone circle structures align to the moon, in order to monitor its various inner and outer cycles. All natural occurrences affect our physical, emotional and spiritual lives, and they lead back to variations in the land, sea and air, caused tidally on earth by the moon.
Astronomy and other earth sciences have let us down over the years. Astronomers tell everyone that any body in space affects any other body, to a more or less degree. That means the sun on the earth, the sun on the moon, the moon on earth etc, and not only the bodies themselves, but everything on the bodies. So the moon would logically affect what is on the land and in the sea, in other words the people and the weather. But why we don't hear much about that, and about the cycles of nature, leads back to money. Scientists don't want people to work it out for themselves like people always used to - they want everything to come through them to ensure job protection.
We already know that the moon affects the currents of the ocean, and the tides are a part of that, we are 75-80% water, and we also have internal tides. These vary as all tides do, and so we also have internal king tides. There are many verbal observations of this - ask any hospital staff. Bleeding after major surgery is said to be up by about 80% during a full moon. More babies are conceived during the full moon, which could be due to increased sexual tension during this time. Conception is easier during the full moon. There are also more male births in this moon phase. The moon is between a third and a quarter the size of Earth, and sitting only 10 earth circumferences away, so with such a big thing so near our planet, wouldn't it be more weird if that didn't affect us? If we grow mad, or feel aroused, or if we feel some tingle of odd urges, we should pay attention to the lunar cycle.
There are weather phenomena that most are not aware of about the moon. It's usually windy in the hour that the moon is rising, i.e. coming up over the horizon. All over the globe, because the whole world rotates beneath the moon every 24 hours, if rain is about, rain times are typically (but not always) around following times:
New moon: New moon nights are often the coldest in winter. If rain is about, it is mostly overnight. And if it's raining during the new moon day, you can expect rain that night.
1stQ: Rain is mostly between midnight – noon. And if dry before noon, expect more dryness during the afternoon.
Full moon: Full moon nights are mostly clear. Old mariners would say that the full moon eats clouds. Full moon days in summer are often the hottest for summer, Full moon rain is during daylight hours. And if raining overnight, expect a clearing the next day.
Last Q: Rain, if about, is mostly between noon-midnight. And if raining before noon, expect more rain during that afternoon and evening.
Today the 10 March 2016, we are halfway between new moon and 1stQ, so if it rains during today, expect rain also tonight, but if it's dry before lunch you can expect the afternoon to be dry too. We're moving away from the perigee and the king tide, which means a lessening in seismic activity, and the moon is at its northern declination, which means warmer temperatures in the southern hemisphere.
In 1956, biologist Frank Brown transported a dozen oysters in dark pressurized containers 1000 miles inland from Long Island, New York to Evanston, Illinois, near Chicago. Each oyster was not in any possible physical communication with the rest. Even so, they all, in unison, continued to open and close to the rhythm of tides at their old location, for two weeks (one half of a moon cycle). Then inexplicably they all changed to the rhythm of the tides at their new location. But the new location wasn't on the coast. But if Evanston was coastal, that would have been the tide times, in other words the oysters responded to the geomagnetic tide. Brown also did experiments with rats and found that in a cage of unchanging light and temperature, the rats were only half as active when the moon was above the horizon as they were when it was below the horizon. He also experimented with hamsters and noticed they were much more active for 4 days after full moon.
We know that nearly all species of life that have mobility (except humans), have biological warning systems to detect earthquakes. These systems are undoubtedly geomagnetic. If oysters and rats are affected by the moon in this electrical way, also fish, birds, insects, plants and even bacterial viruses, how would humans escape being thus affected? It is more logical to conclude that we are affected, but the effects are masked by the noise of speech, daily activity and common social distraction. Granted not everyone is always affected in the same way, and that would also apply to individual birds, fish etc, but that does not negate the possibility of some overall lunar effect in our species also. Many report restlessness on full moon nights. Farmers feel more energetic just before rains arrive. Just because an instrument made by man cannot detect persistence of lunar influence does not prove anything other than that our technology may currently be lacking. The real test is whether or not real people report some effect, not whether or not a needle on some meter does not.
Finally, imagine that we all went to a party and each undertook to drink a large quantity of champagne. Drunkenness may not show up as a standard reading on some devised meter, because when it comes to alcohol consumption we are all affected differently and at different times, even in different social surroundings. There is no one-size breathalyzer that fits all. So if afterwards we were all tested with one, and a significant percentage of the group were within the safe driving limit and not legally apprehended, what would be proven? On the basis of such a
weak laboratory-type test, if scientists tried to conclude and declare that therefore alcohol in large quantities does not affect us, that would simply be laughable.